Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Daniel Christadoss on November 28, 2009 at 19:58

I was recently involved in a project to design a new production line. I believe we used a mix of Design Thinking and Design for Six Sigma. An interesting fact here is that we did not go and get a black belt. We learnt the techniques as we progressed. We did use a lot of the techniques Tim Brown expounds as well as Deming statistical techniques to convince the system integrator of the need the make improvements. I strongly believe that the new line will hit the road running and produce a minimum yield of 95%. We read all the latest methodologies and incrementally improved on the system. I believe the key is to use what works for us rather than follow a cult. There is no magic bullet, it is continuous improvement all the way. Are we back to PDCA Good old Deming knew what was good for us.
There is a fine line between Design for Products, Manufacturing or Service

Permalink Reply by Daniel Christadoss on December 13, 2009 at 3:14

Back ground information on best practices in industry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen

Six Sigma DMAIC Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control
DMAIC is used for projects aimed at improving an existing business process

Design for Six Sigma DMADV Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Verify
DMADV is used for projects aimed at creating new product or process designs

Both of the above disciplines have been used for service design
The above methods do place an emphasis on Statistics and probably do not do much justice to out of the box thinking

The newer discipline which combines best practices is Design Thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_thinking

Define, Research, Ideate, Prototype, Choose, Implement, Learn

Design Thinking encourages out of the box thinking but probably ignores Statistics

However they all have common ground. It all starts with Define
Generally called Problem Definition but Opportunity Definition is probably a cool term for it

As I have always said Design Thinking has been practiced in various forms over the years.
Tim Brown from IDEO has used it successfully to convince clients that it is a method on par or adds more value than Six Sigma.

However for us professionals these are methodologies to use as a guide in our professional work.
Ours is a creative profession and we may come up with variations on the theme as go go about our projects

One of my friends is going to present a project to a group which as some people from the automobile industry. I am sure he is going to bone up on Six Sigma and Kaizen so that he can show the group the advantages of Design Thinking Methodologies

I think at some time Six Sigma became an elitist activity with people getting certified as Black Belts etc but now it is more towards Lean Six Sigma with shorter gestation periods for projects.

Cross training in other professions is an important part of our professional life if we want to keep ahead of the pack.

I will continue to post on this subject to help me understand more of Design Thinking.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Christadoss on December 13, 2009 at 16:09

Some interesting information of Design Thinking & Six Sigma

http://designthinking.ideo.com/?p=387#content

http://fredzimny.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/it-is-not-six-sigma-and-d...

Permalink Reply by ricardojdc on December 13, 2009 at 21:45

Hi Daniel!
Very interesting information! Actually, I had also to look up information regarding TRIZ.
While analyzing Six Sigma and TRIZ tools (and I should stress here that my background is not an engineering one) and trying to relate them with Design Thinking, I think that the matter was not one of preferring one in detriment of the other, but actually that in some cases both are needed and perhaps interchangeable.
I think Design Thinking might be put to better use when innovation implementation / creation is needed (even with overall company strategy / culture), while Six Sigma / TRIZ should definitely enter the scene whenever quality control and measurement is needed.
The truth is that, as McKewon (2008) notes, in order to innovate one should be able to measure at some point. Only then are we able to check whether we are innovating in the right direction.

Actually the article "Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System" (in HBR, 1999, by Steven Spear and H. Kent Brown), although never using the terms "Design Thinking", "Six Sigma" or even "Triz" gives a good illustration how design thinking could make the difference.
In fact, the authors try to understand why some companies (e.g GM, Ford) that replicated the TPS, have failed to replicate Toyota successfully. My interpretation, at some point, was that perhaps these other companies might have been worrying too much with measurement issues (Six Sigma / TRIZ) and overlooking innovation DNA / identity of the company (where I guess Design Thinking has something to say).

I came up with a term to describe this effect which, translating from portuguese, would be something like "COMPREHENTREPRENEURSHIP", and stresses the importance for companies to "comprehend" which areas they want to innovate, before embarking in an innovative "enterprise".

I also think that "design thinking" brings to the table issues such as prototyping and customer-focused, which are lacking in the other systems, and probably need to be measured (with six sigma, perhaps) later on to see whether the innovation is following the right path...

don't know whether I am making any sense... hope so...

Ricardo

Permalink Reply by Daniel Christadoss on December 13, 2009 at 22:52

Ricardo,
Thanks for the comments. What you say makes a lot of sense. I am particularly happy that you brought up the question of measurement. There is a need to baseline before and measure after
I also liked the new term you coined "COMPREHENTREPRENEURSHIP" and we will include that in our Glossary
You made my day and I can see that we will all have a very interesting and fruitful journey as we take Design Thinking to greater heights by you embarking on your business venture. Keep challenging the team with your thoughts, ideas, questions and suggestions.
With regards
Daniel

Permalink Reply by Alfonso Tamés on December 15, 2009 at 7:54

Although an interesting proposition, I strongly recommend reading "Six Sigma: Lessons from Deming" from Dr A D Burns, June 2007. I think it is time to debunk Six Sigma which in Deming's own words "misses the point" (p.226, The New Economics).

Cheers,

Alfonso

Permalink Reply by Daniel Christadoss on December 16, 2009 at 3:32

Alphonso,
I enjoyed reading the referenced article. Well referenced and very well articulated.The article did a good job on exposing the weaknesses in Six sigma methodology. There is a good reason Design Thinking is being embraced by forward looking companies. Kindly give us your thoughts on Extended Six Sigma posted else where. I believe there may be times when we have to look at Statistical data and the tools Deming used will work for most cases. Design Thinkers could use them if they add value to the project. It does make good business sense to use best practices which add value.

Regards

Daniel

Permalink Reply by Ray Hemmele on December 28, 2009 at 16:47

Greetings...This is a very interesting discussion. I've been a 6 Sigma / Lean practitioner for about 10 years teaching and applying 6S, Lean, DFSS, and TRIZ. I have always felt the DFSS process to be somewhat weak in identifying truly innovative ideas(to meet those latent needs of "customers") even with the use of TRIZ early in the process. Thus, I've interjected into my teaching the idea of "prototype early and often". After reading and learning more about Design Thinking, I think there is a real marriage between the concepts. In the area of service design, I feel this is a must since the customer touchpoint "density" is so high. Additionally, getting to a "transfer function", or in other words an equation relating the process variables to the response variable which can be used for capability flowup is very rare in service design. By the time you're at that stage of the design, you may already have missed out on a need or want that differentiates your offering.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Christadoss on December 29, 2009 at 4:29

Ray, welcome and thanks for joining the discussion
"prototype early and often" I agree, this is a must for any project we do and a most appropriate statement as we ideate. Another area I have been having second thoughts about is DOE. DOE seems to be worthless if we do not screen heavily and have a process in control to start with. What are your thoughts?

Permalink Reply by Ray Hemmele on December 29, 2009 at 15:06

In my experience, a DOE should only be used after the more "passive" data gathering/analysis tools have been exercised. Often, the problem can be solved (and a causal understanding achieved) without ever having to do a DOE. For physical systems (involving mechanical, electrical, chemical, etc elements), a DOE is fine (after we've applied the more basic tools), but even so, it is an attempt to model the physics. If we can increase our understanding of the underlying physics (which generally causes people to actually have to remember their schooling !), it is much more powerful when trying to change or control the system. In cases where the system involves human behavior, a model obtained by experimentation is usually an adequate solution.