Innovation + Six Sigma = Disaster?
Hi and welcome to my site: learnsigma.com. It seems like you're new here, so you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Six Sigma … innovation … not compatible … blah, blah, blah
As I’ve wrote time and time again on this blog there is no reason why Six Sigma should stifle innovation. Obviously 3M would disagree: [3M Shelves Six Sigma in R&D]
Critics argue that excessive metrics, steps, measurements and Six Sigma’s intense focus on reducing variability water down the discovery process. Under Six Sigma, the free-wheeling nature of brainstorming and the serendipitous side of discovery is stifled.
Experts agree the blanket approach to Six Sigma is generally not a good idea
Which ones? Name a few ….
Okay, then: Michael Tushman, a professor at Harvard Business School, says:
These TQM (Total Quality Management) and class of methodologies that are anchored on reducing variability are inversely associated with what we call exploratory innovation. Methodologies help incremental innovation. The more you apply them in R&D, the less effective they are on exploratory innovation
At least Ron Atkinson (not Ron Atkinson the UK football pundit), board chairman of the American Society for Quality, understands how Design for Six Sigma can assist:
I usually find that once (companies) understand it, Six Sigma aligns very well with engineering methodology. Six Sigma makes sure projects relate right back to the strategic plan of the company,” says Atkinson. Is paralysis by analysis a concern? “(Project) champions can counteract that. They make sure you do not sit on the design phase forever. And there’s nothing to say you have to finish one step before you start the next.” He believes pure research does not lend itself to Six Sigma, but is more the stuff of universities and federally funded projects.
I think Ron hits the nail on the head here DFSS is very powerful as it seeks to avoid manufacturing/service process problems by using systems engineering techniques to avoid process problems at the outset (i.e., fire prevention). These techniques include tools and processes to predict, model and simulate the product delivery system (the processes/tools, personnel and organization, training, facilities, and logistics to produce the product/service) as well as the analysis of the developing system life cycle itself to ensure customer satisfaction with the proposed system design solution.
In this way, DFSS is closely related to systems engineering, operations research (solving the Knapsack problem), systems architecting and concurrent engineering. DFSS is largely a design activity requiring specialized tools including: quality function deployment (QFD), axiomatic design, TRIZ, Design for X, design of experiments (DOE), Taguchi methods, tolerance design, Robustification and response surface methodology. While these tools are sometimes used in the classic DMAIC Six Sigma process, they are uniquely used by DFSS to analyze new and unprecedented systems/products.
A graphical flowchart of common DFSS tools can be seen at DFSS Roadmap.
Check out Johns comments
DFSS, innovation, six sigma, thoughtsPopularity: 16% [?]
Add New Comment
Viewing 2 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks