You are absolutely correct – Six Sigma does not inherently foster business and product innovation, but rather encourages efficient and defect free processes.Six Sigma, per se, is a process improvement methodology. True, I believe that it demonstrates a true return on investment when the solutions generated at the ‘I’ stage are much better than they would have been at the ‘D’ stage of DMAIC, which is nearly always the case, but that is often as far as it goes.Design for Six Sigma is a much miss-used approach that should extend Six Sigma to support the successful introduction of new products and services, but often degenerates into statistical optimization at the micro level.My own take on DfSS is that it should be integrated into the corporate New Product Introduction program (NPI) which begins in the board room. Here, corporate executives armed with a deeper understanding of the business process structure and performance, as well as greater knowledge of the customers’ needs and requirements (from applying Six Sigma across the company), outline new ideas for future products / services that will better meet corporate strategy, satisfy (even excite) customers, and make more money. The NPI program takes these new ideas to market, maximizing their potential returns. DfSS fits within NPI to make the actual ‘design’ part work for everyone, including the customer. DfSS does not give a company new products or services, it helps them design them better! When working with DfSS I often find that companies do not have an NPI to start with, hence no new ideas, and DfSS is often used as a ‘try this’ tool. New products / services are often also often derived from technology push rather than business / customer need pull. Many ‘new products / services’ are actually just iterative technical improvements on existing ideas and lack fundamental innovation.To add innovation to our ideas and products we can use TRIZ, which is the one and only true innovation tool and principle available, and has traditionally been used by large corporation R&D departments. TRIZ can be fitted into Six Sigma, but probably works best in DfSS. The enlightenment in TRIZ is that inventive problems solve inherent contradictions. Much of DfSS (and even Six Sigma) is used to design or work around contradictions (such as speed and quality) rather than using TRIZ tools to innovate and solve the contradiction. Powerful stuff!To add innovation to our business we need to add an NPI program right up to the board room, based firmly on output from company wide Six Sigma understanding of business and customer. This will (hopefully) generate a ‘customer needs’ pull. TRIZ also has much to say about technical evolution and market placement / development, which the modern business executive would do well to understand.Many companies today are in dying markets, and companies drop into a ‘consolidation’ mode, attempting to wring the last drop of efficiency out of the business. The end is both inevitable and painful. The only way to make real money is to innovate successfully and continuously. McDonalds is based on a (at the time) brilliant innovation (that the current company bought up not thought up) to the way food is prepared and served in a restaurant. Customer expectations and market placement have shifted over the decades, and a new innovation is required to restore profitability in this market sector.Traditionally innovation is associated with boffins who are not good at ‘business’; there is a history of one person thinking of a great idea and someone else making money from it. The base point of the article (if you have read it and my comments carefully) is that innovation is a cultural thing, and Six Sigma is also a cultural thing, but that the two don’t mix. To be creative we need to be wild and whacky (type ‘A’), to be good at business (save/make money) we need to be careful and restrained (type ‘B’). This is true, and is an excellent TRIZ contradiction to be solved! Many great companies are large, with a group of wild creative people over there, and a bunch of restrained accountants somewhere else – we separate the conflict by space/person. Many great Six Sigma projects are wild and creative in the ‘I’ stage, and show dignified restraint in the ‘DMA’ stages (but go off the rails at the ‘C’ stage – shifting culture mid stream is hard work!). We separate the conflict by time. The painful DfSS projects are those with a bunch of type ‘A’ and type ‘B’ on the same project, or even worse, the ‘B’s in the boardroom (basic idea) and the ‘A’s on the team (told to make it work).What we need are individuals at all key points in a company who can exhibit both ‘A’ thinking and ‘B’ thinking according to time and need. We cannot make money just by innovating, and we cannot make money just by having efficient processes. We need both.Six Sigma is no longer enough. In the short term add TRIZ – both the tools and the principles. In the longer term work at company culture to blend innovation and corporate governance into the same teams and ultimately the same people – the Black Belts for example – and then move these people up to the senior positions.
