When Methodologies Compete, Organizations Lose

Insights from the Shingo Institute Webinar on Harmonizing Process Improvement 

[Webinar video: Register and watch here]

"We're trying to understand how work is going to occur," Bruce Hamilton explained to webinar participants. "We see it as really critical." This straightforward statement captures the essence of an unprecedented collaboration among eight partner organizations working to address a challenge facing organizations worldwide: navigating the overwhelming proliferation of process improvement methodologies.

The Shingo Institute recently hosted a webinar featuring members of the Adjacent Communities working group, part of the broader Future of People at Work initiative. What emerged from the discussion wasn't a prescription for which methodology organizations should adopt, but rather a compelling exploration of how different approaches—Lean, Six Sigma, Agile, Theory of Constraints, and others—can work together rather than compete.

When Methodologies Collide

The challenge is familiar to anyone working in continuous improvement. Organizations face confusing choices: TPS, Lean, Lean Startup, Agile, Lean Construction, DevOps, TOC, Six Sigma—each with its own advocates, terminology, and culture. As Bruce Hamilton from GBMP Consulting Group noted, "Each methodology typically views the others as competition."

Jo Ann Pabst, Research Director at the Shingo Institute, shared a revealing story from her 25-year career in continuous improvement. At a Shingo recipient company, multiple tools lived "very happily" together under a continuous improvement umbrella—policy deployment using X-matrix, Kaizen events including 3P, value analysis for design, total productive maintenance. "All lived very happily under the umbrella," she explained, "until Six Sigma came to town."

The introduction of Six Sigma, with its different terminology, culture, and credentialing system, created unexpected tension. This wasn't about the methodology's effectiveness—it was about whether different improvement approaches could be integrated harmoniously or would compete internally. The real-world experience illustrates what happens when organizations fail to harmonize their improvement approaches intentionally.

The Practitioner Perspective

What seems to work better? The webinar brought together not just nonprofit organization representatives but also practitioners implementing these approaches daily. Joy Gore, Principal Improvement Consultant at Stanford HealthCare, emphasized focusing on knowledge over methodology labels. "The most important part is always to focus on knowledge," she explained, describing how Stanford Health uses various continuous improvement tools without rigid adherence to single-methodology purity.

Her perspective centered on practical problem-solving: selecting appropriate tools based on the problem at hand rather than methodology loyalty. This approach validates what the Adjacent Communities working group has been discovering—effective organizations focus on problem-solving outcomes rather than methodology orthodoxy.

A 30-Year Journey of Learning

Amberly Carter from O.C. Tanner shared a compelling perspective on long-term methodology integration. O.C. Tanner's continuous improvement journey began more than 30 years ago under the leadership of Gary Peterson, now an executive at the company. At the recent Future of People at Work Conference, Peterson reflected on this history, noting that O.C. Tanner's success comes from learning across many methodologies rather than relying on a single source.

Today, the organization looks to Shingo for principle-based guidance while maintaining strong partnerships with AME, TSSC, and others to strengthen both people and systems.

Amberly emphasized that earning the Shingo Prize in 1999 was a key milestone, though by current standards the company's practices then would fall short—illustrating how improvement expectations continually rise.

She noted that O.C. Tanner never approached improvement as a question of which methodologies to adopt or reject. Instead, the company focused on understanding its needs and intentionally integrating the most beneficial resources to achieve operational excellence.

The Credentialism Tension

One of the session's most candid moments came when discussing learning versus certification. Bruce Hamilton expressed strong concerns about what he called "the danger of credentialism." His perspective: "I think we're in this to make the world better," observing that organizations and individuals increasingly focus on symbols next to their names rather than substantive improvement.

This sparked balanced discussion. The panelists acknowledged both the organizational necessity of credentials—particularly for managing credentialed practitioners—and the risk of over-emphasis on certification at the expense of actual improvement capability. The consensus? Balance personal development with organizational needs rather than pursue credentials for their own sake.

What We're Learning

As Jo Ann Pabst noted, she's "always viewed an organization's continuous improvement initiative as, like, an umbrella, an overarching theme where all the various CI tools and modalities can all live together in peace and harmony." Building that umbrella—intentionally, collaboratively—represents the work ahead.

Several insights emerged from the discussion. Organizations that successfully deploy various process improvement approaches together develop more robust problem-solving capabilities than those limiting themselves to single methodologies. The challenge isn't choosing the "best" methodology—it's understanding when and how different approaches can work together.

Integration requires intentional harmonization strategies. When new methodologies enter established improvement cultures without deliberate integration planning, tension and competition emerge. Organizations need frameworks for navigating this complexity rather than allowing methodologies to compete internally.

The practitioner experiences validate what many suspect: effective continuous improvement transcends methodology labels. It focuses on building problem-solving capabilities, respecting people, and creating sustainable improvement cultures. The specific tools and approaches become means to these ends rather than ends themselves.

Moving Forward

Bruce Hamilton emphasized that the Future of People at Work initiative is "a labor of love" among the eight partner organizations—Catalysis, Central Coast Lean, GBMP Consulting Group, Imagining Excellence, Lean Enterprise Institute, Shingo Institute, The Ohio State University Center for Operational Excellence, and Toyota Production System Support Center (TSSC)—"we're not making any money on this." The focus extends beyond today's challenges to understanding how generational workforce shifts, technological advances (especially AI), and proliferating improvement approaches will shape work itself.

This conversation continued beyond the webinar. The Northeast Lean Conference, which took place October 27-28, 2025, featured Rachel Reuter and two dozen Future of People at Work initiative members sharing progress from various working groups—not just Adjacent Communities but also teams examining next generation workforce challenges and AI implications.

The initiative holds monthly virtual gatherings (second Friday, 11am-12pm Eastern) where anyone interested in these questions can participate.

The question isn't which methodology your organization should choose. It's how your organization can thoughtfully integrate multiple approaches to develop the robust problem-solving capabilities today's challenges demand.

Knowledge Map: Connecting to Your Context

Process Keywords: Methodology harmonization, intentional integration, cross-methodology fluency, principle-based guidance, organizational learning, problem-solving capabilities, sustainable improvement culture, continuous improvement umbrella, collaborative frameworks, systems thinking, value-driven improvement, cultural transformation

Context Keywords: Methodology confusion, competing approaches, credentialism tension, internal competition, implementation challenges, workforce generational shifts, technology integration, organizational fragmentation, improvement sustainability, expertise silos, certification pressure, professional development balance

Application Triggers:

• Facing conflicting improvement methodologies → Intentional harmonization strategies

• Multiple consultants promoting different approaches → Cross-methodology integration frameworks

• Credential-focused culture over results → Balance learning with organizational needs

• New methodology creating tension with existing practices → Adjacent Communities perspective

• Need multi-generational engagement → Future of People at Work resources

• Building improvement capabilities across 30+ years → O.C. Tanner's long-term journey model

• Seeking nonprofit collaboration models → Eight-partner FPW initiative structure

Related Continuous Improvement Themes: This Adjacent Communities work connects to broader continuous improvement concepts including organizational change management, systems thinking, leadership development, and workforce development. The initiative's focus on harmonizing methodologies rather than promoting singular approaches represents a significant evolution in how the continuous improvement community addresses fragmentation. For practitioners seeking to build robust problem-solving capabilities while navigating multiple improvement frameworks, the monthly FPW virtual gatherings and Northeast Lean Conference sessions provide ongoing learning opportunities.

Continue the conversation:

Follow FPW on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/future-people-work/

Join monthly FPW discussions: https://forms.gle/yXPbCXURdfvYtjmn9

Northeast Lean Conference: Visit GBMP for information on future conferences

Shingo Institute articles and resources: shingo.org/articles

People to Connect With: @Bruce Hamilton @Jo Ann Pabst @Joy Gore @Amberly Carter @Rachel Reuter @Mary Price

Hashtags: #FutureOfPeopleAtWork #ContinuousImprovement #Lean #SixSigma #Agile #ProcessImprovement #OrganizationalExcellence #ProblemSolving

Attribution: This post was developed based on the Shingo Institute webinar "Harmonizing Process Improvement Approaches" and synthesized with Claude.AI assistance. The content benefited from collaborative review and editorial feedback from Amberly Carter, Eric Olsen, and Rachel Reuter, whose insights significantly improved the accuracy and clarity of both the executive summary and this blog post. It represents ongoing work by the Future of People at Work initiative, a collaboration of Catalysis, Central Coast Lean, GBMP Consulting Group, Imagining Excellence, Lean Enterprise Institute, Shingo Institute, The Ohio State University Center for Operational Excellence, and Toyota Production System Support Center (TSSC).