TQM, ISO 9000, Six Sigma: Do Process Management Programs Discourage Innovation?

The Wharton School

Proof that the premier process management program in American business has crossed over into mainstream consciousness is that a rock band in Northern Kentucky calls itself 6 Sigma. Even those who know more about frets than fractions can explain that Six Sigma is a way of increasing efficiency. A less-alliterative management tool, ISO 9000, also has many fervent adherents but, alas, no rock namesake.

Within the business community, enthusiasm for process management programs such as Six Sigma, ISO 9000 or their predecessor Total Quality Management (TQM) runs strong after two decades. For example, numerous consulting firms still encourage firms to adopt Six Sigma. And despite the mid-summer departure of James McNerney to become chief executive at Boeing, 3M continues to implement the Six Sigma methods that McNerney brought in 2001 from General Electric.

Yet Wharton management professor Mary J. Benner says now may be the time to reassess the corporate utility of process management programs and apply them with more discrimination. In research done with Harvard Business School professor Michael Tushman, she has found that process management can drag organizations down and dampen innovation. "In the appropriate setting, process management activities can help companies improve efficiency, but the risk is that you misapply these programs, in particular in areas where people are supposed to be innovative," notes Benner. "Brand new technologies to produce products that don't exist are difficult to measure. This kind of innovation may be crowded out when you focus too much on processes you can measure."

TQM, a strategy in which an entire organization is focused on continuous improvement, arose in the 1980s in response to Japanese competition (and the work of W. Edwards Deming) and was popular into the early 1990s. Six Sigma started at Motorola and gained popularity in the mid-1990s largely because of GE's visible efforts. The goal is to improve a company's quality to only three defects per million through systematic incremental change in processes and careful statistical measurement of outcomes.

Six Sigma is similar to TQM in its focus on techniques for solving problems and using statistical methods to improve processes. But whereas TQM emphasizes employee involvement organization-wide, the Six Sigma approach is to train experts (known as green belts and black belts) who work on solving important problems while they teach others in the company.

The focus of ISO 9000, a program started in 1987 by the International Organization for Standardization, is to make sure that companies have standard processes in place that they follow: "Document what you do and do what you document." ISO 9000 involves a third-party registration program (UL -- Underwriters Laboratories -- is one such registrar) certifying that companies are following documented processes.

In addition to these three programs, there are many others that fall under the general rubric of process management. One aspect they all have in common is that their use has evolved. From the initial 1980s application in manufacturing, they are now used in many industries and within many corporate divisions.


"Light-bulb Moments of Brilliance"

Benner's work on process management and innovation -- a subject she and Tushman have been studying since 1998 -- is attracting new attention. She suggests two reasons: "I suspect that many companies with widespread process management initiatives over the past few years have reached the limits of improvement." In addition, the ability to gain competitive advantage from cost and efficiency gains also has limits. Once a firm's competitors are adopting the same practices, it is difficult to have competitive advantage longer term. "Companies need other advantages, such as new innovation."

Today, companies ranging from IBM to pharmaceutical firms to consumer product manufacturers such as Procter & Gamble and Unilever have acknowledged a renewed attention to gaining advantage through innovation. Even General Electric -- the symbol and evangelist of Six Sigma discipline -- is looking to grow through exploratory innovation. As companies focus on gaining competitive advantage through innovation, research on how and why innovation flourishes is significant.

Benner and Tushman's 2002 paper, "Process Management and Technological Innovation: A Longitudinal Study of the Photography and Paint Industries," looks at patenting activity in two industries that rely on process management. Their underlying question was whether the discipline of process management will fertilize or strangle those new ideas that come from light-bulb moments of brilliance. "Our results suggest that exploitation" -- building on a firm's existing knowledge -- "crowds out exploration," the authors write.

Benner and Tushman examined the photography and paint industries from 1980 to 1999, choosing these two industries for differences in their competitive arenas. "Photography was undergoing major change. It was a turbulent environment and there was a potential need for innovation," says Benner, referring to the move from chemical-based film to digital technology. "Paint was focused on cost reductions. It was trying to reduce solvents in paint as opposed to developing wacky new stuff."

The authors looked at the number of ISO 9000 quality program certifications obtained by the paint and photography firms, the numbers of patents issued to the firms and "the extent to which a firm's patenting efforts built on knowledge it had used in previous patents." In photography, increased ISO certifications were associated with "a significant decline in the number of patents that were based entirely on knowledge new to the firm." In paint, the effect was not as strong but echoed the photography industry's disappointing experience. The results suggest, the authors write, "that in both the paint and photography industries, as process management activities increase, exploitation increases at the expense of exploratory innovations."

And even exploitation is hamstrung. In the photogra­phy industry, Benner and Tushman found that patents that relied up to nearly 40% on previously acquired knowledge were squeezed out in favor of patents based 80% or more on existing firm knowledge. "These results suggest that firms' chal­lenges in maintaining exploration may be more difficult than previously suggested," the researchers write. Organizations already find it hard to sustain highly risky search and exploration into new domains, but it appears that this difficulty "extends even to sustaining moderately exploratory innovations that leverage existing organizational knowledge."

In their paper, Benner and Tushman propose that in the photography industry, "the dampening effect of process management on exploratory innovation may have implications for adaptation to subsequent transitions in technology." As examples, they speculate whether the slow response at Polaroid and Kodak to the digital revolution in photography may have been linked to organiza­tional inertia rooted in their attempts to exploit expertise in film.

Benner knows first-hand how performance management measurements can be knitted into the fabric of a company and produce positive results. As an executive with Honeywell from 1989 to 1996, "I thought it was useful to map processes for how to run a business and get better at it. The view was that these are universally good things. When I left to get my PhD, I began to consider the effects on innovation. What does it do to new knowledge creation?" She started exploring these ideas as the prior enthusiasm for TQM -- triggered by the intense competition from Japanese manufacturing in the 1980s -- was waning, but enthusiasm for ISO 9000 and Six Sigma was building.

Because process management practices focused on increasing efficiency or taking out wasted steps are important for companies in the highly competitive global market, "there will always be pressure on firms to adopt programs that help them systematically improve their current business, whether the popularity of Six Sigma per se diminishes or not," says Benner.

Yet companies are making room for other imperatives. Chief executive Jeffrey Immelt, for instance, has set GE on an ambitious course of growing more revenue from existing operations. This growth is fueled by radical technological innovation, or what he calls "imagination breakthroughs" proposed by his executive team -- whose annual bonuses are partially tied to meeting marketing, sales and idea-generation goals. Immelt has invested $100 million in revitalizing GE's research center in New York and spent millions for centers in Munich, Shanghai and Bangalore. He has encouraged his managers to take risks even when that means risking failure, Benner says.

An "Ambidextrous" Approach

Changing the culture at GE or any established company to embrace long-term innovation will be challenging, Benner acknowledges. "Most managers know they must do this. But there are few short-term rewards for focusing on long-term. When you give people a choice of something that's new and distant in time, they will choose the short-term, measurable goal.... You can get stuck being very, very good at something you were good at yesterday. That's what some managers choose because it is measurable."

Measuring innovation is not easy because there is no yardstick. Rewarding innovation makes compensation a tricky exercise. Managing those who innovate is also challenging. "Creative people will push back in an environment where people are required to follow standard processes and are being measured," says Benner. "People who are comfortable in such an environment are not exactly the most innovative."

Benner doesn't suggest that companies abandon the process management principles, but rather that they apply them where most appropriate. In their study, she and co-author Tushman recommend "a more nuanced approach to creating organizations that can celebrate both variance reduction in the service of exploitation and variance creation in the service of exploration."

Companies need to balance two types of activities: improving current operations to be competitive in the short term, and exploring for new knowledge for the future. Swinging back and forth between enthusiasm for process management or for new innovation, says Benner, doesn't achieve the balance. Too much process management across all levels of an organization makes it easier to implement but can strangle bolder, breakthrough innovations. Conversely, it's difficult to focus on systematic, continuous improvement in quality and cost if the entire organization is focused on big innovations for the future.

It is important for senior managers to be aware of this dilemma and exercise care about extending Six Sigma-like programs into all areas of their organizations. Instead, Benner and Tushman recommend that companies become "ambidextrous" -- managing process management and innovation simultaneously. Individuals who run business units must be able to manage the inconsistency of separate areas of an organization focused on fundamentally different activities. Within a business unit, managers can specialize in either more process-oriented functions with the benefits of Six Sigma efficiency or more innovation-oriented activities without Six Sigma constraints.

This innovation can happen in both the R&D department, where companies are generating new ideas or creating new products, and in marketing, where companies search for new markets and new customer sets.

Companies may be tempted to apply process management approaches to ensure that they are "improving" how they innovate or find new markets. But innovation may not lend itself to strict processes with measures. For example, Benner says, if a company typically applies for patents for its big, potentially important innovations, and then implements a process management approach to improve its patenting process, it may end up gauging success by looking at change in the number of patents it applies for. It may indeed get a larger number of patents, but these patents may each be less innovative, more incremental, and less important. It is more difficult to measure the innovativeness of each patent than it is to count patents.

Above all, firms today must recognize that process management programs do have limitations. Says Benner: "Our message is this: Companies that have process management in one area must realize that it can bleed into other areas of the company, and you must prevent that from happening. Use these approaches where they make sense -- and deliberately do not have them in areas that are focused on innovation."

How Do They Work Together?

One of the common questions we have been asked by leadership from the hundreds of companies/organization we work with is "How do we integrate Six Sigma and Lean?" or "We have implemented Six Sigma, how will Lean fit in or vice versa?"

(I-Newswire) - One of the common questions we have been asked by leadership from the hundreds of companies/organization we work with is:

"How do we integrate Six Sigma and Lean?" or "We have implemented Six Sigma, how will lean fit in or vice versa?"

The first thing we must establish is what is Lean and what is Six Sigma and of course depending on who you talk to the definitions may vary. So, let's look at the purest definitions and then try to establish the best way to approach both of these concepts.

What is Lean?
Lean is a way of thinking about how you should run your business - it is not a tool. The lean perspective focuses on the customer and what the customer feels is 'value' ( not what the company supplying the service or product feels is value ). Once this is done and the value and non-value have been identified throughout the entire 'system' then the next step is to understand how to remove the non-value properly to make your service or production activities flow to the client or customer. Properly is the key. You need a detailed implementation plan which will move you toward a future state and identifies the tools required, where they are required, when they are required and who is responsible to applying these tools and making the transformation from current state to future state. Without this plan, companies will end up making 'point' improvements and likely creating what we call 'exciting chaos'. The ultimate goal is to improve your bottom line and customer satisfaction by increasing responsiveness to the client/customer, while at the same time, reducing cost and increasing quality.

What is Six Sigma?
Six Sigma is a very effective analytical tool for eliminating or reducing variation throughout the value stream. And without reducing variation, it is impossible to have flow. In order to effectively utilize this skill and tool, there must be a well-defined future state implementation plan. Without this plan, the six sigma experts will not have a clear idea what the overall plan or direction is for their organization and they won't know what impact their efforts will have on the 'system' - they will only be limited to knowing they reduced the variation in that 'point' which someone identified needed to be fixed.

Keep in mind that most activities, within a value stream ( both service, administration and production environments ), can be classified as 'non-value'. So chances are, that when you assign a Six Sigma expert to 'fix' a problem and reduce the variation, you are putting them onto a problem area that is either going to be replaced or altered in order to establish the new Future State with more flow and less 'waste'.

The ideal way to optimize the efforts of your experts in both the Lean field and the Six Sigma field, and to not 'waste' time, energy and money, is to have them work together for the improvement of the flow of the entire 'system'.

Here is the simple solution

Use the thinking of Lean and the primary tools of Lean such as Enterprise Value Stream Mapping TM to establish the future state implementation plan. Once you have this plan and have determined the tools you need to utilize throughout the plan and where you need to utilize them, then you can focus the Six Sigma experts in the right places.

The result is, the Six Sigma pros now are part of the strategy and direction of your company. They will naturally gain a sense of pride from the fact they are part of the overall transformation and that they are a contributor to the overall success of the organization. The results to the bottom line and to customer satisfaction indicators from their efforts are now maximized for organization. No longer are the Six Sigma professionals working in isolation or in areas that can only demonstrate 'point' improvements - they are an integral part of the future success of the company.

Deep Thinkers

Source: www.govexec.com

By Kimberly Palmer
kpalmer@govexec.com

Lean six sigma, a management term with a cult-like following in the private sector, is quickly gaining converts among Defense and civilian agencies. It started as a tool to improve how work gets done in Japanese car factories in the 1940s and morphed into a symbol of corporate efficiency in the 1990s. Now lean six sigma has turned into the latest government catchphrase for eliminating waste and reducing errors.

"In the next two to five years, there will be a significant increased push in the [civilian agencies] to adopt these approaches," says Peter Banfield, senior associate at the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton and director of its Lean Six Sigma Center of Excellence in Atlanta. It's common to find that 80 percent to 90 percent of manufacturing or back-office processes don't add value to the final product, he says. Lean six sigma can help identify waste through its systematic way of looking at problem areas such as defects and wait times.

The technical definition of six sigma - sigma refers to standard deviation - is enough to make almost anyone's eyelids droop. In everyday language, it means reducing the number of errors in a process. Lean is more intuitive; it's defined as reducing waste. Lean six sigma refers to the application of both philosophies to create a less wasteful, more streamlined process with fewer errors. Central principles include: defining a problem area, mapping out the current process, measuring inputs and outputs, analyzing the impact of particular steps in the process on output, and experimenting with possible solutions, such as eliminating steps and making sure all participants follow the same steps.

Most organizations implementing lean six sigma focus on training leaders early with the expectation of getting them on board before rolling out a broader initiative. Training levels are usually described through the martial arts belt system, where a black belt signifies seniority.

"This is not a fad that will die out. It's been tried, it's been tested, it's true. If you look at the best-run companies in industry, this is part of the heart and soul that's making them successful," says Mark Price, president of George Group Federal Services, part of Dallas-based George Group Consulting.

Federal agencies are quickly following suit. Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Stanley A. Sieg, program director at the FAA Logistics Center in Oklahoma City, is in the midst of applying lean six sigma to his center's acquisition process. The approach helped him realize that the current method of passing paper from the acquisition office to technicians to program managers and eventually on to buyers was slow and costly, and the center was making too many purchase requests when it should have been consolidating them.

Sieg says lean six sigma forced him to focus on the process and collecting data about it, instead of just starting on a solution, such as immediately making the process electronic. "My whole training has been to jump to a solution and then try to implement it," says Sieg. He thinks the technique could save the center about $3 million a year, or 2 percent of its annual revenues. "It's very applicable throughout the government, because it applies not only in the blue-collar environment but also to white-collar work to reduce cycle time and the flow of paperwork," says Sieg.

The armed services were among the first to embrace the concept. Janet Hassan, acting chief process officer for Air Force acquisition, says the application of lean six sigma to the purchase of C-17 aircraft reduced the time it took to award a contract to 10 months from 20 months. The Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia recently won the Shingo Gold Prize for Excellence in Manufacturing, named after a Japanese lean leader, after it used lean principles to reduce repair times for C-5 aircraft to an average of 210 days from 390 days. James F. Brice, director of the Naval Sea Systems Command's lean task force, says lean and six sigma will help NAVSEA save $116 million this fiscal year. In September, Kenneth Krieg, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics told the National Defense Industrial Association that he is working to institutionalize lean six sigma across the department.

Lean six sigma is already deeply ingrained in the big defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and Raytheon Co. "We approach every problem, every opportunity, every instance we're involved in with the methodologies of Raytheon Six Sigma," says Rusty Patterson, vice president of the Raytheon Six Sigma Institute. Raytheon Six Sigma is the company's own mix of lean, six sigma and other quality improvement methodologies.

In 2000, Lockheed Martin began requiring senior employees above the director level to be trained in lean six sigma. "We're working to get it embedded in every program that we touch," says Michael Joyce, vice president of operating excellence at Lockheed. His company already applies lean six sigma to finance, engineering and human resources. Kraig Scheyer, Northrop Grumman's vice president of administrative services, says the company has documented millions of dollars in cost savings since it adopted the method about four years ago.

Some see the process as so useful that they apply it to their lives outside work. The son of a Raytheon employee credits the method with helping him earn his Eagle Scout award. "It's a big theory of life - it affects you tremendously," says Howard S. Gitlow, co-author of Six Sigma for Green Belts and Champions (Prentice Hall, 2004). He says when he applied the systematic way of thinking to a friend's unsuccessful quest for a wife, the friend realized he was repeating the same mistakes in relationships. Lean six sigma taught him to look for a pattern instead of looking at only one example. That friend, says Gitlow, is now happily married with two kids.

Chris Chen, co-author of The Big Book of Six Sigma Training Games (McGraw-Hill, 2004), says six sigma's emphasis on data collection helped his Bible study group define spiritual apathy and think about how to measure it, such as how long people pray, or whether they teach Sunday school.

Like any movement, this one faces resistance from employees who don't want to change the way they operate. "Some people simply don't want to think about it hard enough," says Gitlow. Blaise J. Durante, Air Force deputy assistant secretary for acquisition integration quotes 15th century politician Niccolo Machiavelli when asked about employees' resistance to lean six sigma. "You have to get hearts and minds in change mode. Most people are in comfort zones," Durante says. One way to get employees on board is to remind them that efficiency improvements from lean six sigma could prevent their jobs from being outsourced, he says. To alleviate anxiety, NAVSEA and Lockheed have promised employees that nobody will be eliminated because of lean six sigma projects.

NAVSEA has trained more than 100 black belts. Raytheon has trained more than half its employees in six sigma techniques, and more than 1 percent of Lockheed's 135,000 employees are black belts. "We'd like to see black belts become the next generation of leaders in the company," says Northrop Grumman's Scheyer, who holds a green belt.