Quality and Innovation

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.)

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

Are you an entry-level Young Quality Professional (YQP) who has participated or led a project that resulted in tangible benefits for your organization or community? Are you a student in high school or college who has worked individually, or with a team, to apply quality tools to solve practical problems in your school, or community, or at home? If so, WE WANT YOU to tell us about it!

On Wednesday, May 23rd, we will be conducting a session at the ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement (WCQI) to demonstrate the impact that the newest members of our community – students and entry-level professionals – have had on their organizations, businesses, and communities. This session will consist of vignettes from up to 15 quality or process improvement projects performed by students or entry-level professionals. We’ll be inviting all WCQI attendees to come celebrate the accomplishments of the youngest members of our community, and support them as they progress in their education and in their careers!

HOW TO APPLY: Send an email to Jacob Mayiani Loorimirim (Graduate Assistant, JMU) at loorimjm@dukes.jmu.edu (and cc: simmo2ra@jmu.edu and radziwnm@jmu.edu) with short answers to each of the 6 questions below. Project review started on February 1 and will continue until all slots are filled, or February 29 at the latest.

If your project is selected to be part of the Showcase, we’ll work with you to put together a few slides, audio recordings, and/or video clips that describe the problem you solved, the quality tools and approaches you used, your results, and the impact of your solution on your stakeholders. We plan to spend between 3 and 5 minutes showcasing each project. If you are a student who will be attending the WCQI in person, we would love for you to submit a project that you completed individually or as a team – and talk about it yourself for 2 to 3 minutes during our session!

QUESTIONS:

1. Project completed by: (List your names and ages, and specify whether this was part of a school/university project, for a client, or was done in service to your community; if you had a teacher or faculty advisor, please list them too! Also, let us know if you plan to attend the WCQI in person in Anaheim, CA this May.)

2. Project title:

3. Project start and completion dates:

4. Provide a brief problem statement (1-3 sentences) that summarizes the problem, your stakeholders, and your goals:

5. Provide a brief description of your hands-on performance while completing the project, providing specific examples of the methodologies (e.g. PDSA, DMAIC) and/or tools (e.g. process maps, fishbone diagrams, Pareto charts, affinity diagrams, multivoting/nominal group technique) that you used to solve the problem.

6. In one sentence, describe your project’s RESULTS and the impacts on its stakeholders.

Thank you for your interest! Please forward this announcement by email, Facebook, Twitter, or any other mechanism if you know of a Young Quality Professional (YQP) whose work should be noticed and recognized – or where they might be hanging out.

Sincerely,

Nicole Radziwill, College of Integrated Science & Technology, James Madison University
Rebecca Simmons, College of Business, James Madison University

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.

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

In a previous article, I described the notion of quality consciousness that I’m currently preparing an article about.

To achieve quality consciousness, we ask the very important question (cf. ISO 8402) “What are the totality of characteristics of YOU that bear upon YOUR ABILITY to satisfy the stated and implied needs of your stakeholders?”

The reason we WANT quality consciousness is because we know that the more in tune with the essence of quality that we are, within ourselves, the better we will attune to the needs of our customers and clients – to be able to help them achieve their goals for making things better, more streamlined, and more cost effective.

I summarized quality consciousness as the “3 A’s” – Awareness, Alignment, and Attention:

Quality consciousness implies awareness of yourself and the environment around you (including what constitutes quality and high performance for people, processes and products – most importantly, YOU). It also suggests that you must achieve alignment of your consciousness with the consciousness of the organization, which will aid in full activity and engagement of the senses. Your attention must be selectively focused onto what you can accomplish in the present moment according to that alignment (which implies that you are able to effectively filter the rapid and voluminous streams of information coming at you).

It struck me today how similar this whole notion is to Timothy Leary’s appeal to the counterculture of the late 1960’s, to achieve breakthrough innovation in individual and collective perception of the world to “Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out”! The message, according to the summary on Wikipedia, was intended to “urge people to embrace cultural changes… detaching themselves from the existing conventions and hierarchies in society.”

So if you want to improve a product, a process, or yourself, embrace the breakthrough innovation that is promised by quality consciousness!

• TURN ON = Become aware of quality standards and the true meaning of excellence, for you and for the domain you work in.
• TUNE IN = Align yourself personally and professionally with your goals, and those of your organization!
• DROP OUT! Focus your attention on the essentials… don’t be distracted by the down economy, by social upheaval, or the perils of ever-increasing competition.

Deliver value… to yourself and those around you! Make it a personal imperative and watch the avalanche of breakthrough innovations begin to cascade around you and your inspirational attitude.

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.

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

What if your weaknesses were actually your strengths – but you just haven’t figured out what those weaknesses have been trying to tell you, or how to transform them intro strengths yet? (Wouldn’t you feel better about feeling weak?)

 “I believe in shaking up the way things are done.” –Leo Babauta, zenhabits.com, in “When Being Who You Are Challenges the Norms“

Embracing your weaknesses can help you shake things up to challenge the norms. Thanks to @ChrisSpagnuolo for tweeting that this was the best thing he read a few days ago, which made me click the link and read it too. I appreciated it as well – because I also believe in shaking up the way things are done. However, my approach is a little different: whereas Leo reflects on the impact he’s had on others by being vegan, minimalist, self-employed, carless, and so on – I believe you can shake up the way things are done by aspiring to be the best you that you can be – especially when you being your best means embracing aspects of yourself that others (or society) typically view as weaknesses.

Here’s what I mean. A few months ago I was having a deep talk with my friend  @jack122112, lamenting my lack of ability to focus. (At least that’s how I interpret it… and how it feels.) I’m all over the place, and always have been. I have three degrees in three different fields, and a fourth Master’s that I almost completed. I’ve had jobs as a software engineer, a manager of software engineers, a data analyst, a post office contractor, a physics and calculus tutor, a psychiatric office manager, a medical biller, a business analyst, a scientific analyst, a secretary, a management consultant, an engagement manager, and a professor. The books I can see from where I’m sitting right now cover topics from quality to eclipses to brewing beer (which I don’t do, I just think about) to statistics to ergonomics to dream interpretation. I’ve explored topics and done research in a hodgepodge of areas to the point where it probably looks, from the outside, that there’s no cohesive theme among my interests.

But there is a common element – a point of cohesion – and that’s ME.

Jack wasn’t bothered at all by my dilemma. “Well,” he said, “perhaps your ability to connect with so many ideas in so many different areas IS your strength. Why are you so bothered that you can’t seem to focus in one area? Maybe that’s just not what you were meant to do. Maybe you should accept it.”

Women for a long time were kept out of the workplace because they were thought to be too weak or emotional for many jobs. People used to throw away very little, and nothing was ‘disposable’ because that was thought to be wasteful … wait, maybe that wasn’t so bad. What if you could shake things up … just by being who you are? Without having to do anything but tell someone who or what you are? –Leo

I’ve spent the past few months just accepting my dilemma, and not worrying about it too much. Maybe I’m just not meant to focus in one area, I’ve told myself, and I will discover the hidden strength in this. And paradoxically, since making this decision I’ve been more focused and content – and much more productive.

So here’s an exercise for you. What’s your weakness? What bothers you the most about your personal habits? And why do you think it’s such a problem?

For example, let’s say you just can’t get things done. You totally lack productivity… you’re a slacker. There’s a hundred things you know you have to do, but if no one is pushing you to do them, you’re just going to go off and play video games. And feel like a total loser. And apologize to the people you’ve let down when parts of your world come crashing down around you. (If I were you, the first thing I’d ask myself is, why do I need to be so productive anyway? Challenge the foundations upon which the assumption lies.)

What if your weaknesses are trying to tell you something? A few years ago, after bemoaning my struggles with time management, I discovered that I have enough time (and enough focus) for everything I truly want to do. And for those things I don’t get done, or just don’t have the energy to focus on, I’ve got to be real with myself — and figure out which one (or more) of these five obstacles are getting in my way! Then, after unveiling the root causes of my weakness… I can move on with a grounded, practical solution to transform it into a strength.

I really like Doug Buckley’s Facebook posts (he’s from http://hyperactive.to). Our connection was purely accidental – he tagged a picture of the back of my husband’s head on Facebook as his own, and after a short online debate (where he finally acknowledged that I was probably an expert in recognizing the back of my own spouse’s head) we friended one another. Doug posts great photos and images (like the one on the top left of this post), insights, quotes and music about 40 or 50 times a day. One of Doug’s recent gems was “Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.” ~ Winston Churchill

The ability to move from one failure to another (presumably, using each as a valuable learning experience) with no loss of enthusiasm! Wow, I thought… not only is that the secret to innovation, but… I am SO not good at doing that. When I’m facing a failure, I do what any sane, logical person in the grips of Chinese handcuffs will do… I pull harder. I rearrange the deck chairs faster. I get really &$^#&^$& angry. Then I pretend like everything’s OK. And when I can’t deal with pretending any longer, I break down into tears (hopefully not around other people).

Then, in the words of Fred and Ginger, I pick myself up – dust myself off – and start all over again.

(I just read this again, and just so you don’t miss the point of that last sentence… after I dust myself off, I’m starting again on the negative pattern of trying even harder. What, you think I’d give up that easily?)

It’s a miserable approach, though, regardless of how noble it sounds. Pulling harder or pushing harder (whatever you’re doing) requires more effort and rarely generates better results. And if you’re pushing against someone else who’s not ready to see your light, or pushing on a project that other people just aren’t ready to play within the bounds of, well… good luck.

I’m a smart person. I’m solution oriented. I can make things happen!! As a result, I doggedly pursue my goals. And when I’m meeting with resistance (especially when that resistance doesn’t seem to make sense to me), I don’t respond very gracefully at all. (Sometimes I even turn psycho-chick, which makes me feel even more disturbed, because I’m pretty level headed in general and I wouldn’t act like that, would I?)

The illusion of control is an affliction that’s unique to humans. Bears looking for salmon will move on if their favorite spot in the river isn’t producing. If people were bears, we’d stick around, keep waiting, commit to a positive attitude, convene a quality circle or tiger team, rehash past data that proves the salmon used to be there (or extrapolate to show they will be there again, really), wish real hard that the salmon are still there, pretend nothing has changed, craft convincing arguments that the cost/benefit of moving to another place in the river is prohibitive (or my favorite, just cost neutral), curse the river, wish we’d never gotten into the habit of eating salmon in the first place, lose all motivation, lose sense of the meaning in one’s life without the salmon, or sit on the riverbanks weeping over the ephemeral salmon who just won’t show up no matter what we do. Pretty pathetic. Nowhere near as agile as moving to another spot in the river where the salmon may have moved on to themselves.

Professor of psychology Jonathan Rottenberg has hypothesized that this resistance mechanism is also what compels depressed people to stay in bed – hiding under the covers, retreating into sleep or alcohol or drugs (pick your poison) – is just a way to deal with one’s inability to disengage from efforts that are failing. He writes:

So this alternative theory turns the standard explanation on its head. Depressed people don’t end up lying in bed because they are undercommitted to goals. They end up lying in bed because they areovercommitted to goals that are failing badly. The idea that depressed people cannot disengage efforts from failure is a relatively new theory. It has not been much tested in research studies. However, the idea is well worth exploring. It fits well clinically with the kinds of situations that often precipitate serious depression — the battered wife who cannot bring herself to leave her troubled marriage, the seriously injured athlete who cannot bring himself to retire, the laid off employee who cannot bring herself to abandon her chosen career despite a lack of positions in her line of work. Seeing these depressions in terms of unreachable goals may be useful clinically, and may help us better understand how ordinary low moods can escalate into incapacitating bouts of depression.

To be innovative, we have to learn how to detach from failure quickly and move on with the next stage of our ideas with enthusiasm. If Rottenberg’s new hypothesis has merit, to escape depression we have to learn how to detach from failure quickly and move on to our next goals or the next phases of our lives – with enthusiasm.

Can a futuristic mental health intervention increase our personal innovative potential?

My hunch is yes. There are always other fish in the sea.