I want to thank Mark Babbit (@YouTernMark on Twitter) for bringing this interesting post by Andrew Smart to my attention. (http://switchandshift.com/six-sigma-is-draining-employees-creativity)
Smart quotes from Elon Musk on an occasion in which Musk say, "I don't believe in process" because it stifles creativity and critical, out of the box thinking. I could only shake head and think, "Huh ?"
The 'villain' in this post is Six Sigma. Now, I am not a huge fan of Six Sigma (and don't get me started on ITIL), but Six Sigma is simply a way to define, and then refine a given work process using statistical analysis of each step and input. Going through a Six Sigma project is a painful exercise for anyone, but once the project is over, there is a new, improved business process in place for whatever the exercise was about.
Smart quotes Musk saying, "The problem is that at a lot of big companies, process becomes a substitute for thinking...." . Now I'll concede that perhaps at a macro level Musk doesn't believe in process, but at a micro level, process and defined methodologies are critical to gaining consistent results, improved efficiency, and ultimatly lower process costs.
When I say 'at a macro level', I mean that Musk is a disrupter, an outlier, who wouldn't be where he is now by coloring inside the lines all the time and sticking to process, the status quo. We need these big thinking types to look at things in new ways - absent from process - in order to create this brave new world we're in now. He also needs recruit others like him to help build these companies.
However, at a micro level - in the day to day running of a business and creating this new world, process is critical - as long as it's not sacrosanct. A well defined methodology is to a business process as JIT inventory management is to a taut supply chain. The leaner the process, the more efficient the steps, and the fewer wasted motions are involved.
However, processes - even good processes - can usually be improved and that's where creativity and critical thinking will always have a place in a good company. With the precise engineering requirements and (literally) mission-critical tolerances needed by Tesla and Space-X , there is no way he could run either one of these two amazing ventures without well defined, specific, rigorous processes in place.
However, once any process becomes an end to itself, and process managers refuse to entertain critical thinking by team members in a position to provide input to potential improvements to that process, that's when everyone suffers and this is what I believe Musk means when he says he doesn't believe in process.
Six Sigma isn't draining anyone's creativity. Only narrow minded managers can do that.
3 comments:
Dear Mark, it’s always a pleasure reading your posts.
Re. this topic, well, it depends on how one looks at it but in general imho he is right!
Say, there is person1 at step1 of a sales process. His job is to deliver target names to person2 who then does the cold calls in step2. This is a process and based on the classic approach someone else (e.g. a manager) defines what person1 is exactly supposed to do (e.g. “you buy the address data there, then make a quick check of … on their website, and then …”). Typically, Person1 doesn’t know what the spirit and purpose of the task is aimed at.
The alternative solution would be the following: “P1, the idea is that we identify the targets which fit best to our products. That’s your job. P2 uses your data for making cold calls. The higher the quality of the addresses you deliver to P2, the more it improves the perception of p2 in the eyes of the target customer. Please liaise with P2 in order to fully understand his needs and maintain close contact with him afterwards. By now, your task is organized this way […]. Of course you can use this procedure but since you are the expert, do feel free to come up with new ideas and solutions”
First process stifles creativity and critical, out of the box thinking, whereas the latter supports it.
Kourosh, I think we're in full agreement. In your example, P2 has the authority to change the process if he sees a better way forward. P2 is not beholden to an existing process and is authorized by management to make the process change. That's the creativity and innovation that's needed. Process is important, but it must always be under review.
I’m a little late to this post, but I wanted to contribute anyway.
An organisation really needs both to innovate and continuously improve. Let’s take Blockbuster as an example. Blockbuster could have, through continuous improvement, made the best videos return process in the world. However, this wouldn’t have mattered because people were turning to online video streaming. Cleary the film rental industry had innovated and changed.
However, if all the parts of a plane are not produced to the exact requirements the plane might just fall apart mid-flight. That’s if it even takes off.
I’m a big fan of Elon, but everything we do is a process, so I’m thinking Elon probably means a standard way of working. However, in many cases a standard way of working is very beneficial. Customers can get very unhappy if every experience they have with a company is different. Imagine if your returns policy meant some customers got their money back in 2 days while others got theirs back in 3 months, you’d have to take on more staff just to handle complaints. There’s a place for creativity and a place for standardisation and a company needs both.
However, if you go on LinkedIn and do a quick background check of people who work at Telsa, you’ll find that many of them are Lean Six Sigma qualified. It would be very hard if not impossible to work at an automotive manufacturing plant and not think in terms of processes.
Andrew Leong
www.tqmi.co.uk
Post a Comment