What does your design product pipeline look like? While the image above has been used as a tongue-in-cheek demonstration of the chaotic end of the scale, even minor problems or hold-ups in the design process can have a major adverse impact on business.
The causes of challenges in the end-to-end process of getting a product to market are fraught with myths. Manufacturing operations in particular have an ill-deserved reputation. Often, they are blamed for all manner of defects, inefficiencies and resultant delays in product development and time to market.
Consider then that manufacturing itself consumes just 30 per cent of defects. The element of the process responsible for the majority of defects - the remaining 70 per cent - is the design phase.
The pressure to develop new products faster can mean that concepts are validated earlier than they should be. Clearly this presents problems so the solution is to spend more time on concept validation and then flesh out the idea.
Easier said than done? And who should be responsible for driving innovation at the design stage? 'Innovation' is held in high esteem, but very few organisations have been able to make it a systematic and repeatable process.
In particular, by default, it is assumed by many to be the responsibility of the R&D team, or even a single person within that remit. Further, the practice of outsourcing R&D means that 'being innovative' is seen as something that happens away from the company's core activities.
For this to change, there is a real need for business leaders to create a culture where innovation is fostered throughout entire organisations. Consequently, few companies are successful at driving innovation and creating the next big idea within their own ranks.
In the right environment, every employee can play a role in making innovation systematic and reliable. While intuition, creativity and experience can catalyse the innovation necessary to become a market leader, companies using a structured innovation framework move much more efficiently from idea to action. Effectively, they must 'in-source' innovation.
Practical innovation
At the strategic and tactical levels, the premise of in-sourcing innovation is rooted in the management methodology TRIZ, part of the Total Performance Excellence model. Already used by major international companies such as BMW, Boeing, Hitachi and Motorola, TRIZ (pronounced "trees") translates from Russian as the Theory of Inventive Problem-Solving.
TRIZ is both abstract and empirical, so it offers problem-solving power that is teachable, repeatable and pervasive in the same way as methodologies in other areas such as quality control. It solves problems through the resolution of physical and technical contradictions on a case-by-case, microcosmic basis, in the same way that quality methodologies once solved operational problems.
As an example of its power, one packaged goods company leveraged the TRIZ methodology to increase its patent production by 300 per cent within five years. It consequently established new customer demand categories and captured market share from previously entrenched competitors.
TRIZ is based on eight evolutionary patterns that penetrate every aspect of the organisation:
1. Evolution towards increased 'ideality';
2. Stages of technological evolution;
3. Non-uniform (microcosmic) development of system elements;
4. Evolution towards increased dynamism and controllability;
5. Increased complexity, then simplification (reduction);
6. Evolution with matching and mismatching elements;
7. Evolution toward micro-level and increased use of fields;
8. Evolution towards decreased human involvement.
Is innovation enough?
For companies that want to drive long term organic growth, innovation must become an organisational core competency.
But is this enough? In view of the fact that the majority of product defects stem from problems in the design phase, clearly something must also be done to address this process directly. And there's a methodology created for the very task that blends perfectly with in-sourcing innovation.
Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) builds on Six Sigma thinking by aiming to ensure defects are not designed into any process. In fact, DFSS offers a synergy of Six Sigma plus proven design & development methodologies, design tools and methods of creativity. Essentially, it is the act of designing a product, process or service right the first time. The desired result is a Six Sigma output that satisfies both external customer and internal business critical to quality requirements.
DFSS in practice
Like Innovation, DFSS is a cross-functional, problem-solving methodology with a focus on the design process. It seeks to predict and prevent defects by providing a framework to enhance existing new product development processes.
DFSS is also naturally at home when applied to product design, transactional service design, re-design of existing processes, engineering and R&D. The five steps of its core "DMADV" methodology, as shown in the figure below, demonstrate why and provide insight into its practical application:
Define: This stage examines the company's goals and what it aims for through the design activity. The organisation must also ensure that its own goals are consistent with those of both its customers and enterprise strategy.
Measure: This next stage involves identifying and measuring the voice of the customer and risk assessments. It also confirms the elements of design that are critical to quality.
Analyse: This is a key element in ensuring that the optimum design is selected for the product that will ultimately go on to be manufactured. At this stage, organisations develop and design alternative product variations and evaluate and select the best.
Design: Now that the basic design has been confirmed in the Analyse stage, this next step is to optimise the plan's details and plan for design verification. Note that this now happens at a later stage than it typically would. This phase often requires simulations and prototypes, either real or virtual.
Verify: Finally, it is time to verify the design and set up pilot runs before implementing the product process and delegating the next tasks to the production process owners.
Those familiar with Six Sigma and the traditional DMAIC methodology (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, Control) will see some degree of congruence between it and DFSS as DMADV does indeed build on DMAIC. Yet there are crucial differences which make DMADV the ideal solution for the design process.
In particular, while both target cross-functional teams, DMADV involves field-specialist problem solvers rather than the full time dedicated problem solvers under DMAIC. Six Sigma DMAIC is applied after initial system or product design and development is largely completed. As such, its practice is usually consumed by solving existing process problems - i.e., reducing existing defects and optimising existing processes.
To use the same analogy, the DMADV methodology for DFSS in contrast is concerned with preventing defects from ever occurring in the first place. It predicts, models and simulates the product or process delivery system with the ultimate goal of customer satisfaction first time, every time.
Perhaps most importantly, DMAIC assumes that the solution is to be found within existing processes. While this could be the case in DMADV, this methodology is also open to the prospect of the solution being found somewhere external to existing processes.
An open mind to an open solution
Regardless of the size of organisation or complexity of business, every member of staff is potentially a powerful innovator and problem-solver. It is therefore essential to create a culture that encourages innovation and sets particular goals in place.
Combining Innovation, TRIZ and DFSS and blending them to address the precise needs of your organisation is the ideal way to encourage innovative thinking and practices and overcome problems at the product-design stage.
One final important point: if you feel an acronym-overload, it is perfectly acceptable to implement elements of the methodologies of your preference without calling them by their official names. Indeed, as each methodology also functions independently of the others mentioned here, they are completely flexible to the precise practical, logistical and IT needs of the company implementing them. The new process can simply be known as the 'Improved Design Process'.
Everyone recognises that improving the design process can only be a good thing. The key is to encourage them to recognise their own personal part in bringing it to fruition.
