The new buzz word seems to be "Systematic Innovation". I must have heard it mentioned 30 times at the last DCX BB Symposium and now it is the focus of articles in ASQ QP and others.

Is "Systematic Innovation" the future of quality or just a name change for Six Sigma?

The new buzz word seems to be "Systematic Innovation". I must have heard it mentioned 30 times at the last DCX BB Symposium and now it is the focus of articles in ASQ QP and others.

Is "Systematic Innovation" the future of quality or just a name change for Six Sigma?A new flavor of ice cream. It looks like some cause-and-effect and other basic methods have been adapted to form this approach. I read a bit more about it here: http://www.innovationtools.com/Resources/PDF/Systematic_Innovation_Using_TRIZ.pdf

There's a positive commentary about the method here: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/cont11.htm

New ice cream flavors are great things, actually. I'm a firm believer in adapting present methods to suit new demands. 6S and the present quality management tools may not feel comfortable to "right-brain" thinkers, while this method might satisfy them. I expect that from the young people particularly, who haven't the discipline for some of the existing methods and small business managers who can't see value in manufacturing approaches to service business problems.

The part I haven't seen (I haven't had a deep look at the method) is how to answer the questions "How do we know it worked?" and "What value does the exersize return to us?" Quantitative ROI could be as simple as "The team was comfortable with the method and solved the problem in X less time than previously." Even a qualitative ROI measurement might do, like "There was less arguing and we didn't have to repeat instructions to ___, or to ___ because they understood it right away."

I do not think it will replace 6S or reshape Quality, but I think Quality people would be wise to consider this approach to probelm solving efforts if current approaches are dissatisfying them.

The new buzz word seems to be "Systematic Innovation". I must have heard it mentioned 30 times at the last DCX BB Symposium and now it is the focus of articles in ASQ QP and others.

Is "Systematic Innovation" the future of quality or just a name change for Six Sigma?
Although I'd seen the "Systematic Innovation" thing a few times, I wasn't familiar with it. I did a little Googling and found, instead of information, a whole lot of people trying to sell information about it, and consulting services. Never a good sign. It is apparently based on a concept called "TRIZ" which is an acronym based on a Russian phrase, and the English equivalent is "TIPS" which stands for "Theory of Inventive Problem Solving." One of the sources I found used this bit of gobbledygook to explain:

Essence of TRIZ:
Recognition that
technical systems evolve
towards the increase of ideality
by overcoming contradictions
mostly with minimal introduction of resources.
Thus, for creative problem solving,
TRIZ provides a dialectic way of thinking,
i.e.,
to understand the problem as a system,
to image the ideal solution first, and
to solve contradictions.
Source: The Essence of TRIZ in 50 Words (http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/06/d/index.htm)

If you can cut through the dense underbrush of the phrase "Recognition that technical systems evolve towards the increase of ideality by overcoming contradictions mostly with minimal introduction of resources" you will find something akin to "keep it simple, stupid" which itself is an extension of Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest solution to a problem is also usually the best solution (Don't multiply entities unnecessarily).

It looks to me like an attempt to make a simple concept more complex so as to make people believe that they're not smart enough to understand it without paying someone to help. If anyone else here has more information, or has used any of this to good advantage, please jump in.

I'm familiar with TRIZ and feel it has its place in the toolbox. Structured innovation, from what I have read and heard, is focused on:
1) reducing variation
2) controlling the "right" variables

Sounds like quality engineering/six sigma/shainin, etc.

I guess I'm looking for what is new. In the QP article, structured innovation uses existing "roadmaps" and a decentralized group of change agents to improve business results.

I'm familiar with TRIZ and feel it has its place in the toolbox. Structured innovation, from what I have read and heard, is focused on:
1) reducing variation
2) controlling the "right" variables

Sounds like quality engineering/six sigma/shainin, etc.

I guess I'm looking for what is new. In the QP article, structured innovation uses existing "roadmaps" and a decentralized group of change agents to improve business results.

I broke this discussion off and started a new thread with it, as it seems to be an interesting topic, only undirectly related to the thread where it was originally posted.

I'm familiar with TRIZ and feel it has its place in the toolbox. Structured innovation, from what I have read and heard, is focused on:
1) reducing variation
2) controlling the "right" variables

Sounds like quality engineering/six sigma/shainin, etc.

I guess I'm looking for what is new. In the QP article, structured innovation uses existing "roadmaps" and a decentralized group of change agents to improve business results.

What does "decentralized group of change agents" mean?

I mean change agents that do not belong to a central department or function (i.e., quality), but rather are assigned an a project basis to improve business results.

A new flavor of ice cream. It looks like some cause-and-effect and other basic methods have been adapted to form this approach. I read a bit more about it here: http://www.innovationtools.com/Resources/PDF/Systematic_Innovation_Using_TRIZ.pdf

There's a positive commentary about the method here: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/cont11.htm

New ice cream flavors are great things, actually. I'm a firm believer in adapting present methods to suit new demands. 6S and the present quality management tools may not feel comfortable to "right-brain" thinkers, while this method might satisfy them. I expect that from the young people particularly, who haven't the discipline for some of the existing methods and small business managers who can't see value in manufacturing approaches to service business problems.

The part I haven't seen (I haven't had a deep look at the method) is how to answer the questions "How do we know it worked?" and "What value does the exersize return to us?" Quantitative ROI could be as simple as "The team was comfortable with the method and solved the problem in X less time than previously." Even a qualitative ROI measurement might do, like "There was less arguing and we didn't have to repeat instructions to ___, or to ___ because they understood it right away."

I do not think it will replace 6S or reshape Quality, but I think Quality people would be wise to consider this approach to probelm solving efforts if current approaches are dissatisfying them.

Jennifer, please elaborate on the phrase "right brain" thinkers. I seem to recall two catagories of so called right brain thinkers. The first deals with left handed people: my understanding is that left handed people think with the right side of their brain??? The second deals with folks who pursue the artistic as opposed to the scientific approach;ie, the scientific brain is concentrated in the left side of the brain where as the artistic brain is more right sided.
I have also heard of the theory that men tend to think with the left side and women tend to think with the right side making the ladies more emotional beings then the men.
I have heard that Einstein thought with both sides!
When my mother in law had her stroke she was paralized and we were told the damage was to the left side of the brain. She could not speak as a normal person would but could still curse like a drunken sailor.
Just curious about the terminology!
Thanks
Jim

The part I haven't seen (I haven't had a deep look at the method) is how to answer the questions "How do we know it worked?" and "What value does the exersize return to us?" Quantitative ROI could be as simple as "The team was comfortable with the method and solved the problem in X less time than previously." Even a qualitative ROI measurement might do, like "There was less arguing and we didn't have to repeat instructions to ___, or to ___ because they understood it right away."

I do not think it will replace 6S or reshape Quality, but I think Quality people would be wise to consider this approach to probelm solving efforts if current approaches are dissatisfying them.

I think the key underlying concept is whether or not there is a roadmap (even broadly) that is used in the process which is followed from one project to the next. Take Six Sigma's DMAIC, or even the IDOV or DMADV steps for DFSS. It allows for a framework and provides continuity with future projects.

One area where I see commonality with the concept of "Systematic Innovation" is in the 3P process (Pre-Production Planning or Product Preparation Process). I've attached some files (do a search for 3P within the file) which may shed some information on the concept as this is perhaps the least searchable Lean term on the internet. For the most part, there is almost no information available on this concept when compared to terms such as kanban, kaizen, and value-stream mapping.

As for measuring results, it could be along the lines of "we spent $X on equipment, instead of $X", "start-up time reduced by X/days", etc. Considering that a majority of the costs are locked in once the design is complete, this is a critical but oftentimes overlooked aspect.

Most companies design the product and then give it over to manufacturing to figure out the best way to build it. There is a hand-off to the I.E. or mfg. engineering group to figure out how to build it. Then they later proclaim when they've reduced cycle times by 30-40% somewhere down the road. My understanding is that Toyota doesn't get these huge gains in improvements since more time is spent in the up-front phases. With the standard practices, huge opportunities are being lost.

Wayne