Quality and Innovation

Someone on LinkedIn recently asked “Are there examples of processes where the concept of Lean, the philosophy of Six Sigma, or other quality tools don’t work?”

Fortunately, there have been plenty of researchers who have asked this question already. A persistent in theme in the management and quality management academic literature over the past several years has been to study the conditions under which quality practices “work”. To me, “working” means that the return on investment (ROI) has been worthwhile – doing the project yielded more benefits than not doing the project.

For all the bottom-line success stories from TQM implementations in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, and Six Sigma from the 1990’s until now, there are lots of “failed projects” that didn’t deliver on their promises.

My favorite overview is a meta-analysis from Benner & Tushman (2003) in the Academy of Management Review. Summarizing several other research studies, they found that “in stable, technologically certain settings [quality management] practices may be productive, [but] in uncertain or technically complex contexts these practices may be quite counterproductive.” The more rapidly the competitive environment is changing, the less likely quality management or process improvement will “work”.

• Slowly changing competitive environment = Better success with quality initiatives
• Rapidly changing competitive environment = Less success with quality initiatives

Granted, this isn’t a complete conclusion, because the skill and style of the process improvement team can impact its potential for success. But it does suggest that a company should consider the competitive environment as it sets its own expectations for what a process management initiative can deliver.

Benner, M.J. & Tushman, M.L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.