What are the primary savings identified with the implementation of Six Sigma compared to Lean?

The primary savings identified with the implementation of Six Sigma compared to Lean primarily focus on quantifiable improvements in the cost of poor quality and operating costs. Six Sigma methodologies emphasize reducing defects, which directly correlates to minimizing the cost of poor quality that arises from rework, scrap, and other inefficiencies. By using data-driven approaches and statistical tools, organizations can identify the root causes of variation and defects, leading to more efficient processes and ultimately lower operating costs.

While Lean methods prioritize waste reduction and process flow improvements, Six Sigma provides a complementary focus on reducing variability and improving process capability, thus leading to measurable financial benefits. This ability to tackle the underlying issues of quality not only reduces immediate costs but also leads to long-term savings through improved customer satisfaction and loyalty, which can be significant.

The other options, while related to aspects of business operations and improvement initiatives, don't represent the core financial impact that Six Sigma is known for. Time reductions and employee morale speak more to operational efficiencies and workforce engagement, which are important but secondary to the financial metrics highlighted in option B.