Quality and Innovation

(Image Credit: Doug Buckley of http://hyperactive.to)

I’m always more productive when I’m actively avoiding something I need to do, but don’t want to do. Yet.

That’s actually the state I’m in at this very moment. This morning, I have to put together a survey. Now, putting together an online survey is not a real thought-intensive process. You have to figure out what questions to ask… you have to drag and drop icons to make sure that your question types are represented… and then you click on the “Response 1″ and “Response 2″ text and type in what the real responses should be. I have a little more labor to undertake, since I have to double-click on a Dropbox folder and pull out a couple paragraphs of text that I need to include on the survey. But for some reason, I’m just resisting and resisting getting this super important task done – which is now two days late, and I’ll be extremely embarrassed if it’s three days late, because I confessed my sins of procrastination at a meeting yesterday afternoon and vowed to be faithful to my commitment on this, the third day…

And well, you know how it goes.

In the meantime, I’ve become ultra productive regarding everything else on my to-do list. I’ve prepared for two of my Monday classes. I’ve posted new resources to the online learning management system for my students. I’ve started reading a book I promised to review for a publisher. I’ve done two loads of laundry. And it’s not even 10 in the morning yet.

This is making me wonder whether I should always have an “avoider task” on my to-do list. It’s great fuel to push me to do the others.

Yesterday, I posted about TRIZ, a 1940′s era device for stimulating innovation. I’ve always had this visceral feeling that we need a new, more modern, more right brained approach to innovation along the same lines as TRIZ, but with the art and panache of the 21st century – and with Eric S. Townsend’s new collection of business-stimulated haikus, I think we’re on to something.

Eric, a self-defined “supercreative” in business and search engine optimization, runs Eric S. Townsend Marketing, a firm dedicated to general marketing, internet marketing, corporate identity, branding, publicity, and totally-needed stuff like that. Only Eric is not from this planet. At times, I think he channels the Pleiadeans (which might not be a bad thing, considering what’s needed to be ultra-competitive in the era of the post-economy).

Eric’s new book features 206 pages of business-related haikus – riddles that might help stimulate you to new directions in business growth and accomplishment. I suggest that the Bizkus are used for brainstorming and in quality circles. Set a meeting time, get some stakeholders involved, identify a problem that you need to solve – and then randomly open up the Bizkus book and read – these things are meant for oral interpretation. Discuss, as a group, what you think the implications may be – or may be not.

Some of the bizkus are totally hard to figure out. But aren’t all problems in business? As a result, this approach has GOT to help you right-brain yourself out of current issues, and into emerging opportunities.

I give Eric’s Bizkus three thumbs up. Leave me comments if you decide to use it to stimulate innovation in your organization… I’d like to hear about your experiences. I’d also love to facilitate an article for Quality Progress on new approaches to stimulate innovation too, so let me know if this tool (or others like it!) serve such a purpose for your place of business. (Note: if you purchase the Kindle version, Eric will give you the PDF for an extra $1.29. I think you have to email him to make this happen.)

TRIZ, the “theory of inventive problem solving” conceived by the Russian innovator Genrich Altshuller in the mid-1940’s, is a collection of analytical tools intended to capture “innovation logic” so it can be systematically applied to solve engineering problems. Using TRIZ, individuals and teams have an actionable guide for thinking out-of-the-box and generating breakthrough insights to help solve problems. These problems can be related to new product design, enhancements to existing products, process design and improvement, or quality improvement. The acronym is derived from the Russian Теория решения изобретательских задач (Триз) or, alternatively, the Anglicized Teoriya Resheniya Izobreatatelskikh Zadatch (TRIZ). Reflecting its Russian origin, TRIZ is pronounced like “breeze”.

TRIZ was initially conceived as a set of 40 “design principles” that can be used to accelerate the innovation process. Later, this was expanded into the Matrix of Contradictions which can be used to identify which of the 40 design principles are applicable to a particular problem. The assumption underlying this matrix is that new inventions become possible when technical contradictions are resolved. Since Altshuller’s initial development of these tools, several teams of TRIZ practitioners and researchers have expanded the techniques that are now associated with TRIZ, although the 40 principles remain central to the technique.

Altshuller developed the core of TRIZ during his experience as a patent clerk for the Russian Navy, where he examined trends and patterns as he screened hundreds of patents that had realized innovative potential. He investigated the characteristics that made each patent successful, and eventually determined his fundamental axiom of TRIZ, that technical systems evolve according to objective laws. The most common modes of evolution were captured in the 40 principles. Believing that the newly developed technique could help rebuild the USSR in the aftermath of World War II, Altshuller proposed some initiatives to his government. However, rather than being rewarded for his work and allowed to help his country, he was punished for his heretical viewpoints and sentenced to 25 years in a labor camp in Vorkuta in 1949, a sentence he shared with many other academics and intellectuals who educated one another in their fields as a defense against the brutality. After his release from the camp in 1955, Altshuller began publishing not only about TRIZ, but also science fiction books, since it was so difficult for newly released prisoners to find employment. By 1985, Altshuller had conducted hundreds of seminars on TRIZ, had worked with students in elementary and secondary school on inventive problem solving, and had earned his reputation as a leader in innovative thought.

The core of TRIZ, its 40 design principles, must be used in the context of a problem-solving approach. This is called the TRIZ process, and consists of 1) stating the contradiction (what is not working), 2) expanding your understanding of the materials being used, equipment being used, environmental conditions, work methods, and people involved, 3) defining the ideal state of the evolved system, and 4) generating ideas using the 40 principles. This process is different than brainstorming because it does not rely on randomly identifying ideas, but takes a structured approach to exploring the system and the technological contradictions that might reveal potential avenues for innovation.

The 40 design principles of TRIZ are:

1. Segmentation. Break an object into different independent parts to uncover opportunities for creative assembly, disassembly, or component design.
2. Taking Out. Remove one part of a product or process to explore alternative ways to achieve the required function.
3. Local Quality. Explore the potential for one object or process to serve an additional or unexpected function, like a hammer with a nail remover attached.
4. Asymmetry. Change the shape of an object from symmetrical to asymmetrical, or make an object more asymmetrical, to reveal opportunities for alternative designs.
5. Merging. Identify how people, objects and subsystems can be combined to satisfy the requirements of the system in novel ways.
6. Universality. Determine how one object or component can perform multiple functions.
7. Russian Dolls. Also called nesting, this principle encourages placing objects within one another in various configurations to explore design alternatives.
8. Anti-weight. Explore ways to counterweight the system when it is impacted by negative external influences.
9. Preliminary Anti-action. By anticipating problems, steps can be taken to prevent their occurrence or to mitigate negative consequences when the problems arise.
10. Preliminary Action. By anticipating scheduled changes in the state of a system (e.g. knowing which machines will be used in an upcoming shift) action can be taken to ease the transition between states.
11. Beforehand Cushioning. Identify how to detect and respond to potential failures.
12. Equipotentiality. Explore how moving things side to side, instead of up and down, might impact the ability of the system to achieve its required functions without unnecessarily expending energy.
13. The Other Way Around. Determine whether turning components upside down, or inverting steps in a process, will resolve technical incongruities.
14. Spheroidality/Curvature. Identify how flat or planar parts could be changed to curved or spheroidal components, for example, ball bearings or spirals.
15. Dynamics. Explore how external forces acting on the system will impact its structure and integrity.
16. Partial or Excessive Action. Determine whether doing less of something, or doing more of something, can solve the problem.
17. Another Dimension. If a problem cannot be resolved in the number of dimensions allowed for the problem, increase the number of dimensions. Add corners, planes, or bends, or go around components within the system, or introduce the time dimension.
18. Mechanical Vibration. Inject energy into a system by shaking it or applyind sound and investigate how it responds.
19. Periodic Action. Determine how parts of the system where continuous force is applied would need to be changed if the force occurs in bursts.
20. Continuity of Useful Action. Identify how to reduce idle time or make alternative use of time.
21. Skipping. Explore how performing process steps more rapidly might impact introduction of errors.
22. Blessing in Disguise. Determine whether adverse impacts or waste can be reframed and treated as benefits, or even increased to strengthen the potential for indirect benefits.
23. Feedback. Monitor points within the system and evaluate whether utilizing that information can reveal new opportunities for improving the product or process.
24. Intermediary. Explore adding a new component to a system to temporarily or permanently reduce adverse impacts.
25. Self-service. Assess whether there are aspects of the system that can be self-regulating and self-repairing.
26. Copying. Evaluate whether one instance of a component in the system could be used rather than two or more of the same component.
27. Cheap Short-lived Objects. Identify whether short-term disposables play a role in the solution.
28. Mechanics Substitution. Replace mechanical systems with invisible or software systems to see how components of the product or process would be required to adjust.
29. Pneumatics and Hydraulics. Replace solids with liquids or gases to see how components of the product or process would be required to adjust.
30. Flexible Shells and Thin Films. Identify whether introducing thin sheets of materials into parts of the system would alleviate the problem.
31. Porous Materials. Determine whether pores should be introduced or closed within the materials comprising the system.
32. Color Changes. Adjust the color of the component or the system to signal different meanings to users or customers, or identify whether color changes indicate that new information must be acted upon.
33. Homogeneity. Explore how the system would change if you used one type of material for its construction.
34. Discarding and Recovering. Determine how rejecting or regenerating components might adjust the constructs within the system.
35. Parameter Changes. Also described as transforming physical and chemical states, this requires evaluating how resistant the system is to changes in physical composition and parameters in the external environment, such as temperature.
36. Phase Transitions. Explore how to stop, start, and otherwise influence transitions between different states within the system.
37. Thermal Expansion. Identify how heating or cooling a system will influence its structure, feedback between the components, or other factors.
38. Strong Oxidants. Determine whether adding or removing oxygen from the system will change its structure or constitution.
39. Inert Atmosphere. If environmental variables are negative impacts, explore the result of moving those from the system.
40. Composite Materials. Explore whether replacing traditional materials with composites will remove the technical contradictions.

Many tools for quality improvement fit nicely within the TRIZ structure. For example, CTQ Trees can be used to investigate #1, Segmentation, and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can be used to explore #11, Beforehand Cushioning. As a result TRIZ can be used to catalyze innovation not only for design efforts (including new product design), but also to stimulate innovation through the quality improvement process.

What’s Next? I envision new, artistic, right-brained TRIZ-like games for innovative brainstorming like Bizku’s (with a long u). 

See also:  lean, INNOVATION, PROBLEM SOLVING, FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (FMEA), CTQ TREES

Further Reading:

Biography of Genrikh Altshuller: http://www.aitriz.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26

Dew, John. TRIZ: A Creative Breeze for Quality Professionals. Quality Progress, January 2006, p. 44-51.

Scanlan, James. TRIZ 40 Design Principles. Retrieved on December 1, 2009 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/21798337/TRIZ-40-Principles

Wallace, Mark. The Science of Invention. Salon, June 2000. Retrieved on December 1, 2009 from http://mobile.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/29/altshuller/index.html.

According to dictionary.com, one of the definitions for rubric is “any established mode of conduct; protocol.” But the context you’ve probably heard this word in is education – where a grading rubric or a scoring rubric is used to evaluate a complex artifact like a student essay.

In my opinion, it’s time to move the concept of the rubric from the classroom into the mainstream, because it can be applied as a very practical general purpose quality tool! (Hear that, Nancy Tague? I think you should write about rubrics in your next edition of the very excellent book The Quality Toolbox. Let me know if you’d like me to help make this happen.)

A rubric is basically a grid with 1) levels of performance indicated along the top row, and 2) criteria or dimensions of performance listed down the leftmost column. Each cell of the grid contains a descriptive statement that explains how the level of performance in that column might be achieved for a specific dimension:

For example, here’s a rubric that one group constructed to evaluate the quality of the mind maps that they were producing. The performance levels are organized from high performance in the top left (smiley face giving a thumbs up) to low performance in the top right (smiley face that looks like he’s about to pass out):

The dimensions of performance are neatness and presentation, use of images/symbols, and use of color. The descriptive statements in each cell provide specific examples of how the performance level might be achieved, e.g. “has failed to include color in the mind map” is an indicator of a low performance level for the dimension of “use of color” – which is very understandable!

The concept of the rubric as a performance assessment tool is relatively new! Griffin (2009), in a brief history of the rubric, notes that since its introduction in 1981, “the scoring rubric has evolved into a more precise, technical, scientific-looking document. It carries a tone of certainty, authority, and exactitude.” However, she notes, the utility of a rubric will depend upon the thought and consideration that goes into its construction. “A rubric is a product of many minds working collaboratively to create new knowledge. It will, almost by definition, be more thoughtful, valid, unbiased and useful than any one of us could have conceived of being as we worked in isolation.”

Advantages of applying a well developed rubric include:

• Provides a common language for sharing expectations and feedback
• Helps to clarify and distinguish the differences between various performance levels
• Helps to focus an individual or group’s ATTENTION on relevant aspects of each desired quality characteristic or skill area
• Provides a mechanism to more easily identify strengths and opportunities for improvement
• Helps lend objectivity to an evaluation process that might otherwise be subjective

Disadvantages:

• Different rubrics may need to be devised for the different activities or artifacts that are to be evaluated using the rubric
• Not all evaluators will apply the rubric in exactly the same way – there is a subjective element at work here – so people may need to be trained in the use of a rubric, or perhaps it would be more effective in a group consensus context where inter-rater variability can be interactively discussed and resolved
• Creating a rubric can be time consuming
• The rubric may limit exploration of solutions or modes of presentation that do not conform to the rubric

Using Rubrics for Quality Improvement

Rubrics are already applied in the world of quality, although I’ve never heard them go by that name. The process scoring guidelines for the Baldrige Criteria are essentially rubrics (although the extra dimension of ADLI and LeTCI has to be considered in the mind of the examiner). The International Team Excellence Award (ITEA) criteria in the Team Excellence Framework (TEF) also forms a rubric in conjunction with the performance levels of missing, unclear, meets expectations or exceeds expectations.

I see a lot of ways in which rubrics can be developed and applied in the quality community to help us establish best practices for some of our most common project artifacts, such as Project Charters. Nancy Tague includes a Project Charter Checklist in The Quality Toolbox to help us create better and more complete charters… but what if we added a second dimension, which includes performance levels, and turned this checklist into a rubric? Any checklist could be transformed into a rubric. Furthermore, to develop a good rubric, we can brainstorm and rank all of the potential criteria in the left hand column, using a Pareto chart to separate the vital few criteria from the trivial many.

Are any of you already using rubrics for purposes outside training or education? I would love to start a list of resources to share with the quality community.

Reference: Griffin, M. (2009). What is a rubric? Assessment Update, 21(6), Nov/Dec 2009.

Note: There is a comprehensive site containing many examples of rubrics at http://www.web.virginia.edu/iaas/assess/tools/rubrics.shtm – however, they won’t open in Google Chrome.

Jim Collins, author of Built to Last (2004) and Good to Great (2001), released a new compendium of his research this fall entitled Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck – Why Some Thrive Despite Them All. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that these authors have also stumbled upon the importance of quality consciousness – awareness, alignment, and selectively focused attention! These are the keys to developing a highly successful “ten-X” (10X) organization (one that outperforms its industry index by at least ten times, especially during times of great volatility in the business environment).

Collins and his co-author, Morten Hansen, don’t call it quality consciousness, though – they call it “Level 5 Ambition.” And Level 5 Ambition consists of three traits: fanatic discipline, empirical creativity, and productive paranoia. Each of these traits demonstrates one or more aspects of quality consciousness. Here’s how (using excerpts from p. 35 and 36 of the book):

Fanatic discipline: 10Xers display extreme consistency of action – consistency with values, goals, performance standards, and methods. They are utterly relentless, monomaniacal, unbending in their focus on their quests [emphasis added].

Consistency of action is enabled by awareness of quality standards, and unrelenting attention towards achieving them.

Empirical creativity: When faced with uncertainty, 10Xers do not look primarily to other people, conventional wisdom, authority figures, or peers for direction; they look primarily to empirical evidence. They rely upon direct observation, practical experimentation, and direct engagement with tangible evidence. They make their bold, creative moves from a sound empirical base.

By aligning the actions of an organization and its players with what the evidence shows will work, everyone is more confident and able to engage fully in the pursuit of shared goals. A data-driven approach, familiar to anyone who understands quality improvement practice, allows an organization to test its ideas on a smaller scale before committing to major changes.

Productive paranoia: 10Xers maintain hypervigilance, staying highly attuned to threats and changes in their environment, even when – especially when – all’s going well. They assume conditions will turn against them, at perhaps the worst possible moment. They channel their fear and worry into action, preparing, developing contingency plans, building buffers, and maintaining large margins of safety.

Hypervigilance is heightened awareness of the external environment, even during times of peace and productivity. The aspect of productive paranoia that I think is most instructive, however, is that it involves a choice of where to focus your attention: instead of harboring worry and panic about what might happen, the productively paranoid manager will focus on understanding failure modes, developing contingency plans, identifying backup strategies, and planning to branch off on alternative paths, if necessary. The attention is purposefully and positively diverted from unproductive emotions (worry and panic) to productive emotions (the positive feelings associated with being prepared).

Even though nearly 40% of the end of the book is an “Epilogue” containing more detail about Collins and Hansen’s research methodology and results, this is still a very substantial read, and one with very practical advice for businesses aiming to succeed through a challenging economy. My graduate students in technology management enjoyed it too.

Hey everyone! I’m back. I just returned from a 16 state, 20 day, 6392 mile road trip across the US – by myself. For me, driving is one of the most meditative, mind-clearing, rejuvenating activities in existence – especially in the west, where traffic is almost a non-issue.

Like usual, the little voice in my head pontificated about quality for much of the ride. Although I’ll write more about each of these points (and more) in future posts, I wanted to capture some of my “lessons learned” from reflection on the trip.

• When your plan is to drive so many miles, there is NO way you can focus on how many miles you have left to go, and still maintain the mental and physical energy to complete the trip. The best way to ultimately achieve your goal is to point your car blithely in the direction of your intended destination, start moving, start enjoying each moment of the trip, and set smaller, more realistically achievable objectives (like “getting to the town an hour away”). By getting the trip’s endpoint out of your head almost completely, you’re better able to focus on the here and now peacefully, calmly, and with well preserved physical and mental energy (while still making progress towards your goal). This has implications for organizational goal setting!
• By setting smaller objectives, you also leave yourself open to new “trip innovation”. For example, I knew on one part of my trip that I ultimately had to get from Salt Lake City to Santa Fe. By not setting firm deadlines with myself along the way, but allowing myself to go wherever the spirit of the trip led me from day to day (and hour to hour), I ended up doing cool unexpected things like spending an afternoon at the Taos Pueblo, which definitely enhanced the ultimate quality of my trip.
• There are amazing physiological benefits to “getting into flow,” Csikzentmihalyi-style, the most pronounced of which is being able to drive 800 miles in one day (for me) and end the day feeling energized (and able to drive another 200 miles, if I didn’t have that restriction on my driver’s license). Imagine putting in a 12-hour day of work, and then wanting more? That’s how you know you’re on the right track. You’re doing something that you feel good about… you’re getting immediate feedback on your progress… you feel empowered and in enough control.

You might be reading this and say “Hey! Those perspectives are all well and good for a vacation, but it could never apply at work.” And my response to you is… well, why not? IMHO, our work lives should be just as enjoyable as our vacation lives, otherwise we’re doing something wrong. It’s our job to figure out how to make it happen, for ourselves as individuals, and for the groups and organizations we’re affiliated with.

(This post is the result of a collaboration between Amy Shelton and Nicole Radziwill. Image Credit: Doug Buckley of Hyperactive Multimedia at http://www.hyperactive.to)

In our first post on this topic, we talked about the thirty-something entrepreneur who, after building a career working for others, is now ready to be her own boss. In our second post, we talked about possible attributes of a mature entrepreneur (perhaps you are an A player?) and why such individuals might find themselves doing a start-up. From a business point of view, both of the previous posts were focused inward, that is, they explore the qualities of the people behind a start-up.

But how does your customer benefit from your creativity, and your freedom to explore big ideas? Face it – a business will not last long without customers. Ultimately all your work and energy must create value for your customer. And you’ve got so much energy to make your great idea fly! So share that energy with your customers.  Listen to and apply customer feedback. Co-create a great future together.

Probably, the first step you took on your journey into entrepreneurship was to identify a need. In fact, many start-ups spring up because a founder either personally has a need, or knows someone who needs a particular product or service. The “A player” that’s typically at the helm of a start-up will take that identified need — and immediately start brainstorming ways to meet it. “A players” have “the room to explore hypotheses and make mistakes” within the environment of a start-up. Successful entrepreneurs are the ones who marry creativity and innovation with customer desire.

But how do you actually listen to them? What can the magic of your entrepreneurial environment do for your customer, in a practical way?

One actionable way to leverage this freedom is to employ the Lead User process pioneered by 3M. How do you do it? Just pick a group of 3-5 users who definitely need your stuff – you might be one of these users, or already know them – and then let them dictate how your product or service will satisfy their needs! It’s that easy. Keep them with you as trusted advisors throughout the development process.

Future posts will explore creative ways to make “listening to your customer” an actionable task. They’re already out there talking, on Twitter, and Facebook, and discussion boards… what else can you do to hear them, and interact with them, and work together constructively?

A start-up can excel where others have failed. Listen to the needs of your customers. Think creatively. Take risks. Create some magic. Make your customers happy.