Tripp-

I'm glad you are no longer practicing "Lean" as you were clearly doing it wrong.

If you were just implementing tools, focusing on efficiency over effectiveness, and just doing projects, that's not lean.

You continually define "lean" as this self-serving straw man that only "systems thinking" can address. Hogwash.

There are countless organizations out there, in manufacturing and healthcare, that are transforming their culture, and management systems, and thinking. They are becoming effective by engaging everyone in reducing waste and providing the right value to the customers and patients. And they are practicing "kaizen" every day, it's not just a bunch of projects.

Please don't extrapolate how you apparently did "lean" with those who are doing it right and what they're doing. Go visit a hospital like Seattle Children's or ThedaCare and try to tell them that lean doesn't apply and that it doesn't work. Adapting lean to services does not mean "treating it like manufacturing."

If people are sub-optimizing and only focusing on tools, you are right to call them out on that. But what they're doing isn't lean. It's L.A.M.E.

Mark Graban

I tend to agree with Mark, technically, but understand Tripp's frustration with the way many are implementing Lean. Those of us in the continuous improvement arena need to carefully consider the consequences of infighting over details and miss the big picture. I believe there is a danger in disparging Lean Six Sigma in an effort to improve the way individuals and organizations implement systems thinking and approches. It can become an internal debate equivalent to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I believe we can address the failings of individuals and organizations to fully embrace the systems approach by talking positively about how to effectively implement systematic management. All of us should strive to "stand on the shoulders of giants" to further progress, rather than tearing each other down. Disparaging Lean Six Sigma runs the risk of disparaging systematic management approaches outright, giving those looking for an excuse to stay with their ineffective and inefficient Command and Control methods a reason to do so.

Tripp:

Are systems thinking and LSS are mutually exclusive? It seems to me you have built a straw-man argument around the symptoms and results of poorly executed implementations of the concepts of Lean and Six Sigma and have torn it down using the very principles of the men whose contributions made them possible.

I have read "Freedom from Command and Control" and can find nothing substantially objectionable except Seddon’s claims that the Vanguard Method is wholly different than any other improvement “methodology”. If what he wishes to convey is that many vendors and poorly trained practitioners of Lean and Six Sigma have moved substantially away from the principles of the likes of Crosby, Deming, Juran & Ohno, then we are in agreement. The first point in Deming's System of Profound Knowledge is the "appreciation of a system", and that it starts with leadership. From this perspective, real change (improvement) is impossible without the active commitment and support of those who own the system and, thus, “systems thinking”.

Regarding the characterization of Lean & Six Sigma as prescribed sets of "tools"- I must disagree. Consider the argument that LSS is a culture, infrastructure, (set of) methodologies, and metric. Both Lean and Six Sigma are first based on a philosophy, not tools.

Lean starts with 5 Principles (all of which are clearly analogous to the concepts promoted by the Vanguard Method)

1. Specify value from the perspective of the ultimate customer
2. Identify the value stream (the “system” that provides value &/or waste)
3. Create flow to reduce batch size and work in progress (could be read “get the value to the customer as directly as possible)
4. Make only what the customer has ordered (do only valued work)
5. Seek perfection by continuously improving quality and eliminating waste

Six Sigma is based on the philosophy (or physical reality) that all systems have variation and that all variation can be continuously reduced. Thus, it is focused on reducing defects and variation in the output of the system (that which the customer considers valuable). This is achieved through a disciplined (not rigid) approach to continuously identify sources of variation and defects in order to reduce/eliminate them.

Seddon, in his book, distinguishes the Vanguard Method from SS by suggesting that service centers need to absorb variation, not seek to compartmentalize or eliminate it. However, I think this perspective is primarily an issue of semantics, and depends entirely on how one views the system and work. For example, one of the case studies in the text includes (as a solution) placing the “expert” at the front of the line to handle the difficult calls rather than at the back of the line where less experienced staff must escalate calls. He even emphasizes that doing so quickly increased the knowledge base of the other staff members so that they could also handle these calls. I could argue that the Vanguard solution identified sources of variation and defects (both the path of the calls routed to the “expert” and the various possible actions taken by staff with varying levels of knowledge), and reduced them by eliminating the routing and bringing every staff member to the same level of knowledge (and at the same time removed barriers to flow – getting value to the customer more directly).

You have identified yourself as a “reformed” Master Black Belt. That may be for good reason, but to dismiss Lean and Six Sigma off hand, declaring them to be different from and mutually exclusive of “systems thinking”, I think represents a narrow perspective and neglects the underlying philosophy of each. If I’m wrong – help me understand your perspective.

Maybe it's just because I'm not selling anything.

"... as processes such as copying, best practices, and benchmarking do not help organizations improve." Quite a statement. I would love to see the evidence supporting this.
Whether you are a manufacturing or service organization, learning from how others do things is one of the most effective ways to identify improvements for your system. An emergency room can learn from a crew working a Schooner, a pubic school can learn from a private school (and vise versa), the logistics arm of a company can learn from the way the military deploy their defense forces.

Man ... this gets so old. It starts to remind me of the schisms in Protestantism.

Between the rabid true believers and marketing hype, we all spend too much time poking our fingers in each others eyes. As Bruce Lee was known to say ... if something is effective, use it ... who cares where it came from or what it is called? The truly informed professional learns about all the tools and approaches and then, like a good crafts(person), uses the most effective tool for the job at hand. Who cares if the tool is marked Craftsman or Snap-On?

Put your dogma down ... and step away.

I am seeing this (the above quote) more and more which prompted the article. There are differences between LSS and systems thinking. Let the readers find out for themselves. I am giving people an alternative that is worth exploring. I stated some of the reasons, if they resonate people will want to learn more.

"There is no 5S or standardization as in manufacturing." No wonder I get such varied and sometimes satisfying or dissatisfying service at banks. There is no standardization and they can't find the tools they need like application forms or bank deposit slips. I don't believe this statement one bit.

Raissa Carey's article “Starbucks Lean Ruins the Experience." was really about bad implementation of a principle. It is really unfortunate that we condemn the methodology because of bad implementation.

I just received the latest Vangaurd newsletter. In it, Mr. Babbitt states "I love LSS for manufacturing, but service has different problems. "

I wish Mr. Babbitt would have stated or implied this in his Quality Digest article. I certainly did not get this impression from his Quality Digest article. So there may be value of LSS in certain applications within certain systems?

Hi

Mark wrote –

"There are countless organizations out there, in manufacturing and healthcare, that are transforming their culture, and management systems, and thinking. They are becoming effective by engaging everyone in reducing waste and providing the right value to the customers and patients. And they are practicing "kaizen" every day, it's not just a bunch of projects."

If these organisations are changing their culture it can’t be because of Lean. There is nothing in the ‘Lean’ or ‘Lean Six Sigma’ toolbox that would cause such a transformation in thinking.
Barry

Barry, first don't confuse Lean with "Lean Six Sigma."

Why would you say there's nothing transformational in the Lean approach? Have you read The Toyota Way and noticed how different than is than most organizations? Have you read "On the Mend" about the cultural transformation at ThedaCare, a hospital system in Wisconsin?

I'm curious to hear about data that backs up your inaccurate generalization.

As always an interesting (and sometimes contentious) discussion. I believe an important one to get to improvement efforts that work in service.

Many folks are having great success with their improvement efforts, and if you are, keep doing what you are doing. For those that are not, keep seeking. For people like me, the search is never-ending and I hope they take a look at what systems thinking has to offer.

I thank all of you that have taken the time to send me comments - both positive and negative. And the scores of you that have taken the first important step by downloading "Understanding Your Organization as a System" (or other downloads) and/or signed up for my newsletter.

It's easy to see who the closed-minded people are if they reject an approach, like the application of Lean/TPS at ThedaCare, without reading about it. It has been transformational, they learned from Ohno, Deming, and yes even Womack. They figured out how to make it work. There's nothing static and "codified" about modern lean.

You can tell who the closed-minded John Seddon followers are - hint, they say "failure demand" and "do not codify" constantly.

Can somebody please provide a page number in which book where Ohno said that?

Clearly, the lean folks want you to copy. Nice ad, Mark. And now we have "modern" lean, which must be the new and improved version of lean.
I didn't see your response to what is in the lean tool box for human system change methodologies that Barry asked about.
I also suspect that you (Mark) will not allow me to have the last word on MY article, so much for lean's respect for people.

This little civil war between the systems thinking blue and lean gray is entertaining and a little sad. It's like a heated argument between Methodists and Baptists about the nature of God. Guess what: God doesn't care.

And, by the way, why hasn't anybody noted that the cover of "Freedom from Command and Control" uses the subtitle "Management for Lean Service" with an advertising splash "The Toyota System for Service Organizations?"

Lean -- when done right -- is a set of concepts and, yes, tools that serve as a guide to seeing the organization as a system. It's all systems thinking. AND IT'S ALL DEMING. But when people start using the tools and concepts without grasping the systems thinking that underlie them it's fair to label them "tool heads." The problem is with the way people apply lean thinking, not lean thinking itself.

I think the problem is how Lean was designed to sell the tools to organisations (as this is a better way to make money from organisations) than to help create an organisation that continually learns and changes their own thinking based upon knowledge. Tools are an easier sell. It appeals to the command and control mindset, oh a tool I can apply, instead of a more permanent transformation. When you see the managers wielding Lean tools in the UK and the devastation that they have caused in the UK service industry. Alongside standardisation Lean is part of the wholesale industrialization of services that has damaged the customer experience.