Lean Six Sigma: Evolution or Revolution? My perspective on the “Repackaged TQM” Debate

Introduction: Looking Back on over Two Decades in Quality Improvement

Sorry its been a few days since publishing, workload went up rapidly over the last few days and will be for a few weeks/months so may have to reduce my frequency of publishing but will keep pumping out hopefully interesting or at least insightful materials.

When I first stepped into the world of process improvement back in the 1990s, the landscape was already in flux. Total Quality Management (TQM) had been the dominant paradigm through the 1980s and 1990s, but Six Sigma was gaining tremendous momentum, particularly after Jack Welch’s highly publicized success at General Electric. Lean manufacturing principles were simultaneously crossing over from their automotive origins into other industries. Within a few years, the combined approach of “Lean Six Sigma” was emerging as the new gold standard.

Throughout my career, I’ve heard countless debates about whether Lean Six Sigma is simply “repackaged TQM” dressed up in new terminology and frameworks. It’s a question I’ve wrestled with myself.

Today, I want to share my perspective on this persistent question. Is Lean Six Sigma truly innovative, or is it just TQM in new packaging? The answer, as you might expect, is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. Let’s dive deep into this question together.

The Evolution of Quality Management: From Inspection to Integration

To understand whether Lean Six Sigma is repackaged TQM, we need to trace the lineage of modern quality management approaches. Quality improvement didn’t begin with TQM, Six Sigma, or Lean. It has roots stretching back to statistical process control developed in the 1920s and 1930s by pioneers like Walter Shewhart at Bell Laboratories.

The Pre-TQM Era: Quality Control and Assurance

Before TQM emerged as a coherent philosophy, quality management focused primarily on inspection and control. Product quality was ensured through rigorous inspection regimes, often at the end of production lines. This approach was inherently inefficient – catching defects after they occurred rather than preventing them.

Post-World War II, the quality movement received tremendous impetus from American consultants like W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran, who, ironically, found their most receptive audience not in America but in Japan. Their teachings about statistical process control and quality as a management responsibility became foundational to Japan’s industrial renaissance.

I remember meeting an elderly Japanese engineer back in the late1990s in the automotive industry who had attended Deming’s lectures in Tokyo during the 1950s. “Deming-san taught us that quality comes from the system, not from inspection,” he told me. “This was revolutionary thinking for us at that time.” This conversation helped me understand that every quality methodology builds upon previous knowledge, rather than emerging fully formed from nowhere.

The TQM Era: Quality as a Comprehensive Philosophy

Total Quality Management emerged in the 1980s as American companies sought to respond to Japanese competition. TQM represented a comprehensive approach to organizational management centered on quality. Its core principles included:

• Customer focus
• Total employee involvement
• Process-centered approach
• Integrated systems
• Strategic and systematic approach
• Continuous improvement
• Fact-based decision making
• Communications

The beauty of TQM was its holistic nature. It wasn’t just a set of tools but a management philosophy that encompassed the entire organization. Quality wasn’t the responsibility of a single department but everyone’s concern.

I started my career as TQM was beginning to wane in popularity. One of my mentors – a quality director – lamented how TQM had become diluted in many organizations. “We had the right principles,” he said, “but often lacked the rigorous methodology to consistently deliver results.” This observation highlights one of the key differences between TQM and what would come next.

The Six Sigma Revolution: Bringing Discipline to Quality

Six Sigma emerged from Motorola in the 1980s and gained massive traction after GE adopted it under Jack Welch in the mid-1990s. What set Six Sigma apart was its disciplined, project-based approach to problem-solving using the DMAIC methodology (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control).

Six Sigma introduced a structured hierarchy of practitioners (Yellow Belts, Green Belts, Black Belts, Master Black Belts), clear financial goals for improvement projects, and a heavy emphasis on statistical analysis. It also introduced the concept of reducing variation to 3.4 defects per million opportunities – a near-perfect standard that became the program’s namesake.

My first Six Sigma Black Belt project focused on reducing defects in a bakery line. The structured approach to problem-solving felt revolutionary compared to the more generalized improvement initiatives I had previously participated in. We saved the company over £2 million annually through that single project. The rigor of the DMAIC methodology ensured we understood the root causes of issues rather than implementing solutions based on hunches.

The Lean Manufacturing Movement: Focus on Flow and Waste

Parallel to Six Sigma’s development, Lean manufacturing was gaining recognition outside of Toyota, where it had evolved over decades as the Toyota Production System (TPS). Lean focused on eliminating waste (muda), improving flow, and adding customer value.

The five principles of Lean thinking captured this approach:

1. Specify value from the customer perspective
2. Identify the value stream for each product or service
3. Make value flow without interruptions
4. Let the customer pull value
5. Pursue perfection through continuous improvement

I witnessed the power of Lean principles when working for a medical device manufacturer. Their production lead times went from 21 days to 3 days simply by reorganizing their value stream and eliminating non-value-added activities. The focus on flow and waste elimination provided a complementary perspective to Six Sigma’s emphasis on reducing variation.

The Lean Six Sigma Synthesis: Marriage of Complementary Approaches

By the early 2000s, many organizations began recognizing the complementary nature of Lean and Six Sigma. Lean Six Sigma emerged as an integrated approach that combined:

• Lean’s focus on flow and waste elimination
• Six Sigma’s emphasis on reducing variation and data-driven decision making
• The project management discipline of DMAIC
• TQM’s organizational focus on quality and customer satisfaction

This integration made perfect sense to practitioners like me. Six Sigma was excellent for complex problems where causes weren’t obvious and statistical analysis was needed, while Lean provided practical tools for quickly identifying and eliminating obvious wastes. Together, they offered a more comprehensive toolkit.

Is Lean Six Sigma Really Just Repackaged TQM?

Now to the core question: Is Lean Six Sigma simply TQM rebranded and repackaged?

The Case for “Repackaging”

There are several compelling arguments that Lean Six Sigma is essentially TQM in new clothing:

Shared Philosophy and Goals

Both TQM and Lean Six Sigma share fundamental philosophical elements:

• Customer-centric approaches
• Process orientation
• Continuous improvement mindset
• Employee involvement
• Fact-based decision making

The ultimate goal is identical: improving quality while reducing costs and increasing customer satisfaction.

Similar Tools and Techniques

Many tools used in Lean Six Sigma existed within TQM:

• Process mapping
• Statistical process control
• Root cause analysis techniques
• Quality circles (similar to improvement teams)
• Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (comparable to DMAIC)

I remember a conference in 2010 where an old-school quality manager remarked, “I’ve been using these exact same tools since the 1980s. They just keep giving them new names.” There was some truth to his observation.

Cyclical Rebranding in Management Approaches

Management approaches tend to follow fashion cycles. As one approach loses its luster or is perceived as failing, organizations look for the “next big thing” – which often repackages existing principles with new terminology and frameworks.

During the 2008 financial crisis, I worked with a manufacturing firm that had abandoned their TQM program in the early 2000s, embraced Six Sigma in 2005, and was now implementing Lean Six Sigma. The fundamentals hadn’t changed dramatically, but the packaging and messaging had evolved.

The Case Against “Just Repackaging”

Despite these similarities, there are significant differences that suggest Lean Six Sigma is more than just rebranded TQM:

More Structured Implementation Methodology

Six Sigma brought a much more structured approach to improvement through the DMAIC methodology. While TQM had the PDCA cycle, it wasn’t applied with the same rigor or consistency. The belt-based certification system also created a clear structure for developing improvement specialists.

I saw a business transition from a loosely defined TQM approach to Lean Six Sigma. The structured project selection, chartering, and review process created accountability that had been lacking. Project completion rates rose from under 40% to over 90%.

Greater Emphasis on Measurable Financial Results

Six Sigma placed much heavier emphasis on linking projects to financial outcomes. This focus on bottom-line results won over many executives who had grown skeptical of quality programs that couldn’t demonstrate ROI.

Integration of Speed and Quality

The integration of Lean with Six Sigma addressed a criticism of early Six Sigma programs – that they could be slow and overly analytical. Lean principles brought speed and a focus on flow that complemented Six Sigma’s emphasis on reducing variation.

At a consumer products company, we used Lean tools to quickly reduce inventory by 40% while simultaneously applying Six Sigma methods to address quality issues in their filling operation. This combination delivered results faster than either approach would have alone.

More Advanced Statistical Tools

While TQM used basic statistical tools, Six Sigma incorporated more advanced statistical methods like design of experiments, regression analysis, and hypothesis testing as standard practice rather than exceptional tools.

I recall a complex manufacturing yield problem at a business that had resisted traditional quality approaches for years. By applying design of experiments and response surface methodology – tools rarely used in typical TQM programs – we identified optimal process settings that increased yield by 22%.

Systematic Infrastructure Development

Lean Six Sigma created a more systematic infrastructure for improvement than TQM typically did, with clearly defined roles (Champions, Master Black Belts, Black Belts, Green Belts), project selection criteria, and governance systems.

A Synthesis: Evolution Rather Than Repackaging

After 20+ years in this field, I’ve come to see Lean Six Sigma not as a mere repackaging of TQM but as a natural evolution that incorporates lessons learned from TQM’s successes and failures.

TQM as the Foundation

TQM established the critical foundation of organizational quality as a comprehensive management approach. Its emphasis on customer focus, process thinking, and employee involvement created the philosophical underpinnings that Six Sigma and Lean would later build upon.

Six Sigma as the Methodological Framework

Six Sigma contributed a rigorous methodology and toolkit that addressed one of TQM’s weaknesses – inconsistent implementation and results. The DMAIC framework provided a roadmap for improvement that could be consistently applied across projects and organizations.

Lean as the Efficiency Engine

Lean principles added a crucial focus on speed, flow, and waste elimination that complemented Six Sigma’s emphasis on quality and variation reduction. This combination addressed another criticism of TQM – that it could be slow to deliver results.

A New Synthesis, Not Simply Repackaging

Rather than viewing Lean Six Sigma as repackaged TQM, I see it as a natural evolution that preserves TQM’s core philosophy while addressing many of its implementation challenges. It’s like comparing modern smartphones to early mobile phones – they serve the same fundamental purpose but with significantly enhanced capabilities and features.

Lessons from Implementation: What Twenty Years Has Taught Me

Over nearly three decades implementing lean six sigma programs across various industries, I’ve observed patterns that shed light on the relationship between TQM and Lean Six Sigma. Here are some key insights:

Organizations with Strong TQM Foundations Often Succeed More Quickly with Lean Six Sigma

Companies that previously embraced TQM principles typically adapted to Lean Six Sigma more readily than those without quality management experience. The cultural foundation was already in place – they understood customer focus, process thinking, and continuous improvement.

The Name Matters Less Than the Implementation

Whether an organization calls their approach TQM, Six Sigma, Lean, or Lean Six Sigma matters far less than how effectively they implement and sustain it. I’ve seen successful “TQM” programs that incorporated many Six Sigma elements and failed “Lean Six Sigma” initiatives that missed fundamental principles.

A consumer goods company I worked with had a highly successful quality program they still called TQM, though they had incorporated many Lean and Six Sigma tools. Conversely, a financial services firm proudly announced their Lean Six Sigma deployment but failed to build the cultural foundation necessary for success.

Sustainability Requires Cultural Integration

Neither TQM nor Lean Six Sigma succeeds as a standalone program or department. Long-term success requires integration into the organization’s culture, systems, and daily management practices.

One manufacturing company I worked with successfully embedded Lean Six Sigma into their organization through daily management systems, visual controls, and performance reviews. Six years later, they’re still improving without needing to “relaunch” their program periodically.

Leadership Commitment Transcends Methodology

The most critical factor for success isn’t which methodology an organization adopts but the genuine commitment of leadership to improvement. When leaders demonstrate commitment through actions rather than just words, either approach can succeed.

Practical Advice for Leaders: Beyond the Repackaging Debate

As business leaders consider quality improvement approaches, the question of whether Lean Six Sigma is repackaged TQM is ultimately less important than how to successfully implement sustainable improvement. Here’s my practical advice based on two decades of experience:

Focus on Fundamentals, Not Labels

Don’t get caught up in debates about which methodology is “best” or most innovative. Instead, focus on fundamental principles that transcend specific approaches:

• Genuine customer focus
• Process orientation
• Fact-based decision making
• Employee involvement
• Leadership commitment
• Systems thinking

These principles are present in both TQM and Lean Six Sigma and are the foundation for sustainable improvement.

Assess Your Organization’s Maturity and Culture

Different approaches work better for different organizational contexts. Consider:

• Is your organization experienced with structured improvement or is this new territory?
• Do you need quick wins or long-term cultural transformation?
• Is your challenge primarily speed (Lean), quality (Six Sigma), or cultural transformation (TQM elements)?
• What’s your organization’s tolerance for statistical analysis versus practical problem-solving?

Build a Program That Fits Your Context

Rather than adopting any methodology wholesale, adapt approaches to fit your organizational needs. This might mean:

• Starting with Lean tools to generate quick wins before introducing more complex Six Sigma methods
• Incorporating TQM’s focus on culture and employee involvement into a Lean Six Sigma deployment
• Using Six Sigma’s project structure but simplifying the statistical tools for broader accessibility

Invest in People Development

All successful quality programs depend on developing people’s capabilities. Regardless of the approach you choose:

• Train broadly to create a common language and understanding
• Develop specialists who can tackle complex problems
• Ensure leaders understand enough to support the work effectively
• Build practical application into all training

One of the most successful deployments I’ve supported involved a manufacturer that trained 100% of employees in basic improvement concepts while developing a smaller group of specialists. This created a common language while ensuring specialized capability for complex problems. Make sure you leverage HR, they are key to the success here!

Create Systems that Sustain Improvement

Sustainability challenges plagued many TQM initiatives and continue to challenge Lean Six Sigma deployments. Address this by:

• Integrating improvement into regular management systems
• Creating visual performance measures
• Establishing regular review cadences
• Recognizing and rewarding improvement efforts
• Connecting improvement to strategic objectives

The Future: Beyond Lean Six Sigma

As we look to the future, the evolution continues. Just as Lean Six Sigma built upon TQM, new approaches are emerging that build upon Lean Six Sigma. These include:

Agile Integration

Many organizations are now integrating Agile principles with Lean Six Sigma, particularly for knowledge work and innovation. This combination maintains the discipline of Lean Six Sigma while adding the adaptability and customer collaboration of Agile.

Digital Transformation and Analytics

Advanced analytics, AI, and machine learning are enhancing traditional Lean Six Sigma approaches. These technologies enable:

• Analysis of larger, more complex datasets
• Predictive rather than just reactive problem-solving
• Automated process monitoring and control
• Simulation of improvement scenarios before implementation

A manufacturing business I work in recently used machine learning algorithms to identify patterns in process data that would have been nearly impossible to detect with traditional Six Sigma methods, enabling preventive actions rather than reactive solutions.

Human-Centered Design Integration

The integration of human-centered design principles is enhancing Lean Six Sigma by:

• Deepening customer insights beyond traditional voice-of-customer techniques
• Creating more innovative solutions to problems
• Ensuring improvements consider human factors and adoption challenges
• Bringing creativity to traditionally analytical approaches

Sustainable and Responsible Improvement

Modern improvement approaches are expanding their focus to include:

• Environmental sustainability
• Social responsibility
• Long-term impacts beyond immediate financial results
• Stakeholder value rather than just shareholder value

These expansions respect the core principles of earlier methodologies while addressing broader concerns.

Conclusion: Respect the Heritage, Embrace the Evolution

Is Lean Six Sigma repackaged TQM? My answer after nearly 30 years in the field is: yes and no. Yes, it builds upon many TQM principles and preserves its core philosophy. No, it’s not merely repackaging but represents a genuine evolution that addressed many TQM implementation challenges with enhanced methodologies, tools, and infrastructure.

The most successful organizations I’ve worked with recognize this nuance. They respect the heritage of quality management while embracing its evolution. They focus less on methodological purity and more on practical results. They adapt approaches to their specific context rather than forcing rigid methodological compliance.

As a practitioner who has witnessed this evolution firsthand, I encourage leaders to look beyond the repackaging debate. Instead, focus on the fundamentals that have remained consistent across decades of quality management evolution:

• Genuine customer focus
• Respect for people
• Process thinking
• Fact-based decision making
• Leadership commitment
• Continuous learning

These principles transcend specific methodologies and remain the foundation for sustainable improvement regardless of what we call our approach.

Whether you’re a TQM veteran, a Lean Six Sigma practitioner, or new to the quality journey, remember that the terminology matters far less than the principles and practice. The organizations that succeed are those that focus on creating value for customers, engaging employees in improvement, and building systems that sustain progress – regardless of the methodology banner they fly.

After all, as my first mentor used to say, “It’s not about the name on the program; it’s about the results for the customer and the culture of the organization.” All these years later, that wisdom still rings true.

adam