Having launched and managed several innovation programs at Fortune 100 companies, I can say for certain that Six Sigma is a far more natural fit for most companies than innovation. Six Sigma gives structure to the known, while innovation aims to do so for the unknown. There is nothing scarier/more threatening to a large company than the prospect of disruptive change. That is why most large companies are absolutely terrible at it. Only a handful are built to truly innovate. Digital, unregulated companies with short launch cycles, like Google, can do it. So do a few R&D-heavy ones like GE in the physical world. The rest? They act incrementally and like it that way, unless they feel an imminent threat which makes change inevitable.
At many big companies, innovation efforts are cosmetic, political, or just “bolted-on”. They are rarely part of the core of how those companies do business. Here’s a hint: if the company is always talking about “innovation” or having “innovation meetings”, I can guarantee you that:
- Their innovation efforts aren’t integrated
- Those efforts will fail
- They should go back to Six Sigma and acquisitions, instead of innovation, and call it a day.
Original article: Debate: Six Sigma vs. Innovation The system for boosting quality may seem to run counter to disruptive change—but companies can have it both ways.
Comments to this post from Google+ at https://plus.google.com/u/0/101420285783101939251/posts/GAN9ajMpi19
Jerrold McGrath – The reality will likely land somewhere in between. Incremental change is not contrary to innovation if the increments are not exclusively focused on the efficient deployment of assets. I really believe that the Lean Startup approach has legs, whereby constant, controlled experimentation allows for incremental improvements in the underlying value proposition without requiring significant risk.
12:34 PM
Steve Faktor – +Jerrold McGrath I absolutely agree that incremental change is important for every organization. However, the mechanisms and processes for incremental change are already baked into existing functions. For example, product management and development functions are commonly expected to evolve and refresh product lines. Its’s part of their charter. They are bonused on it. Sure, some do it better than others. The likelihood of any real innovation that challenges the existence and long term viability of that product, for instance, coming from that structure is virtually nil. That is the definition of innovation I’m using. Both types can be managed effectively with a process that includes controlled experimentation, incremental investments, and fast prototyping. However, it is not in the DNA of most organizations, which are built to defend not attack, to truly commit the latter.
1:10 PM – Edit