Another simple way I apply principles from quality management to my day to day life is by structuring my problem-solving plans in terms of DMAIC, DMADV, or Root Cause Analysis. Sometimes, more than one methodology can be useful. How do you choose which methodology to use? Here’s how I do it:
DMAIC is applied to process improvement. The process has to exist already… and it’s already performing to specifications. But you want to make it even better. Applying the measurements and analysis tools associated with DMAIC can help.
DMADV is applied to new process design. The process doesn’t exist yet… and you need to create it so that it satisfies needs. This approach helps you articulate and implement innovative possibilities.
Root Cause Analysis is also applied to process improvement. The process exists already… but something’s wrong! Quality standards or performance standards are not being met, and we need to figure out why, so we can fix it. Applying the basic quality tools that are associated with RCA can help.
Here’s an examples of how we’ve applied this approach.
One of the members of my household is frustrated by the way the dishwasher is loaded. He thinks the process can be substantially improved, so that we can fit more dishes in at any given time (thus conserving water and dish detergent) and relieving his frustration. We applied RCA tools (FMEA and Pareto charts) to determine that it was a training issue… one person in the house needed to be trained on the appropriate process for queueing up the dishes and loading them. DMAIC was applied to make sure that this training occurred, and that there was a control plan in place to ensure that the lessons learned were consistently retained. This resulted in an increase in cycle time (good!) from once a day to once every three days, and a decrease in almost all frustration. 🙂
I remember a few years ago hearing about a study that claimed using Microsoft PowerPoint makes you dumb. On the basis that effective communication can either enhance or hinder quality improvement efforts, I decided to look back today and see a) where that information came from, and b) if it’s accurate. Given that over 400 million people used PowerPoint in 2003, the number of people who use it today (or other comparable presentation software, like OpenOffice) is probably even larger.
”It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation,” the [NASA] board [reviewing the project] sternly noted.
My advice would be for senior managers preparing these presentations to communicate more deliberately, in words like “THIS IS A LIFE-THREATENING CONDITION!! IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!!” Unfortunately, that might be perceived as “too easy” or alternatively, the senior managers might not have wanted to admit a problem for fear that they would lose their funding. In any case, respect for human life should come above all, and should certainly be a reason for bare, clear communication – regardless of whether the message is delivered by PowerPoint, in person, or as part of a 40-lb., 500-page treatise.
Ultimately, Tufte concluded, PowerPoint is infused with ”an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.”
I would think that the burden of communication is on the communicator. There are many times where we only have a few minutes or an hour to convey a complex message, and for this, PowerPoint can be effective. However, if there’s a message that cannot be conveyed in simple terms, it’s up to the communicator to say so, and in really simple language, e.g. “this is a grave concern, and you need to review the complete report, now!” Easier said than done, I know.
But a far more complete review of the Tufte brochure at http://contactsheet.org notes that Tufte specifically argues against this position, noting that communicators are just victims of the product’s lack of user-centered design. Is the criticism of PowerPoint accurate? Possibly – I didn’t read the in-depth study so I don’t have a reason to believe or disbelieve the causal link between PowerPoint and stupidity. However, the recommendation ignores one critical element: that if the material is indeed comprehensively described in a much larger memo, people may or may not read and comprehend it.
However, let’s say you’re a patient in the hospital facing a life or death diagnosis, and a team of physicians is charged with solving your mystery. Do you want them making a decision based on the PowerPoint version of your case, or on all 800 pages of your medical history? Personally, I’d vote for the latter.But I would also insist that the medical team be given appropriate time to review, internalize, and reflect on the information before making a decision. This is a step that unfortunately has become a luxury in many organizations! Bottom line – the burden still remains with the communicator for now.
Buss (2006) doesn’t argue with the premise, and just writes about ways to use PowerPoint effectively. His article provides five tips from a professor in the Graduate School of Business at SUNY Albany. Starting with the premise that PowerPoint is ubiquitous in training sessions and presentations, the author first recommends that we subvert the linear “title and text” format that everyone is accustomed to because it does not capture peoples’ attention. Though this point is a sweeping generalization that is not substantiated, one opinion of the author is to remedy the situation by “switch[ing] the display order of the presentation. Present supporting data with points on the first slide and show the data and draw the conclusions on the next.” He also suggests that PowerPoint first be used to outline a message, and then a report should be written to expound upon the details, rather than the other way around. Buss also recommends to keep the information per slide short (though he does not suggest a “good” length for training slides), and provides the clichéd guidance that one should not merely read out his or her slides. The best advice is given in the author’s fifth point, where he recognizes that the presentation begins well before you start talking, and ends until your meeting is over. He suggests that the presenter mix with the audience to get a sense of their needs, and target those needs in the spoken presentation.