Embracing Adversity and Inspiring Change in a Volatile World by Applying Quality Enterprise Lean-Agile Management-Leadership or Resilient LAQL Management-Leadership
Aécio D’Silva, PhD(1), Fabiano Moura, MSc(2)
(1) Moura Enterprises, AquaUniversityTucson, AZ 85742, EUA; (2) Profound Commerce, Inc. Austin, TX 7874
In our training courses, lectures, and consulting on continuous improvement and innovation as part of sustainable quality leadership programs, someone upfront always asks the following question:
“What is the difference between our Lean-Agile Quality Leadership System (Resilient LAQL Management), Lean Management (Toyota Way), and Six Sigma Management (GE Way)?”
If a company, organization, or business is considering or reviewing the options for implementing a program of Continuous Improvement and Innovation, the first question that may arise is which technology to use.
Your business can be aquabusiness, renewable energy, agribusiness, mining, pharmaceuticals, conventional energy, biotechnology, applied genetics, health care, cosmetics, transport, or research and development. It may consist of a factory, office, farm, laboratory, hospital, airport, school, university, shopping mall, or any other activity of delivering products, services, or technology, one of the first decisions you will have to make is which program/system that will choose how to continuously innovate your business and stay ahead of the competition.
First, you should know that the differences between Resilient LAQL Management, Lean Management, and Agile Methodology are very few or almost none. The primary difference is the driven focus of Resilient LAQL Management in Quality and creative-systemic-quality thinking.
Except for this point, they are just different implementation methodologies, with a strong focus on attitude and excellent fidelity to the innovative teachings of Dr. E. Deming.
However, there are fundamental differences between Resilient LAQL Management and Six Sigma Management.
Today with the global success of Lean Production Management (Lean Management) led by Toyota and Boeing and the Six Sigma administration by command control promoted by GE, it is essential to understand the structural differences between these two business approaches.
Resilient LAQL Management VS. SIX SIGMA WAY
– DEFINING WHAT IS WHAT –
To understand this better, let us begin with simplified definitions, starting with the Six Sigma Way. Six Sigma is many other things beyond high stress and command-and-control from top to down. It is strictly a statistical program (establishing the maximum of 3.4 defects per million parts produced).
It is also a set of tools (GR & R, Stats descriptive, regression, DOE, and more.), a system for identifying and solving problems in the processes (e.g., DMAIC, PIDOV, DMADV ). Still, it is also a command-control management philosophy and highly stressful.
On the other hand, Resilient LAQL Management or Lean Management is all mentioned above for Six Sigma, except for the stress and statistics. Resilient LAQL Management or just LAQL and Lean also use a set of tools (PDCA et al., and more.), However, apply these with a much more personal focus having great respect for the people.
LAQL, mainly, is a process that usually begins with a personal changing of attitude, a sustainable approach, using 5s (sort, set, sweep, standardize, and sustain) and PDCA (plan, do, study, and act) to solve root challenges (which others call problems) at all levels.
LAQL or Lean Management is based on: 1) long-term thinking-planning, but taking excellent care of the present; 2) the proper process produces the right results; 3) process-driven-oriented system; 4) developing people and partners and building people, not just products; 5) continuously identifying and solving root challenges drive organizational learning; 6) lean, learning, continuously improving system; 7) company’s sustainable culture vision, mission, and values that go beyond short-time profit; 8) constantly adding value from the customers’ perspectives in everything we delivery; 9) sustainable leadership commitment and determination to continuously invest in our people and promoting a culture of continuous improvement; and 10) the right combination of company sustainable quality culture, process, continuously trained people and root challenges solving that can create an always learning enterprises with sustainable operational excellence in every area of the company.
LAQL uses an intensively correct attitude, creative-systemic-sustainable analysis plus the vision-approach of Profound Knowledge introduced by Dr. E. Deming (PDSA, SPK) and Kaizen (change incrementally and continuously for the better).
LAQL to success must be an essential philosophy or leadership-management lifestyle involving all, from the CEO to the janitorial staff, with a focus on a business participative and sustainable leadership where clients/customers always come first, where workers have the right attitude and practice, and where, continuous training, improvement, transformation, and innovation are relentlessly stimulated.
The best definition of LAQL is to put the client/customer first in everything, have the right attitude, and do the right thing right, at the lowest cost, at the first time, with zero waste, maximum results, and efficiency, passionate with quality, constantly changing, transforming, and innovating with sustainability.
LAQL VS. SIX SIGMA WAY – DIFFERENCE IN RESULTS
These two approaches can be applied successfully. However, the results obtained in terms of always putting the customer first, having the right attitude, eliminating waste, and respecting/engaging/ involvement of employees (we call ACIS – Agents of Changes, Innovation and Sustainability) in achieving the vision, mission, values, and strategic objectives (short, medium, and long term) of the company differ from one another completely.
There are also apparent differences between the tools used in each method, although the processes implemented have some similarities. For example, Kaizen can be mapped through the steps of DMAIC or vice versa.
So, what is the difference between LAQL and Six Sigma? The most significant differences are when LAQL or Six Sigma is applied predominantly as the only way to manage the business, company, and enterprise.
Both include training as an essential component, but there is a profound difference between the approaches used and the stress generated in the system.
Although LAQL and Six Sigma set an essential requirement to have professionals trained to be successful, LAQL adds three additional values in training that are not in Six Sigma.
Three central concepts of a LAQL culture are to have: 1) ACIS trained to have the correct attitude; 2) Great emphasis on sustainable processes all over the company, and 3) a focus on multitasking with sustainability which enables all workers to operate in virtually all functions within the company. The ACIS is cross-trained in daily work processes, not just specifically in LAQLSystems tools.
These are essential distinctions in implementing LAQLs programs. A workforce trained in the correct multifunctional attitude, wherever possible, is critical for reducing stress at the workplace, as well as doing job rotations, which maintain a high level of enthusiasm for ACIS and, at the same time, cuts the root of the natural tediousness, fatigue, bad mood, work-related diseases, and genuine boredom that inevitably comes to one who does the same thing every day.
LAQL WAY VS. SIX SIGMA WAY – TIME AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
Another significant difference becomes evident in the use of measurements of time and performance. LAQL and Six Sigma emphasize performance measurements, but the approaches are opposed.
Six Sigma aims to measure the process performance directly related to the problem as the most critical measure of business success through dashboards. It is, therefore, very project-level oriented.
These dashboards are generated by pushy command-and-control, carrot-and-stick approaches, or top-down style, and the process rarely involves or reaches factories’ production areas or shop floors. Thus, workers must know how and why they do their jobs.
LAQL, on the other hand, focuses on the measurement on the shop floor and places leaders and ACIS in the production areas or what the Japanese call Gemba, we call Batente – the actual workplace – to help, train and see for themselves how things are going.
This focus boosts performance measurements with sustainability from bottom to top, starting with the work cell and proceeding to the plant and the top level. The mandatory application of the concept achieves this result. A visual factory or signaling of all happening in the workplace or Batente.
The idea is that the effectiveness of a Visual factory should be so perfect that a person with one eye covered could go fast on a bicycle through the plant and, in the end, can tell what is happening in the production hall. Everything must be seen and be evident to all.
These approaches illustrate the main difference between LAQL and Six Sigma philosophies. Six Sigma is a philosophy of command from top to bottom that only occasionally involves the production areas whose primary practitioners are mid-level managers and engineers. At the same time, LAQL is a bottom-to-top leadership-management system that integrates all employment levels with sustainability.
LAQL WAY – THE LEADER MUST BE A SERVER
The Six Sigma improvement projects are chosen for performance analysis at a high level and imposing changes down the workers’ throats, with almost no involvement of those who do the work.
LAQL Way, on the other hand, is characterized by the sustainable idea that the environment is one of our customers, and the leader should be to serve, assist and train the ACIS because he is naturally one of them.
Everything is based on less impact possible to the environment, the correct attitude, and participative sustainable leadership where everything is done and moved with customers first in everything and with leaders whose main function is to do everything to enhance the success of ACIS (workers).
LAQL Leaders go to the areas of production, processing, or “Batente” where the work happens to see what is going on, helping, applying continuous improvements, and training all ACIS to successfully fulfill its tasks.
Unlike Six Sigma, most of the training in LAQL companies is done in the work environment or learning-doing and helping everyone succeed in their functions. Although a highly user-friendly online learning center available 24/7 will reinforce everything taught in the “Batente”. The success of one is the success of all, and vice versa.
To achieve it continuously, leaders and all the ACIS must have the right attitude, respect for the environment, correct values, implement communication skills, continuous training, and consistently promote learning on all occasions possible.
Another fundamental difference between LAQL and Six Sigma is the focus on internal competition between workers. Unlike Six Sigma, LAQL aims to eliminate internal competition and encourage maximum cooperation, group achievement, and removing fear.
One who has implemented Six Sigma or worked in the GE Jack Welch time knows how this management encourages fierce internal or domestic competition between workers and the resulting distrust and high stress caused to all employees, their morale, and damaging teamwork.
It is like a snake swallowing snake where the famous laws of the jungle reign. The means do not matter; the important thing is to arrive first. It may result in attaining success, but the damage it does to the environment, the spirit of the workers, and the team is often devastating. Sustainability has no place in this working culture.
On the other hand, LAQL Way, with a focus on continuous improvement initiatives and innovations, respect for our people and customers first starts from the bottom up, primarily at the individual ACIS and his attitude or their relentless desire and determination as a member of a sustainable work cell, to change, transform and innovate their work with sustainability.
Moreover, there is another striking difference between LAQL and Six Sigma at the leadership level.
LAQL WAY – BOND OF MUTUAL TRUST BETWEEN ACIS AND LEADERS
With Resilient LAQL Management being extremely focused on attitude, sustainability, and communication, this creates conditions that allow ACIS always to have an excellent and improved performance, with a bond of mutual trust or as a sacred contract built between ACIS and leaders.
This contract implicitly implies that the continuous improvements suggested, tested, implemented, and adopted by LAQL Way, will not result in dismissal, loss of jobs, or harm to the environment.
It is like a moral superglue that creates strong, lasting bonds of trust, mutual respect, and dignity. Everyone knows that thanks to this sacred bond when fewer ACIS work in a sustainable work cell, they are not given the pink slip but relocated to other company areas.
On the other hand, Six Sigma will leave it to someone who has already implemented this management system in their company to discuss the experience.
