iSixSigma

Innovating for Six Sigma

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Innovating for Six Sigma

Viewing 52 posts - 1 through 52 (of 52 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #35698

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello:
    I have been working on this topic for a while.  I have developed a Process, methodology, and theory of innovation.  The equation that I have come up with to put the innovation puzzle together, love to announce it at iSixSigma!, is as follows:
                        Innovation = Effort x Speed of Thought**2
    where Speed of thought is a function of knowledge, combinatorial play, and imagination.  Any comments?
    Praveen 

    0
    #100934

    Syed Alam
    Member

    How do you propose we measure effort, and speed of thought.
    Syed

    0
    #100935

    mman
    Participant

    Hi Praveen
    Excellent.Hope to be able to present an actual (simple) example to make it practical.What do you mean by  “combinatioma play “?
    Thirdly how to measure efforts and the speed of thoughts in practice?
    I believe one important factor is missing (or may be it is missing),as it is the catalyst of any effort,namely the  Commitment,there is also a mathematical equation for it (Commitment=Time+Persistance+Enthusiasm) I will add “Loyalty” to that ,I have went through  Innovative “change experience “and found “Loyalty and Enthusiasm”as the most important factors for success.
       Anyhow I admire your theory and wish  you success and like to add one more thing (which is also Vital  for success) it is “Uniqueness”,to feel that you are “unique” with high level of self-confedence .
         Just my humble opinion,good luck.               MMAN       

    0
    #100936

    Dear Praveen,
    Could you please provide an example – perhaps a short case study? What product development led you to this conclusion?
    Cheers,
    Andy

    0
    #100940

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Andy, Mman and Syd:
    Thanks for all your questions about innovation theory.  First, one needs to see teh relationship.  This evolved after I researched the topic and wrote about 40 pages describing the methodology, process.  Still theory was missing.  Theory mean some binding relationship.  I went to visit the Einstein’s exhibit for inspiration.  Suddenly, his equation fit into the model right away. Accordingly, we are continually transforming the form of energy. Therefore, m, the mass can relate to the effort (which scientifically equivalent to work done (massxforce), secondly the speed of light.  We all can experience that speed of thought is much faster than the speed of light.  Therefore, we should be able to apply the E = mc**2.
    You all have raised good questions about measurements.  That’s where further research must be done.  In any case, initially this can be used for self assessment as that can be the most accurate measurement.  The combinatorial play is all about experimentation with different variables, imagination – range of fields one visits mentally, and knowledge – level of expertise. I understand most of them are subjective initially. However once they make sense, methods are developed later to measure if we value it. 
    So, take it as a initial relationship and concept. Build on it to see how it could be practiced.  Any recommendations are welcome.  Your collaboration is sought.
    Praveen

    0
    #100943

    SSNewby
    Member

    Praveen,
     
    This seems like a desire on your part to frame a simple intuitive concept into a product development or innovation paradigm.    You are saying that innovation is a derivative of hard work, knowing your topic, trying different approaches, and using your imagination.  I believe those were the rather obvious life lessons that my parents told me when I was a kid.    What am I missing?  (Other than, I suppose, personal demonstration of successful application.)  Thanks.
     SSNewby

    0
    #100944

    Hogg
    Participant

    You are 50 years too late. Innovation theory was worked out between 1946 and 1979 by Genrich Altshuller et al and is known as TRIZ – the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving.
     
    An innovation is an idea that solves an inventive problem.
    An inventive problem is one that contains a fundamental contradiction, either in terms of the need for two conflicting parameters or two opposed states of one parameter.
     
    Inventive problem solving has its own algorithm, ARIZ, and a number of laws, principles, and tools, and has been developed over many years by a great number of people across the world.
    TRIZ requires some effort, but takes the hit and miss out of innovation by providing a rigorous approach to finding and solving contradictions. In this way it dramatically accelerates the ‘speed of thought’ and, in effect, allows us to know everything knowable. Innovation is certainly improved by knowing ‘things’, and TRIZ has list of physical ‘effects’ to help us. The central tool in TRIZ is the 40 inventive principles, a distillation of the most innovative ideas applied in over a million patents.
    And TRIZ has its own measure of success. All systems must improve by increasing the ‘ideality’ metric, which is the sum of all benefits, divided by the sum of all costs and the sum of all harm. Using the TRIZ principle of the Ideal Final Solution we can set both the target (all the benefits at zero cost and zero harm) and measure our innovation (increase benefits and reduce cost without adding any harm).
    TRIZ has a long history of being used in R&D in large corporations, and is now being applied and used in Six Sigma.

    0
    #101043

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Mike:
    Here is the innovation string.  I am learing about the ‘string’ theory!
    This kinda brings back my discussion about innovation by responding to the last two messages.
    I understand TRIZ and like using it.  However, there are other pieces that missing surrounding TRIZ that is evident from overall usage vs. its potential for usage.
    Sometimes, things become obvious once it is pointed out. Even though my equation may look like obvious, there is more to it.  Remember, common sense is not so common, and obvious is also oblivious.
    Praveen

    0
    #101047

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Praveen,
    Maybe this exercise we do in leadership training will convey my thoughts on your formula (I have not read anything on string theory but if it helped in your formula then my feeling will be a little predisposed):
    Facilitator (to group): What is the one job that we all have in common?
    Group: (generally some groping type answers)
    Facilitator: How about thinking? Are we all paid to think?
    Group: Yea! (there will almost always be one who says no – this usuallu will let you know who is the jaded jerk in the group and where you will be getting trouble from all day or until you hammer them – just ask them why they continue in a job where their thoughts are not appreciated or is it just low self esteem)
    Facilitator: Since we agree that it is our job – what is thinking?
    Group: (generally no response)
    Facilitator: It is everyones job and nobody knows what it is?
    Group: (now you will get some odd responses)
    Facilitator: How about this? Pattern recognition?
    Group: Pattern recognition? 
    Facilitator: You know recognizing things and grouping them so you understand how to deal with them.
    Group: Yea
    Facilitator: Lets look at this scenario “When you are driving down the street and you see a red octagonal object ahead on the side of the road do you think – stop sign, lift my right foot, move it to the left, apply downward presure to the brake at an increasing rate so the vehicle stops before the stop sign?”
    Group: No we just do it.
    Facilitator: So when you recognize patterns you actually stop thinking?
    Group: Yea
    Facilitator: So who has the most patterns?
    Group: The people who have the most experience.
    Facilitator: Good. So who stops thinking first?
    Group: The people with the most experience?
    Facilitator: It seems so. Who do we ask for advice most frequently and why do we always get the same solutions? (let the conversation go where ever it goes at this point)
    I have trouble with your equation for a couple reasons. I would like to see the relationship between speed and inovation proven. Second, an MSA on the speed measurement would be interesting. Fast answers would seem to be a lack of inovation – more of a “oh yea, I have an answer for that question” type thing.
    Actually the effort part of the equation has the same problem. One grunt is a low effort, two grunts a little more, …..?
    Inovation seems to come from free thinkers. Unfortunately free thinkers and organizations are like brown shoes and a tux (if you don’t get the brown shoes and tux thing you may be a free thinker). The most inovative people are typically left out of teams because they make people unconfortable. People pick people like them – because they are comfortable – then they go through that inane process called “brainstorming” and get consensous or build on some inane mental gas pain and think they have a solution. Typically it is more of the same stuff that got them into trouble to begin with. I am sure you have heard that tired cliche “You don’t know what you don’t know.” Try this “Not knowing what you don’t know makes you comfortable.”
    I have seen inovation through SS. Putting some effort into problem resolution by using data rather than “group think” (brainstorming) to come up with solutions shuts off the old tribal legends. The guru’s have sat around their circle of stones burning incense and imparting their wisdom. Doing things contrary to their wisdom results in being ostricized by the tribe. Data tests that wisdom. When that wisdom turns out to be nonsense it frees people to find new solutions – they may not have a solution but they are uncomfortable – their compass isn’t pointing north any longer.
    I am sure people are tired of hearing about the book “The Deviant’s Advantage” but this is what Watts Wacker is talking about. It is a loss of context. If you look at the increasing speed of change – maybe it is that loss of context that is freeing people from tradional thought that is allowing inovation to accelerate?
    I really don’t think your inovation formula is any more useful that that sigma thing you do. You seem to consistently refuse to address measurement and wrap opinion around some formula that makes it appear credible. That may seem a little harsh but you seem to be putting a lot of effort into the esoteric when you are missing one of the most basic tools in the Measurement Phase.
    Just my opinion.
     

    0
    #101050

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Mike:
    Love your writing. I knew this is what I will get from you. Actually, you wrote very well, better than I thought.  I agree that I don’t have answers for all the questions about MSA that you have raised.  I understand MSA is a important aspect of Six Sigma.  
    What happens if you are supposed to build a widget, with its target and tolerances defined.  If we have the capability to build very close to the target.  How much you would want to invest in MSA?  In my opinion, I would love to produce and ship the widget without any testing to keep the cost down.
    I appreciate your feedback and will catch you again. By the way, you put too much emphasis on MSA, in my opinion. Measurements alone do not give the complete picture of any subject.
    What you called my ‘sigma’ thing (my Six Sigma Business Scorecard) is not doing bad. I will be teaching at a University next month, and developing a software soon. FYI.
    Praveen

    0
    #101051

    lin
    Participant

    This was an awesome posting. Salut!

    0
    #101052

    lin
    Participant

    Where does chance or dumb luck factor in???

    0
    #101053

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Bill,
    Thank you.
    Regards,
    Mike

    0
    #101054

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Bill:
    Chance or dumb luck can be factored in through a ‘fuzz’ factor, or coefficient of innovation!
    praveen

    0
    #101056

    Mikel
    Member

    Praveen,
    You lack of appreciation for measurement shows your lack of understanding for IMPLEMENTATION. While you are correct that measurement doesn’t give a complete picture, a bad measurement will always give an unacceptable picture.
    Please keep the “sigma” thing and your innovation formula at the university where they will be relatively harmless. Just further proof of the imminent demise of a good thing.

    0
    #101057

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Praveen,
    Please remember you solicited my opinion. I never asked for yours.
    Thank you for the back handed compliment on writing “Actually, you wrote very well, better than I thought.”  Let respond in kind – congratulations on your teaching position – as long as you continue to teach SS without an understanding and appreciation of MSA the rest of us who consult in SS have a very bright future.
    It is nice to paint a picture of utopia and not have a measurement system in the process. Your comment “In my opinion, I would love to produce and ship the widget without any testing to keep the cost down.” is naive and ignorant. You are wrapping yourself in god and motherhood statements without any understanding of what it takes to produce a widget without testing or inspection. Before that is possible someone will need to measure something – at the very least in the design and launch phase (just a hint – the reason we spend so much on it in a process is because it typically is not spent in design – so you propose to not spend it at all – very enlightened). Qualifying a measurement system is inexpensive as opposed to the alternative of producing a product based on faith. A new book – “The Religion of Maufacturing”?
    I appreciate the update on the software but it is just like any other automation process. Automating a bad system just produce bad product faster. The upside for you (commercially) is that there is a whole herd of people out there that believe once a computer produces it – it is fact.
    Take a look at the graph that every Belt should be exposed to in training that demonstrates the effects of MSA on Cpk. You need to understand what type of capability it takes to drive “no test and no inspection” when you don’t know what the measurement system or lack thereof is doing. Lets talk about the cost of increasing capability to a completely idiotic point so you don’t have to do MSA? You are stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.
    You continue to sell “data driven decision making” without establishing the quality of your data. That is different that the non-math approach to SS – it is the Jim Baker approach to SS.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #101059

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Amen. (I am still in the spiritual MSA mode).
    I agree with you completely. Lets take it one more step. If measurement doesn’t provide the complete picture – lets not do any measurements (ever – don’t want to increase the product cost).
    Praveen – the picture is more complete or less complete?

    0
    #101061

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Mike:
    You are right. I asked for your opinion.  I think I got more than I can handle at this time! Thanks a lot.
    Let me chew this for a while. 
    Stan, at first, I thought you were not sarcastic. I guess I was wrong about your comments last time.
    Best Regards,
    Praveen
    Praveen

    0
    #101062

    SSNewby
    Member

    Chance or dumb luck factored in with a fuzz factor?  Oh, you must mean that 1.5 sigma shift thingy…    When I politely asked earlier what in your formula was beyond the obvious you gave me an obscure reference to common sense not being common and the obvious being oblivious – so I conclude the answer is, “nothing, it is what it is.”  Which is OK.    At least you didn’t call me Grasshopper… 

    0
    #101063

    Mikel
    Member

    Yes, you were wrong. I think this whole innovation thing of yours is just fluff. But then again, I think the same thing about your conjured sigma thing.
    But I do think it is by far better than the nonsense put out by Interested Guess Who Statman Too Reigle (I just call him Not Relevant for short).

    0
    #101064

    Bob M.
    Participant

    Is it time to leave the temple yet?
     

    0
    #101065

    howe
    Participant

    How do you come up with this equation since it is so vague and so general?  Also, what is the innovation equation going to do for the real thing, i.e., INNOVATION?
     
    Although nice try making it look like Taguchi’s loss function (the squared term) and bringing Bill Gates’ idea here (you know his book titled business at the speed of thoughts)
     
    How is this supposed to help innovation? 
     

    0
    #101066

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Praveen,
    We are from opposite ends of a non-MSA’ed scale. There isn’t going to be much common ground.
    Good luck.

    0
    #101068

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Mike,
    Great question.
    Regards,
    Mike

    0
    #101069

    PB
    Participant

    Where does INSPIRATION fit in? Is it also a ‘fuzz’ factor? Can it be tied in with SPEED OF THOUGHT?
    PB
     

    0
    #101075

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Mike:
    Yes, good questions, and great observations about Taguchi’s Loss Function and Bill Gates’ Speed of Thought. However, my inspiration to come up with this equation is different.
    The euqation does create a conceptual framework for innovation with its key components.  This lead to further work in making progress in those areas.  Six Sigma leads to accelerated rate  of improvement, irrespective of the starting point. Therefore, my intent is to accelerate rate of innovation, irrespective of being able to tell precisely what is the level of innovation. Yes, if I am working with the last drops of our intellectual capabilities, I would be concerned about measuring.  And it should be measured when we can.  Further work is required to achieve that capability.
    I am not done completing this work, as a fact of matter, this has started me to look into lots of possibilities to realize more improvement through methodology, process and measurements.
    Regards,
    praveen

    0
    #101082

    Darth
    Participant

    Stan, I have proven that Praveen’s “fuzz” factor for accounting for dumb luck is exactly 1.46.  I believe that this is profound, do you agree?

    0
    #101086

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Darth:
    Right on target! Good luck.
    Praveen

    0
    #101090

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Praveen,
    I was really willing to walk away from this thing after this morning until you posted this. First the parting shot “Yes, if I am working with the last drops of our intellectual capabilities, I would be concerned about measuring.  And it should be measured when we can.  Further work is required to achieve that capability.” Basically you comment means that measurement isn’t important unless the resource is almost expired. That is pretty inspired.
    As far as inspiration for “your equation” and “The euqation does create a conceptual framework for innovation with its key components.  This lead to further work in making progress in those areas.  Six Sigma leads to accelerated rate  of improvement, irrespective of the starting point. Therefore, my intent is to accelerate rate of innovation, irrespective of being able to tell precisely what is the level of innovation.” – it is a 2 factor equation with nothing to substantiate it except your rhetoric. This is about 5 minutes of work on a slow day.
    You seem to be elated over your teaching position. That is nice. Take the position and stop selling nonsense. Go to whatever college that you are so impressed with and stop trying to convince people you are relevant. Your SS thing was odd – this thing is moving you towards inert.
    As for the other comment with regards to Einstein. Your equation isn’t close to his and you are a fare distance from Einstein. You need to leave that one alone.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #101096

    Praveen,
    I didn’t realize that you’re now in academia – congratulations.
    After attending a Six Sigma ‘Blackbelt’ training course a couple of years ago, I was shocked to find out that Dr. Harry and others had ‘modified’ what I knew as Six Sigma in Austin in the early 1980′. A system that worked very well at the time …
    Since I know you worked closely with Dr. Harry, could you please highlight your contribution, if any, to z-benchmarking (the Nasa thread), and DPMO.
    Good luck,
    Andy U

    0
    #101109

    howe
    Participant

    Mike Carnell,
    I am shocked seeing how you insulted Praveen’s idea! A consultant insulting another colleague, unheard of! Was he invading your territory?
     
    On a serious note, I could not agree more with your comments on this one (see my previous post on this thread) but this is an example of how some “consultants” work. They come up with a “brilliant” idea, sell it to a corporate America CEOs and MOVE ON. We then have to live with this for a long time until the CEO hears another great idea.
     
    Regards,
    Mike

    0
    #101112

    mman
    Participant

    Praveen
    Congratulation.Don’t allow  negative opinions to furstrate  you,take  all opinions into consideration but focus on positive Ideas.Sustain your momentum and go forward,regards.     MMAN

    0
    #101119

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Mike:
    Thanks a lot for all your ideas. I am not taking it personally.  I do appreciate your help. I got a wonderful feedback from you and others.  I can work with it, and hold on to your other thoughts for a while.  I respect your work on  Six Sigma, writing and your experience at Motorola.  I also understand you are having fun in this Chat room. I believe iSixSigma is great to get feedback from so many great people.
    I am not comparing with Einstein at all, not even in my dream.  I am trying to learn from him and understand his work. 
    Have a great day!
    Praveen

    0
    #101120

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Mike:
    Thanks for encouraging positive environment in the chatroom.  However, I am not selling the idea to CEO’s yet.  I would only sell it once I can prove and make it work.  That’s why I am discussing it at iSixSigma.com, a great place to get opinions, so I can understand pros and cons.  However, I do believe in the model and committed to make it wok with whatever modifications needed.  One has to think about it with an open mind before criticizing it.  I am open to all suggestions or criticism. It is all learning. 
    Have a great day!
    Praveen

    0
    #101122

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Andy:
    Good to hear from you!  I missed working with Mikel Harry after he joined the Six Sigma Research Institute.  However, I woked with Bill Smith, inventor of Six Sigma (some may question that too), for three years in Schaumburg, IL.
    My contribution was to do the first project in 1987 under Bill’s guidance, that was published in Quality Engineering in 1990, and used in Motorola’s first Design for Manufacturing class in 1988. I also coordinated implementation of Six Sigma projects in Fixed Products Division, of course for my  boss, in 1986-1989.
    I hope that helps.
    MMAN _ Thanks for your encouragement.
    Regards,
    Praveen

    0
    #101123

    Gabriel
    Participant

    Don’t blame Einstein for your formula.
    – Compare “effort” with “work” if you want, but not with “mass”. Where did your “work done = mass x force” came from? work done is force x distance, not x mass, and it equals a change in energy which is mass x speed^2, not x force. So the analogy with Einstein’s equation is not valid.
    – Not just by chance, on the left term of the Einstein’s equation you have energy, which has units of mass x distance squared / time squared, and on the right side you have mass (with units of mass, of course) x speed squared, with units of (distance/time) squared. Can you show such a consistency of units in your equation? I guess not, so the analogy with Einstein’s equation is not valid.
    – Also, in E=mc2, c, the speed of light, is a constant, so the formula in fact shows that the energy is just proportional to the mass and only a function of it. Dou you mean that the innoveation is just proportional to the effort and that the speed of thought is a constant? So no matter wether the effort is made by a brillant person or by a dummy?
    – The answer to that question is “no”, because you said that speed of thought was a function of some other variables I don’t tremember, but knowledge was one of them, and knowledge is not constant (just read this thread for evidence). So the analogy with Einstein’s equation is not valid.
    – And, the most important thing, Einstein’t theory of relativity was scientifically confirmed by real-life facts. Can your equation pass such a test? I doubt so. An implicit corollary of your equation is: “If you double the effort, the innovation will double. But if you duble the speed of thought, the innovation will quadruple”. May be my brain is too narrow, but I can’t even figure out what such a statement may mean, not to mention that I can’t imagine an experiment to demonstrate or reject such a thing. If this simple fact in theory can not be demostrated with actual facts, then not only the analogy with Einstein’s equation is not valid, but your formula is not valid by itself either.

    0
    #101126

    Hogg
    Participant

    The scientific method suggests that any new theory is proven by attempting to disprove it first. If your equation is wrong it will only take a few moments to come up with an example that neatly disproves it.
     
    If ‘thinking about it with an open mind’ means not first attempting to prove that it is wrong or even first testing your theory, then you are just deluding yourself.
     
    Innovation = effort * speed of thought **2
    Speed of thought = f(knowledge, play, imagination)
     
    So…
    Consider the ring doughnut – invented by a man whose wife cooked standard doughnuts. The outside was cooked but the inside was not. He came up with the innovation of leaving the middle of the doughnut out before cooking it.
     
    Effort – nil (just sat there and though up the idea)
    Knowledge – very little (had to ask wife how she made and cooked the doughnuts)
    Play – very little (some experimenting AFTER he had his idea, not before)
    Imagination – very little required (TRIZ suggests many ways of separating problems by space, time, condition etc)
     
    So – at least one case where your equation does not fit. Innovation is much more about necessity (a problem) and opportunity (potential to solve it) both of which change with time. Before the invention of dough no one had a problem with uncooked doughnuts…
     
    I really do strongly suggest that you study TRIZ. This has all the elements as to what is innovation, how to measure it, and how to do it. Note too that TRIZ suggests that innovation has nothing to do with EFFORT, and since your equation suggests that we have to work harder to get more innovative, and TRIZ suggests (and even proves) the opposite, I and thousands of others will go with TRIZ.
     
    Innovation = solving a contradiction using idle resources
    Contradiction = technical or physical contradiction (two parameters or two states of one parameter conflict or oppose)
     

    0
    #101130

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Geoff:
    I appreciate your effort to challenge the equation.  However, since you did not invent or innovate the donut, so I trust you do not have enough information to speak for it.
    I admire your love for Triz, believe me I equally like Triz too.  Still, I believe something is missing in Triz.
    The innovation occurs due to necessesity or the opportunity. The one due to necessity involve prior work for many years that is normally overlooked.  We don’t know what that wife had been doing before coming up with that idea.
    The one with opportunity is more driven by delibrate effort, knowledge, play and imagination.
    Try with something you innovate, and try to appreciate the equation.
    Regards,
    praveen

    0
    #101131

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Gabriel:
    Great effort for analyzing the euqation.  I do not blame anyone for the equation.  I am only trying to learn from someone else’s effort.  I am learning a lot from even people in this room, including yourself.  It is very value added.
    There is no silver bullet.  Even E= mc**2 works in a certain range. So, nothing works in all circumstances. My effort is to try to make it work in the practical range of innovation, not necessarily extreme boundary conditions.  As to the knowledge is concerned, I am sure it saturates in one area.  Just like there is no degree after Ph.D. There must be some limiting factors for knowledge in one area.
    My equation is not finalized yet or fully understood.  We are moving in that direction collaboratively!
    Regards,
    Praveen

    0
    #101135

    Hogg
    Participant

    The conflict over who invented the “doughnut” was the impetus for “The Great Doughnut Debate,” held in New York in 1941. Affidavits, letters and other documents were presented. Judges eventually confirmed Captain Hanson Crockett Gregory had indeed invented the doughnut and its hole in 1847.
     
    “Young Hanson,” the Smithsonian Institute reported in 1975, “was in the kitchen of his home watching his mother make fried cakes. He asked her why the centers were so soggy. She said that for some reason they never got cooked. The boy decided to poke out the center of some uncooked cakes with a fork. His mother cooked them. These were the first ring doughnuts.”

     
    OK so I got wife / mother confused. However the doughnut invention is so well documented that there is a plaque to commemorate it. No effort, no thinking, no time, just a flash of inspiration.
     
    I use TRIZ tools and techniques to help generate ideas during training, where I know nothing about the problem before we start and it is no effort and actually reduces the thinking required. Innovation does require knowledge, however TRIZ neatly packages this and provides it for us in many palatable ways.
     
    I appreciate the equation for what it is worth, which I believe is very very little. You are beginning to sound like a ‘flat earthist’ desperate to keep an idea against all odds. Somehow I don’t think that you will go down in history as the inventor of the innovation equation… I would wish you luck, but I feel that your efforts could be far better placed.
     
    Discourse closed.

    0
    #101139

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Geoff:
    Once again, thanks for sharing details about an innovation that we still enjoy. What would have happened, if his mother had said, “what a stupid idea? Ha Ha!”  You would have missed all these delicious donuts today.
    It is wonderful you use triz for generating ideas, as I do for solving problem.  Irrespective of that, I am not interested in going down the history for anything.  I am interested in generating interest and economic potential now.  I can understand you see a very very little value in the idea of innovating for six sigma.  I see a lot of value in it.  I hope someone is benefitted from it.  Well glass is half full, half empty.  We all take what we can. I am already taking a lot out of it.
    I appreciate your reflections on innovation equation.  Idea management is a first step towards innovation.  We need not be adamant on killing an idea so fast, instead of trying to build on it.  I bet some smart people may be killing it in the chatroom, but working behind the chat to see what’s in it.
    Regards,
    praveen

    0
    #101143

    Odd Ball
    Participant

    in·no·va·tion n: 1) the act or process of inventing or
    introducing something new, 2) something newly invented
    or a new way of doing things (Encarta® World English
    Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation). THIS
    DEFINITION DOES NOT ASSERT THAT THE
    INNOVATION BE PRAGMATIC, GOOD, OR MEET SOME
    SET OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA, ONLY THAT IT IS
    NEW.

    0
    #101144

    SSNewby
    Member

    Praveen, this is not meant as picking at you or your formula, it is just an odd bit of academic trivia offered for information purposes only.   
     
    You said that there is no degree after PhD and normally I tend to agree with that perspective.   But, when I got an opportunity to lecture at a UK university on a Fulbright some years ago the academic pecking order was patiently explained to me on day one and I was told that, as a PhD, I had a lower doctorate and as a visiting scholar to bear in mind the emeritus and senior status of some of the university’s academicians.   Asking what the higher doctorates were, I was given this list:
     

    D.Litt.
    D.Sc.
    D.Univ.
    LL.D.
     Asking who held emeritus and senior status, I was told just about everyone but me.   So, as you know, limiting factors are themselves not universal – they are as you find and accept them, or not.

    0
    #101146

    Odd Ball
    Participant

    History tells of many famous and infamous innovations.
    Some of these innovations have been wildly successful
    and others have proven to be horrific failures.
    Regardless of their individual qualities, they all qualify as
    INNOVATIONS. However, corporations do not want
    innovations that have a high probability of failure, nor do
    they want to learn from such failures; they just want more
    ideas, better ideas, quicker and cheaper. They want
    ideas and inventions that can immediately satisfy
    customer needs, solve problems and put cash in the
    bank. Corporations want pragmatic, cost-effective
    innovations that can be readily deployed and
    implemented. Corporations are seeking innovative ways
    to be more innovative, but in a productive sense.
    Executives want a process of innovation that is highly
    repeatable, easily maintained and economical to sustain.
    They are looking for ways to make the average
    contributor more innovative in a collaborative and
    participative fashion. They want the proverbial silver
    bullet. But the silver bullet is an idea, not an innovation.
    Much like Grand Unified Field Theory, the equation for
    innovation is more of an idea than an innovation.

    0
    #101147

    PB
    Participant

    Geoff,
    You hit the nail on the head – ‘flash of inspiration’. My point exactly.
    At the rate at which Edison invented many of his inventions took a lot of trial and error (and thinking but the speed of thought was not necessarily a factor) – we all know about his invention of light bulb. (Many of his inventions started out as an inspiration and many came out of necessity) . In his day, technology was not there to help expedite his speed of thought into something you could touch and feel, which we enjoy today. Therefore, one of the factor that needs to be considered is ‘level’ of innovation – concept or final product. At conceptual level innovation can be correlated to speed of thought and inspiration.
    PB
    PB

    0
    #101149

    Gabriel
    Participant

    “Even E= mc**2 works in a certain range.”
    ???? I did not know that. Which range is that?

    0
    #101150

    Hogg
    Participant

    Please do not insult me by suggesting that I am not interested in Innovation in Six Sigma. I believe very much in innovation, and Six Sigma. I use TRIZ, and it is my interest in this field that prompted me to reply to your post, which was originally about your “new equation”.
    I have commented on your equation (as you requested), by referencing its value back to examples of existing innovations. I think that your equation is fundamentally flawed and of little use, and I also think that there is little point in attempting to re-invent TRIZ and innovation theory. Your only reply to the great many comments on your equation is ‘ah well, you don’t understand’!
    Please note that Altshuller, the inventor of TRIZ, first wanted to come up with a complete conceptual theory of how to invent, but could not and instead studied how people have been inventive in the past. TRIZ contains a complete description of levels of inventiveness, evolution of systems, all knowledge, and the 40 Inventive Principles. The 40 IPs are as close as we are likely to get to describing ‘innovation’ in an equation. There really is nothing better.
    TRIZ is the work of hundreds if not thousands of people over some 50 years. If you want to better that then you will need to come up with something really useful, not just a dodgy equation based on something that looks good but cannot hold against real examples. If you really think that TRIZ has something missing, then add to it. Many people already have, including me. TRIZ is now being used very successfully in Six Sigma to increase innovation in teams and businesses. And we don’t need a fancyful equation to do that.
    By the way, posting anything on this site makes the material automatically copyright of the site owners, and you now no longer own your equation. So if you ever want to use it publically you will have to obtain permission from iSixSigma.
    There is a very old Yorkshire saying ” see all, hear all, say nothing; eat all, sup all, pay nothing”. Smart to read and learn, not always smart to talk.
    PS Innovation in a company (not indiviual) is a function of knowledge and communication or interaction. You should be studying chaos theory and interconnected networks. Go for multiple and disparate teams. It really works.

    0
    #101153

    SSNewby
    Member

    Not an Odd Ball at all,
     Well stated and thought provoking, but what of innovations spawned by ideas?  As I assume most are.  Can you really separate them so?   

    0
    #101155

    Rog
    Member

    Interesting point about the average contributor. Are they ‘average contributors’ because they are average thinkers (in which case they are unlikely to come up with anything other than average innovations) or are they ‘average’ because they are not encouraged to make their less than average thoughts public (in which case ‘innovation’ is a cultural issue rather than a process issue).
    All ideas are good in that at least someone had the idea and stepped up to the plate with it. The trick is to identify and work on those that can be turned into a valuable innovation. The more ideas that get put forward the more likely one is to find some with potential.
    Rog

    0
    #101156

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Geoff:
    Thanks a lot for sharing your experience and success with Triz. I am not interested in just one equation, that is only one piece of the entire methodology I am developing. I think I have received plenty of feedback about my equation!  I suggest we close this discussion for now. My interest is in developing a methodology that really can be institutionalized for innovation on demand.  I can understand ‘inventor’ suddenly appears too.  We need to go beyond that sudden spark of genius.  I am not claiming to have answers or trying to be one of the ‘great people’ we know.
    One thing is for sure.  Triz is not a sufficient answer for innovation at the rate we need in this informatoin age.  There must be some other stuff that must suppliment Triz, or that’s what Triz must support.  I am trying to get that answer. 
    ———-
    Thanks to you all for providing very constructive feedback. I appreciate your help.  I did not mean to undermine anyone’s capability or intellect.  If I did, I appologize.
    I have found this chatroom a wonderful place for brainstorming and challenging an idea.  I am sure you would agree with that. Kudos to all!
    Look forward to seeing here another ‘annoying’ idea!
    Best Regards,
    Praveen 

    0
    #101161

    Arora
    Participant

    Hi Praveen!
    Do agree with you that sometimes innovation do start from where you have started.
    Here are some sparks from my cerebrum.:-)
    Speed of Innovation = Complexity of subject (simple/difficult) * Depth of Understanding
    (S = CD).[from v=md]
    This has been derived from Velocity = mass * Displacement 
    The “mass” has been related to “complexity”
    The “Displacement” is related to “Depth of understanding”
    In the v=md equation, if the mass of the body is less, the distance travelled is more and vice versa with velocity being constant.Similarly, if the subject is less complex the ‘depth of understanding’ is more.
     
    I would prefer ‘Speed of innovation’ instead of ‘innovation’ because, even if all these or more parameters are met, “Innovation” cannot be guaranteed.These factors can only influence or increase the propability of innovating but can’t assure it.So, the only factor which I think can be quantified is speed of innovation.It’s like you cannot say how far is your destination is but atleast make sure you are driving at a good speed!
    Depth of Understanding = K*I.Q(Creativity + Knowledge+ Experience)   
    K-    ‘Depth of thinking’ Constant
    I.Q – Intelligent Quotient [The ratio of mental age to chronological age. (IQ=MA/CA*100)]
    The IQ is the most influecing factor.If IQ is 0, there is no understanding(therorically).When there is no knowledge, the depth of understanding is decreased but not 0(same for other factors).we might have to research to find out the “K” factor that would make this relationship complete.The “Experience” is not a measure of just “age” but  experince in the subject of research.
     
    My neurons are starting to burn..
    c u soon ;-)
     
     
     
     
     
     

    0
    #101162

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Kris:
    Good to see some extension of an idea.  In your expression, I like the idea of speed of innovation, sounds almost like rate of innovation.  To me it is a second order of innovation.  We need to learn first oder, how to innovate before we can speed it up.
    Besides, depth of understanding may be influenced by the complexity of hte subject.  Therefore, both the variables on the right handside of the equation appear to be dependent. 
    As to IQ, studies have been done where IQ has shown no correlation with creativity.  As they say, the average IQ of Noble prize winner is less that that of an average physicist. In any case, continue to refihe the equation. We would end up with similar answers. However, love to hear more thoughts, maybe, you may discover something new.
    My belief is any one of us, I mean any of us, can have Einstein wake up without, if we wanted to.  I have created a challenge for my self to help others discover their hidden Einstein. I do not have an answer, or the method perfected yet!
    Keep thinking!
    PRaveen

    0
Viewing 52 posts - 1 through 52 (of 52 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.