The new PDCA?

It’s the 21st century, people. We need to get with the program as there are some new rules to learn

I heard an interesting debate on the radio the other day. Two academics were arguing about the impact that the information age has had on us and the way we do business. One academic said it has been bad for us and (you guessed it) the other argued the opposite

The information age is bad for us – the case for the prosecution

The academic who argued that the information age had been, on the whole, bad for us, had a good reason for saying it. He stated that in the past, when we had to spend a week painstakingly researching something, we valued what that research eventually yielded. It would have constituted a significant investment for us and, because of that, we’d want to extract as much value from the result as we could. He argued that the fact that we can find out in 5 minutes what it used to take us a week to uncover, causes us to undervalue the outcome and we often don’t bother to learn from it, or even process it properly. This is certainly something I can identify with and, to a degree, recognize in myself. But, as always, there’s a flip side, and here it is ….

The information age is bad for us – the case for the defense

Old business rules no longer apply. Things move more quickly, things are more transient, life-cycles of products and of trends are shorter. “Right first time” is dead. We haven’t got time to get it right first time. By the time we’ve got it right, the opportunity has passed

This change in dynamics brings two implications;

1. We need to be quick, agile to seize small windows of opportunity and, (as a result of moving fast);
2. The risk of defects and failures will increase

Now, as quality professionals, that gives us a problem. Failures, we are taught, are bad and should be avoided at all cost

But hang on, that’s not quite true is it? Expensive failures are bad. Damaging failures are bad … but if we can find a way to fail fast  …. and fail CHEAP … then …

So “Fail Fast Fail Cheap” is the new PDCA. Right?

Well, not quite. In some industries cheap failures are difficult to manage. Food, drugs, medical devices, aerospace? The idea that these industries could evolve into a fast moving trial and error model is inconceivable. Their failures are potentially dangerous and very damaging. The chances of a quick and graceful exit after a failure in those industries are small. So PDCA certainly is not dead. But fast moving consumer markets with low public safety risks … that’s different, and we need to accept that different, and perhaps mildly sacrilegious, rules may now apply

Anyway, for those of you looking for some new rules, I hope this is a new one worth thinking about. Here’s an article on the subject I found in Business Week on the same subject

Shaun

Post from: Capable People Blog

Fail Fast Fail Cheap

Every movement needs a champion. When I first got involved in Quality in the early 1990s, our champions at the time (to the best of my recollection) were Motorola and Ericsson. They were quoted, cited, lauded, these boys were our darlings

Strangely, their role as champions came to an end not as the result of what we’d consider a classic “quality Problem”, in that there were no scandals, no products started flipping out, nothing like that. No, their reign came to an end when they got pezzled by the more agile, visionary and opportunistic Nokia in the market place. They came from nowhere and overtook the two giants by a strategic master stroke. They identified that there were more kids than businessmen, and they made a product that would be attractive to kids. Simple, but quite brilliant as a concept, and they executed it wonderfully well

We looked for a new champion and the mantle was bestowed upon Toyota. So the quality blogosphere has been to a large extent dominated by Toyota over the past 10 years, with that company’s practices being held up as models for the rest of us. Now it looks like there will be another changing of the guard

Anyway, I’m more than a little intrigued as to who will step up to the plate. So much so that I put out a shout on LinkedIn yesterday just to see who my peers were prepared to nominate

I was not too surprised when the question stirred a lot of interest and response. Right now “Toyota stories” are creating the buzz. I was more surprised to find that most of the responders were guessing that our new champion would again emerge from the automotive sector. It was almost like that time when all Popes had to be Italian, that the thought of a champion outside automotive was, apparently, to many unlikely

Only time will tell of course, but personally I yearn for our new champion to be one of those types that is good at a range of “qualities” – a bit like a Nokia. Conformity is one thing (making things that last and don’t break), but I have a fondness for companies that manage to align that reliability with a strategic awareness that blows away the competition on all fronts. I’m not seeing one of those in automotive just now

Anyway, I’ll be watching the landscape with interest and in time I’m sure we’ll see who the new Pope will be. If you have any ideas, please add your ten cents with a comment. I always reply

Post from: Capable People Blog

Life after Toyota

“You know what the difference is between a scientist and an engineer? Engineers hate surprises”

Think about that. It’s actually quite true. Engineers love control (maybe that’s why they are not famed for their people skills), all this PDCA, everything in its place and a place for everything, continually improving things by reducing the degree of variation in specification and performance, all of that. But what’s an engineer’s natural reaction to the unexpected or, god forbid, a failure? Now we’re not saying that this discipline (engineering) is without great merit, because it clearly does have great merit, but is it a typically innovative discipline? Whenever we think about true innovators we tend to think of an inquisitive outlook, a curious type that revels in the unexpected, one that likes surprises and accepts failures as a key milestone on the voyage of discovery.  What’s more there is some research that suggests that this our more natural state, and an outlook that has put our species where it is

Sometimes the lines can be blurred and confusion can reign with regard to what constitutes innovation. Does it necessarily suggest the creation of something new? Or can it include just making something we already have, better? Problem is, everyone like to think of themselves as “innovative” and that can lead to some very broad definitions (just like “healthy eating”, “sensible drinking” or “ideal weight”), but let’s think about the concept of failure for a moment. In order to achieve step changes, we actually need them, nothing ventured, nothing gained. If that’s your outlook, then you’re a true SCIENTIST, and an innovator, my friend

For Deming’s view on innovation, check out this post from Curious Cat

Post from: Capable People Blog

Why engineers are not natural innovators