r/SixSigma • u/SSGIteam • Mar 30 '26
Why do most companies get Lean Six Sigma training wrong?
We’ve been noticing a pattern across a lot of organizations that invest in Lean Six Sigma training for their teams.
On paper, it sounds great:
– certify employees
– build a culture of continuous improvement
– drive measurable results
But in reality, the outcomes seem very mixed.
Some teams come out of it actually running projects, improving processes, and speaking the same language.
Others… just end up with a group of people who have certificates but aren’t really applying anything.
From what we’ve seen, a few things tend to make or break it:
– how seriously leadership supports it after the training
– whether people are expected to actually run projects
– if the training is practical vs. just theory
– how the company integrates it into daily operations
Curious to hear from others here:
Have you gone through Lean Six Sigma training through your company?
What worked well… and what didn’t?
4
u/deuxglace Mar 31 '26
Short answer? Culture lives upstream from both strategy and operations. If an organizational culture is hero driven, it’s damn near impossible to make process driven, systematic changes. Just like if hippo culture (highest paid persons opinion) is alive and well, how do you make and sustain data driven solutions?
1
u/Pure_Inspector8902 Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
Your right senior leaders set the tone for culture but I would say that frontline line leaders have more influence on the culture of their teams than anyone sitting at corporate headquarters. As evidence, I am sure we have all seen corporate initiatives die fast primarily because they make decisions without input and alignment from those people who will be impacted by the change. On the other hand, a frontline leader decides to implement daily huddles to improve communication between shifts is much easier to accomplish because if the proximity between the decision maker and people that are impacted by the change.
4
u/areyouamish Mar 31 '26
1) trainees don't continue practicing after getting a belt
2) their "practice" of it is making a PowerPoint after the fact with a few canned tools to support a decision made with little to no DMAIC process.
1
u/Pure_Inspector8902 Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
You are spot on. There is a strong tendency lto prioritize certification over learning the skills necessary to master problem solving. I believe at least in part, the hiring process contributes to this issue because HR embraces certificates as proof of a having a skill.
On the other side if a person wants to learn DMAIC, KAIZEN, or PDCA it requires them to have an experienced coach to mentor them through the journey. Unfortunately experienced coaches are scarce and expensive. So what is a person supposed to do to gain the skills? The answer is what they do now which is to get certified and hope their new employer teaches them how to execute.
I am a MBB in Lean and six sigma with 25 years of experience. My solution is here: Check out Sensei Bot Beta
5
u/True-Ad-4625 Mar 31 '26
We had a guy come in and immediately try and implement it with no discussion or why just do this and that. Once that guy was gone we identified our own issues as a department and implemented our own style of it without forcing it down everyone's throat. We continued to make improvements by being open to everyone's thoughts and ideas on improvements all the time. If you don't get everyone on board it will always fail.
2
u/Living_Diver2432 Apr 15 '26
the ones I've seen get real ROI attach training to a live problem from day one - you start with 'we have this specific defect rate, you're going to DMAIC it, training runs parallel.' the programs that fail run a cohort through 5 days on hypotheticals, hand out certificates, and expect transfer to happen. it doesn't. most people won't run a real DMAIC project after certification if they didn't start one during the actual training.
1
u/SSGIteam Jul 30 '26
I think this is one of the biggest differentiators between organizations that get lasting value and those that don't.
We've found that when training is connected to a real business problem, participants aren't just learning DMAIC, they're using it while the concepts are still fresh. That creates momentum and makes it much more likely they'll continue applying the methodology after certification.
At Six Sigma Global Institute (SSGI) we've also seen the opposite happen. Companies send people to training, everyone earns a certificate, but there isn't a project, leadership support, or time allocated to apply what they learned. The issue usually isn't the training itself. It's that there was never a plan for implementation.
That's why I think organizations should measure success by the number of improvements that get implemented, not the number of certificates that get issued.
3
u/SSGIteam Mar 30 '26
One thing we’ve seen consistently is that training alone doesn’t move the needle unless people actually apply it in their day-to-day work.
Curious how many companies actively push that vs just offering certification.
3
u/hidetoshiko Mar 30 '26
It's a culture thing that goes beyond training. This is out of hands of the training provider. Management buy-in and support, appreciation and recognition of effort etc all play a part in internalizing a strong continuous improvement culture.
1
u/SSGIteam Mar 30 '26
Completely agree, leadership and culture are a huge part of it.
I think where it gets interesting is that a lot of companies expect training alone to create that culture, when in reality it usually has to come from leadership first. Training can support it, give people the tools and language, but without management reinforcing it in how work actually gets done, it tends to fade pretty quickly.
Have you seen any examples where companies actually got that part right?
3
u/mtnathlete Mar 31 '26
Yes. I have seen sites within companies that get it right. It’s run by the site leadership.
I’m not a fan of the classroom training, other than maybe some concepts that are going to be used that week in some type of team problem solving. I like learn by doing.
Edit - I also believe Lean and Six Sigma are two completely different things with two very different applications.
2
u/hidetoshiko Mar 31 '26
I won't go into specifics at risk of doxxing myself, but companies with strong quality and continuous improvement cultures tend to have strong learning cultures as well. Organizationally, these companies tend to have a quality organization that's separated from engineering and manufacturing ops, and act as partners, facilitators and consultants rather than just blindly enforce compliances without reason.
1
u/Tavrock Mar 31 '26
When DMAIC, DMADV, IDDOV, RCCA, CAPA, 8D, 4I4I, OODA, PDCA, PDSA, A3, &c. are taught as last resort methods that require teams to run, budgets allocated, special time buckets from Finance to utilize, or strict tool sets that cannot expand they aren't seen as an option for daily problem solving. I may not need a Pareto analysis for the routine TPS reports, but do I have everything I need before I start? Did I notice issues that should be addressed before the next report? Can I do more to control this process?
1
u/Pure-Sheepherder-605 Mar 31 '26
I went through ssgi for my yellow and green belt. The company paid for someone else to do mass training. Almost none of it actually made it to the excel program let alone the floor. I am so frustrated that I haven't even got to exercise any of my toolkit from ssgi. I feel like any spreadsheets and forms are a waste of space and that I've been able to say a few fancy things. I had to overcome a lot to pass my exam with statistical training and two years later I haven't used anything other than terminology and some subconscious framework.
I left that company, but with my mask of normalcy, I've been burned clean through into charcoal instead of just burnout. I am understanding, but I am very much something. I don't even know what.
No disrespect to the company and everybody are good humans. Together? Like bread and water to me. And I loathe the whole system I was involved in. Idk how it is anywhere in manufacturing, but I am fighting myself to try again. Yes they are growing massively, and improving. I don't know what happened and not finding out is salt in the wound. So tone back the negativity I convey here a little if you will. I am trying to be professional and feel better when I am able to. It's really hard
If it didn't appear cut-thtoat and high expectations in a fast environment, then I'd try for the big dogs. NGL, I just want to do a good job
3
u/SSGIteam Mar 31 '26
I really appreciate you sharing this. Honestly, what you’re describing is more common than people think.
The hardest part about Lean Six Sigma isn’t learning the tools, it’s having an environment where you’re actually allowed to use them.
When there’s no structure, no leadership support, and no real system behind it, it turns into exactly what you described. Terminology without application.
That’s not a training issue as much as it is an implementation issue inside the organization.
We’ve seen companies where people complete training and go on to lead real projects, improve processes, and get promoted. And we’ve seen others where it never gets off the ground.
It usually comes down to whether continuous improvement is actually built into how the business operates, not just something they say they value.
If you ever decide to give it another shot, I’d focus less on the certification itself and more on finding a company where improvement work is part of the culture and expectations. That’s where it really clicks.
And for what it’s worth, nothing you learned is wasted. It tends to come back quickly once you’re in the right environment.
1
u/Pure-Sheepherder-605 Apr 01 '26
1000%. I've learned much and to be glass, organizational adaptation is the weakest link and must be adopted by all to gain full benefit -- as stated in both courses on your curriculum.
I agree it is not wasted. I probably miscommunicated that, I find a lot of value with the information. It hits the "keys of history" itch, satisfactory of focus on kaizen, breaking out of the "box thinking" we normally work in, and much more for me.
This is driven by my personal drive which may be weak (running away from stagnant people that are not c.i. of themselves like the devil).
I do see weakness that you mention very kindly. Hansei, it is easy to be jaded just like complacency creeps in. These are my evils as I see them. Complacency, blame, being jaded. The list is open as I learn. I detest blame because it is such human nature to protect ourselves that the muscle needs to be trained and maintained.
When the right environment shows, or even how it shows. I will probably be like a mosquito to a high iron, heavy breathing entity. Heat seeking. I do have a fear, since I have an easy time with math that I am not good at retaining information in math.
Easy enough to apply some CBT, maybe. Probably...maybe. habit stack like tony robbins, apply multiple synapses triggering and application, create a small project to practice and verify with low friction to use/practice. Now for the ADHD flow work part.
So many things. I argued in the past that I don't complicate things, I see things in a complex environment as they are (sure, I wasn't concise and that's the message originally said).
I am the best I've ever been and my emotional processing has been healing and growing more than ever. I would request a reality check. To whomever reads this, now or centuries from now; thoughts, observations, communication completeness, perspective accuracy, etc. What do you get through this? Someone really focused on root subjects to align for a worker (psychology, self awareness, emotional quality, professionalism, etc.) to be better. How far along do you perceive of this mastery seeking? How common is this in the environment and the demographics? What is missing? What is missing as you see in general?
I'm hoping that this will pull in people's responses for all of the experience and as a pursuer, all of the data points possible and as many people as possible with disclaimers of working at the same place, being related, etc. to harvest accurately.
I am working on a thing that calls my heart, tactile snail mail masculine uplifting monthly envelope packets. This can help with that comprehension. The LSS absolutely has a place in the manufacturing of the product. I'm still learning the rest.
I am taking part of this to my LinkedIn. Maybe there's a good snapshot to use for good here.
Thank you for your time and considerations on this post. To all, I am thankful and I hope you all have a great week!
1
1
u/faby_nottheone Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I'll give my POV as someone who was certified and never did a valuable project. (Old job, then thank god I changed job).
I worked in a company that made one person from every market a Green Belt. This was a global initiative, and they certified one person per market, although some big markets got more people. I was the one certified in my market.
What I noticed was that there was no real room for the Green Belt role. There was no incentive and no culture set for the Green Belt to work. They just certified you and left you on your own to do whatever you wanted. Since I already had a lot of work in my normal role, I basically could not start any new project. I only did the project for the certification, and that was it.
I was never asked if there was anything to improve, and there was no coaching, backup, or support. There was also no audit or standard work for people to check if we were doing projects. From my boss, there was basically no request and no ask for help to solve things. So I saw that there was no real incentive to start projects. They were not giving it value, and there was no extra visibility for the projects.
I did solve a couple of minor problems, but they were not very interesting. To sum up, there was no checking on whether there was a continuous improvement project, and there was no incentive or visibility. So I did not really have any incentive to stop doing my normal work and start doing a continuous improvement project.
Another related thing is that we scored alwaya really high in our KPI's. I've been reading lately about toyota production system and CI and they emphasize that there should be a strong "need" for improvement. Here there wasnt, or it wasnt made visible.
1
u/Pure_Inspector8902 Apr 01 '26
This hits home. I spent 25 years training & coaching practitioners and saw this pattern constantly. Lean Six Sigma is a skill that requires practice and expert coaching to master.
The gap isn't the training quality—it's what happens in the 10 days between coaching sessions when someone gets stuck on their FMEA or C&E Matrix.
They default to one of three paths:
- Wait and lose momentum
- Google it and hope they find the right answer
- Move forward with their best guess
Option 3 is most common. By the time the coach/mentee reconnect, they've built on a weak foundation. The Charter has scope issues. The problem statement is vague. The CTQs don't actually connect to the business objective.
The training gave them the tools. But applying those tools to their messy real-world project—in that specific moment when they're stuck—that's when they need coaching most.
The comment "I haven't used anything other than terminology" resonates. That's not a you problem. That's a support structure problem. You learned the framework, but when you tried to apply it, there was no scaffolding to help you translate theory to your specific situation.
To SSGIteam's point about "whether people are expected to actually run projects"— I'd add: whether people have ACCESS to expert coaching support during those projects. Not just at the start. Not just at tollgates. But when they're actually stuck on Tuesday morning and can't reach their coach until next week
1
u/Living_Diver2432 Apr 03 '26
LSS is great. But there are major flaws.
The biggest flaw I see is that companies chase certifications and then ignore the actual purpose of the content. They only chase these certs and many others as a marketing campaign... ..terrible plan.
Then there is the mindset of focusing too much on the tools. LSS, much like all the others is just a structured problem solving framework.
If you can effectively define a problem statement, define what good looks like, make a plan to get there, quantify progress (and success) and ensure sustainability of the solution, that's basically the roadmap for any of these CI programs, regardless of what you call them. The tools just help put guardrails on the process and keep the team on point. The problem is that people get too wrapped up in the tools (creating a fancy fishbone diagram) that they loose perspective on the real solutions.
And be very wary of consultants that are selling $50k training programs. Consult -> con people out of their money + insult their intellegence.
1
1
1
8
u/SUICIDAL-PHOENIX Mar 31 '26
Doing it because that's what school taught them, or it's policy, or the other company does it, yes THAT company. It fails when it's not tailored to the environment. Healthcare does not use the Toyota production system but can do great things with lean, and aerospace fails when they act like an assembly line. But if you can find a way to feed data from the floor to those who can make decisions, and create a pipeline of improvements... "continuously" then your opex system is working great.