Good suggestion... I will develop a scenario to illustrate my thoughts... however, I would like to start with re-ordering the hierarchy of some terminology... Operations Strategy is the primary framework, supply chain management is a tool and some of the jam in the Global Operations sandwich... with logistics, freight management, material management, being some of the elements needed within that strategy...

I think you've got it just about right... The two approaches are complimentary because they do attack quite different areas of opportunity to improve operations... and hence depending on the type of operation you have, you might tend to more of one and less of another... e.g. Manufacturing drugs = 6 Sigma, etc...
However... one very important point... it takes a very very different person with very different skills and capabilities to be a true LEAN sensai... vs. a 6Sigma Blackbelt... I have interviewed many many people who claim they are both, but it's clear they are not, as the fundamental skills required are different...
LEAN Sensais rely on their eyes and ears... and their skills in developing people to think LEAN
6Sigma blackbelts rely on data, analysis and structure projects...

This forum is not in any way connected to Ceva or any of it's products or services... I have wanted to start this for many years, to share my personal experiences, knowledge and opinions on Operations, and encourage others to do the same...

I have led many projects to evaluate the need, or otherwise, for capital expenditure in assets/technology in production and supply chain networks. In all that work, avoidance of unnecessary investment in assets/technology is the common theme.

Often modelling and analysis work will highlight opportunities to delay or avoid investment by using existing assets/technology in a more effective way, by leveraging external/partner assets, or by making other intelligent trade-offs in the operations strategy.

My work involves strategic design of supply chain and logistics systems. Operations strategy is a key element in the design of such systems. In my work I use formal modelling and analysis methods to evaluate alternative operations strategies.

To answer the kinds of questions you are asking, I think it would be useful to have more specific information about the elements of an operations strategy that you envisage will be impacted and which capabilities will be changed.

One suggestion would be to develop a specific example, perhaps one from a real world case that you are familiar with, and then suggest how you envisage the alternative operations strategy would operate.

It might be possible to try to evaluate the ideas and provide some insights towards answering the questions you're asking. 

I always like to think that people will dig behind the buzz-words and hype surrounding supply chain and operations strategy to extract whatever seems useful -- rather than become slavish adherents to any particular solution. Although I recognise and see both types of behaviours in my everyday work.

In operations strategy, particularly where someone is trying to differentiate competitively, "one size" certainly could never be expected to "fit all". For example, if you think of LEAN and SIX SIGMA as having several components, then some useful components/ideas can be extracted to develop an Operations Strategy that best fits the particular context of a business' operations.

I tend to think of LEAN as having ideas about efficiency and waste reduction; and SIX SIGMA as having ideas about quality and process improvement.

If someone is trying to design an efficient processes that gets the job done right, first time, surely they'd be better keeping an open mind and exploring whether they can extract useful benefits from ideas in each "camp".

I'm curious as to whether this forum is connected in any way with Ceva Logistics? And in particular whether the forum is used in any way for selling services (direct or indirectly) from Ceva?  As I said, just curious. 

I think the idea for a discussion forum in operations strategy is a great idea. I'm looking forward to joining some useful discussions when the forum starts to warm up a little. 

•   Can we combine internal and external capabilities into a more seamless network?
•   Can we create more cost reduction and revenue generating leverage by a more globally integrated approach to operations?
•   Is there a real opportunity for Global Operations Orchestration to be a market disrupting capability?

•   Investing in new technologies should be the last resort in squeezing the maximum out of your existing resources and capabilities
•   It should only be used where there is a clear business case, and more than one just based on some process-reengineered theoretical productivity improvement
•   Investment should be made when there is a clear, proven step-chain shift in the fundamental “technology” or “system” being used

•   LEAN is about people – and getting the most from your people by changing to a culture of continuous improvement to eliminate waste from all processes
•   Six Sigma is about data – and using data to refine processes and eliminate errors and reduce process variance
•   LEAN is more suited to environments involving more people
•   Six Sigma is more suited to environments with less people and more automated or semi-automated processes, and tends to be quite bureaucratic (not LEAN)
•   There is only a partial overlap and mutually beneficial space for these two approaches
•   Hence the much advertised “LEAN Six Sigma” approach is in my view very close to being an oxymoron