Quality and Innovation

Note: This post is NOT about soup. If you’re searching for really good soup to eat, you will not find it here.

This post is, in contrast, about something that @ASQ tweeted earlier today: “QP Perspectives Column: Is the quality profession undermining ISO 9000?”

In this February 2012 column, author Bob Kennedy examines reflected on a heated discussion at a gathering of senior-level quality practitioners regarding the merit of various tools, methodologies and themes in the context of the quality body of knowledge – what I refer to as “quality soup”. These paragraphs sum up the dilemma captured at that meeting:

Next came the bombshell from a very senior quality consultant: “No one is interested in ISO 9000 anymore; they all want lean.” In hindsight, I think he was speaking from a consultant’s perspective. In other words, there’s no money to be made peddling ISO 9000, but there is with lean and LSS.

I was appalled at this blatant undermining of a fundamental bedrock of quality that is employed by more than 1 million organizations representing nearly every country in the world. The ISO 9000 series is Quality 101, and as quality practitioners, we should never forget it.

If we don’t believe this and promote it, we undermine the impact and importance of ISO 9000. We must ask ourselves, “Am I interested in ISO 9000 anymore?”

When I see articles like this, and other articles or books that question whether a tool or technique is just a passing fad (e.g. there’s a whole history of them presented in Cole’s 1999 book) my visceral reaction is always the same. How can so many quality professionals not see that each of these “things we do” satisfies a well-defined and very distinct purpose? (I quickly and compassionately recall that it only took me 6 years to figure this out, 4 of which were spent in a PhD program focusing on quality systems – so don’t feel bad if I just pointed a finger at you, because I’d actually be pointing it at past-me as well, and I’m still in the process of figuring all of this stuff out.)

In a successful and high-performing organization, I would expect to see SEVERAL of these philosophies, methodologies and techniques applied. For example:

• The Baldrige Criteria provide a general framework to align an organization’s strategy with its operations in a way that promotes continuous improvement, organizational learning, and social responsibility. (In addition to the Criteria booklet itself, Latham & Vinyard’s users guide is also pretty comprehensive and accessible in case you want to learn more.)
• ISO 9000 provides eight categories of quality standards to make sure we’re setting up the framework for a process-driven quality management system. (Cianfrani, Tsiakals & West are my two heroes of this system, because it wasn’t until I read their book that I realized what ISO 9001:2000, specifically, was all about.)
• Thus you could very easily have ISO 9000 compliant processes and operations in an organization whose strategy, structure, and results orientation are guided by the Baldrige Criteria.
• Six Sigma helps us reduce defects in any of those processes that we may or may not be managing via an ISO 9000 compliant system. (It also provides us with a couple of nifty methodologies, DMAIC and DMADV, that can help us structure improvement projects that might focus on improving another parameter that describes system performance OR design processes that tend not to yield defectives.)
• The Six Sigma “movement” also provides a management philosophy that centers around the tools and technologies of Six Sigma, but really emphasizes the need for data-driven decision making that stimulates robust conclusions and recommendations.
• Lean helps us continuously improve processes to obtain greater margins of value. It won’t help you reduce defects like Six Sigma will (unless your waste WAS those defects, or you’re consciously mashing the two up and applying Lean Six Sigma). It won’t help you explore alternative designs or policies like Design of Experiments, part of the Six Sigma DMAIC “Improve” phase, might do. It won’t help you identify which processes are active in your organization, or the interactions and interdependencies between those processes, like an ISO 9000 system will (certified or not).
• ISO 9000 only guarantees that you know your processes, and you’re reliably doing what you say you’re supposed to be doing. It doesn’t help you do the right thing – you could be doing lots of wrong things VERY reliably and consistently, while keeping perfect records, and still be honorably ISO certified. The Baldrige process is much better for designing the right processes to support your overall strategy.
• Baldrige, ISO 9000, and lean will not help you do structured problem-solving of the kind that’s needed for continuous improvement to occur. PDSA, and possibly Six Sigma methodologies, will help you accomplish this.

Are you starting to see how they all fit together?

So yeah, let’s GET LEAN and stop wasting our energy on the debate about whether one approach is better than another, or whether one should be put out to pasture. We don’t dry our clothes in the microwave, and we don’t typically take baths in our kitchen sink, but it is very easy to apply one quality philosophy, methodology or set of practices and expect a result that is much better generated by another.

Bob Kennedy comes to the same conclusion at the end of his column, one which I fully support:

All quality approaches have a place in our society. Their place is in the supportive environment of an ISO 9000-based QMS, regardless of whether it’s accredited. Otherwise, these approaches will operate in a vacuum and fail to deliver the improvements they promise.

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.

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.

(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 9000 para 3.1.5, formerly 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.

This post is a collaboration between Eric Sessoms at MyCustomerCloud & Nicole Radziwill.

In previous posts [(1) (2) (3) (4)], we defined authenticity in customer service as not only genuine behavior, but a genuine desire to do what is best for the customer. Both aspects of the definition are required to make magic happen. In this post, we’re going to check out a couple examples of authentic behavior in a customer service environment where genuine behavior is definitely present, but the desire to do what is best for the customer is certainly nowhere to be found. This is the flip side of authenticity in customer service: I’m PO’ed and I’m gonna share it!

Steven Slater became the poster child for and hero of ticked off employees everywhere when he grabbed his beer and slid down the escape chute of his Jet Blue airplane. The Internet has not yet grown weary of re-examining Steven’s actions that day. His reaction was so over the top that it almost makes the frustration he must have felt that day palpable to any of us who can claim some degree of empathy. And the accolades he received from the employed-and-frustrated across America is a clear affirmation that the average worker can relate to his stress level that day. It’s a fantastic example of authencity. There is is no doubt that he said and did exactly what was in his heart at that moment. Too bad it’s become a horrible blot on Jet Blue’s customer service reputation.

A more recent example involves a fantastically authentic AT&T customer service representative rant on Twitter. Rachael Pracht, the CSR in question, railed against a TechCrunch review that highlighted AT&T’s track record of dropped calls on the iPhone and discussed the upcoming Verizon service. Siegler relates the exchange in AT&T Customer Service Rep Tells Us How She Really Feels: “This Is Bullsh*t”. Rachael’s rant echos the frustration of Steven Slater, but she takes it to the next level by choosing a medium that’s effectively a real-time public broadcast. After identifying herself as an AT&T CSR, Rachael states, “This entire article is garbage because it’s all based on an opinion of someone who assumes everything. Thanks anyway.” Kudos on the authenticity. The words make the reader feel as if a direct connection was established between thought and tweet. However, as you might imagine, AT&T wasn’t so thrilled. Siegler reports that “Pracht’s account has been suspended by Twitter now. We do know that AT&T is looking into the situation.” Plus Siegler is now even more stoked about his move to Verizon.

They’re looking into the situation. Yeah, that doesn’t sound too good for Rachael.

Although it feels good to sound off under stress, we always need to remember that as paid employees we do represent more than ourselves. This little detail is important to keep in mind when the desire to do what is best for the customer begins to wane. And if a customer is being difficult, it’s our responsibility to find more productive outlets for our frustration.

Racquetball, anyone?

This post is a collaboration between Eric Sessoms at MyCustomerCloud & Nicole Radziwill.

In previous posts [(1) (2) (3)], we focused on authenticity in customer service. Being authentic in customer service means that the customer service rep demonstrates a genuine desire to do what is right for the customer. But what if what is right for the customer is not what the customer says he or she wants – or is asking for? The customer isn’t always right, and being authentic sometimes means letting them know.

Take, for example, a blog post we really enjoyed written by a guy named Rob – entitled “How to Detect a Toxic Customer”. Sometimes, your potential customers are vast reservoirs of viscous, acerbic sludge that will pollute the health of your company at best, or at worst, vaporize you upon contact. Citing a specific story in which he interacted with a toxic customer, Rob writes:

Few things are worse than supporting a demanding, entitled customer who feels that their purchase price buys them control over your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

In the end, it turns out that all the demands of Rob’s customer were completely unnecessary and overly complicated. (The Toxic Customer was eventually booted from his liaison role by another representative from the same company – who turned out to be much more civil and sane, and in fact – easy to work with.) At each point in the conversation with the Toxic Customer, Rob respectfully focused on his expressed desires (even though those desires seemed to be excessive). On the surface, Rob’s behavior could be perceived as authenticity. However, the real authenticity in this situation was demonstrated when Rob really started to question the expressed desires of the customer with boldness and tact.

The old adage “the customer is always right” isn’t always right – especially if we rely on the customer to be able to accurately express his needs. Great customer service is a partnership. Authenticity can mean pulling the plug on the relationship if that partnership can’t be effectively achieved.

(1) http://qualityandinnovation.com/2010/10/08/getting-to-great-authenticity-in-customer-service/
(2) http://qualityandinnovation.com/2010/11/05/authentic-customer-service-leadership-through-authenticity-part-i/
(3) http://qualityandinnovation.com/2010/11/12/authentic-customer-service-leadership-through-authenticity-part-ii/