2009-09-07 01:31:52frank
「六個標準差」與「設計思考」
「六個標準差」(Six Sigma)對流程或產品績效的統計衡量，進而達到近乎完美的績效目標。「設計思考」(Design Thinking)以消費者或使用者為本的設計思考。
「六個標準差」在統計學定義而言：六標準差（6 Sigma）是指在完美情況下每10億個量測值中，只有兩個缺點的機會，亦即2PPB（Part/Piece Per Billon），真是一個超高的品質目標。「六個標準差」在本世紀初年突然間成為企管的顯學，在書店裡的企管類書架上都是「六個標準差」的書，翻開任一本，會發現道這似乎是非常偏重實用與操作的學問，一大堆的縮寫(acronym), 以及黑帶大師(master black belt)，黑帶 (black belt)，綠帶 (green belt)據說是空手道的分級標幟...，而且書都是厚厚一本，或是上下冊，不知從何下手去了解這個學問，所以也就一直不了解它的真正內涵。
「設計思考」(Design Thinking)則是最近幾年開始流行的名詞，或說是一種學問。最主要這個design thinking是和一般所習慣的分析思考(analytical thinking)做區分。就像設計師一般，要考慮使用者，以創新的方式來提出解決方案。
所以用「設計思考」來構思整體的流程：從設計到最後的物流與售後服務；再以「六個標準差」來精實整個流程。以這種中心思想所規劃的流程應該是最佳的工作流程，也是每一個組織應該採用的方法。
雖然不明白「六個標準差」，但我想國內產業界所常用的一些方法像 QCC(品管圈), TQM (Total Quality Management,全面品質管理), TPM (Total Productive Maintenance,全面生產保養)多少有些雷同，或只是在適用範圍加大，或標準重新設定等等，一種進階或升級。我想完全獨立發展的一套品質提升的學問，這幾乎是不可能的，但如果叫作TQM2.0好像功勞還是TQM的，而且不易吸引注意，所以就取了新名「六個標準差」。
企管這個領域，新奇或時髦新鮮的名詞似乎很有必要。近年來幾本轟動的名著，內容平平，談不上什麼創見。Larry BOSSIDY & Ram CHARAN 包熙迪、夏藍著的「執行力」，厚厚一本，說穿了不過在說明流程的重要。金偉燦(W. Chan KIM)、芮妮‧莫伯尼(Renee MAUBORGNE)著的「藍海策略」是說要開創無人競爭的全新市場。這不都是很淺顯易懂的事嗎？沒有一個好的流程，談何執行力呢？每個人也想重新定義或修改自己的商品或服務，開創無人競爭的全新市場。「設計思考」(Design Thinking)以使用者為本的設計思考；今天絕大多數的人會反問：如果不以使用者為本來設計，那要怎麼設計呢？
我本來只是認為這是一種標新立異，但這似乎符合了美國人創新的風格，不用典故。－－「不用典」這不是當年提倡白話文的胡適之先生在「文學改良芻議」中提出的原則之一嗎？要進行文學改良，必須先從「八事」入手︰
高中時背得滾瓜爛熟的原則，但卻不曾試著去做過。剛上網查了一下，胡適之先生「文學改良芻議」是在1917年提出的，距今已有九十多年了。九十多年年前胡適之先生就已經明白指出的原則，正是最符合市場需求的寫作原則，雖然我不了解文學領域是否也是如此，但是在非文學類創作中，這似乎是金科玉律。「執行力」、「藍海策略」 ...等，不都是我們現今社會中常聽到的語彙嗎？胡適先生的「白話八部」心法，我已習得二十餘載，卻未曾明白箇中奧妙，直至今時！
6-Sep-09
Prototype
Welcoming the New, Improving the Old
By SARA BECKMAN
FOR decades, companies from Cisco Systems to Staples to Bank of America have worked to embed the basic techniques of Six Sigma, the business approach that relies on measurement and analysis to make operations as efficient as possible.
More recently, in the last 5 to 10 years, they have been told they must master a new set of skills known as “design thinking.” Aiming to help companies innovate, design thinking starts with an intense focus on understanding real problems customers face in their day-to-day lives — often using techniques derived from ethnographers — and then entertains a range of possible solutions.
To many, the two skill sets don’t fit together well, and Chuck Jones, vice president for global consumer design at Whirlpool, explains why that may be so. Design thinkers, he says, are like quantum physicists, able to consider a world in which anything — like traveling at the speed of light — is theoretically possible. But a majority of people, including the Six Sigma advocates in most corporations, think more like Newtonian physicists — focused on measurement along three well-defined dimensions.
Six Sigma, a kit of analytical tools first developed in the 1980s at Motorola, has been embraced by many businesses — big and small. Joy Ulickey, a quality consultant in San Francisco, applied them in 2008 to help a midsize Sonoma winery figure out why it was having so many failed fermentations.
Through a detailed analysis of possible factors affecting fermentation, like yeast type, temperature and the rate of cycling wine through the tanks, Ms. Ulickey identified the primary problem as temperature control. Then she suggested several “countermeasures,” including hiring workers to monitor temperature or investing in newer fermentation tanks. Her work allowed the winery to save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and improve its wine.
On a much larger scale, it is unimaginable that Intel could produce a single one of its highly complex semiconductor chips or that Procter & Gamble could deliver laundry detergent of consistent quality globally without these types of analytical techniques.
Design thinking can be equally effective, but in different ways. While in business school, Jeff Denby and Jason Kibbey concocted an online underwear company called Pact, applying design thinking to understand prospective customers and to rethink how underwear is developed and sold. They visited underwear stores and asked friends and family to send pictures of the underwear in their dresser drawers, or, for those brave enough, shots of themselves posing in their favorite boxers or panties.
They tested different approaches to marketing, including subscription programs, and different ways of developing stylish products. For example, they considered letting up-and-coming designers compete to create designs showcasing particular causes.
Today, their company, based in Berkeley, Calif., sells organic cotton underwear created by the designer Yves Béhar. The designs use graphics that highlight the work of groups like 826 National, which helps young writers, and a portion of revenue is contributed to those causes.
To survive, many businesses will have to figure out how to incorporate both approaches. Design thinking offers tools for exploring new markets and opportunities; Six Sigma skills can be applied to improve existing products. Companies that adhere strictly to one or the other risk failure. “The practices that make for success at one time can trap firms and contribute to their downfall at a later time,” says Bob Cole, a quality expert and professor emeritus at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.
Professor Cole uses the history of the Japanese DRAM industry to illustrate his point:
In the early 1990s, Japanese DRAM producers doggedly pursued quality improvement, investing in engineering and equipment to develop products of higher and higher quality. The market, however, was shifting from mainframes to personal computers, a shift that South Korean producers observed.
Samsung, for example, released a 128-megabyte DRAM in 2000 that was a perfect fit for vendors of low-priced PCs, and it leveraged that design into other products. By gathering valuable knowledge on emerging user needs, Samsung was able to rapidly respond to a changing market, while Japanese producers slowly left the DRAM field.
According to Michael Barry, a consulting assistant professor at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford and a partner at the design firm Point Forward, the Six Sigma process starts with an assumption about what is good — like higher-quality DRAM chips. Design thinking, meanwhile, inquires as to what is good — as lower-cost, higher-speed DRAM chips were for PCs and other products.
THE different world views, however, can be brought together.
At Whirlpool, Mr. Jones first proved the value of design with the introduction of the Duet washer and dryer. Duet’s novel, easy-to-use, energy-efficient design made Whirlpool a player in the front-loader market. After that success, he invited Whirlpool’s Six Sigma experts to help him improve design processes. They developed various new metrics — for how customers evaluate product quality, for example — that allowed designers and Six Sigma types to understand each other better.
Whirlpool used the principles of design thinkingfor its Duet washers and dryers, then applied the business methods of Six Sigma to enhance them.
Progressive Insurance has also turned design and Six Sigma techniques into reasonably comfortable bedfellows. In the early 1990s, it started emphasizing showing up at an accident scene and handling situations in real time, according to a 2004 article by Michael Hammer in The Harvard Business Review. That move reflected a designer’s way of thinking about customer needs, but the company was able to execute the idea through its ability to measure, analyze and improve its processes.
Both worlds — the quantum one where designers push boundaries to surprise and delight, and the Newtonian one where workers meet deadlines and margins — are meaningful. The most successful companies will learn to build bridges between them and leverage them both.
Sara Beckman is faculty director of the Management of Technology Program at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06proto.html?em
The New York Times is the registered trademark of The New York Times Company. The story was taken from The New York Times. The copyright remains with its original owner. The author of this story and The New York Times are not involved with, nor endorse the production of this blog.
「六個標準差」在統計學定義而言：六標準差（6 Sigma）是指在完美情況下每10億個量測值中，只有兩個缺點的機會，亦即2PPB（Part/Piece Per Billon），真是一個超高的品質目標。「六個標準差」在本世紀初年突然間成為企管的顯學，在書店裡的企管類書架上都是「六個標準差」的書，翻開任一本，會發現道這似乎是非常偏重實用與操作的學問，一大堆的縮寫(acronym), 以及黑帶大師(master black belt)，黑帶 (black belt)，綠帶 (green belt)據說是空手道的分級標幟...，而且書都是厚厚一本，或是上下冊，不知從何下手去了解這個學問，所以也就一直不了解它的真正內涵。
「設計思考」(Design Thinking)則是最近幾年開始流行的名詞，或說是一種學問。最主要這個design thinking是和一般所習慣的分析思考(analytical thinking)做區分。就像設計師一般，要考慮使用者，以創新的方式來提出解決方案。
所以用「設計思考」來構思整體的流程：從設計到最後的物流與售後服務；再以「六個標準差」來精實整個流程。以這種中心思想所規劃的流程應該是最佳的工作流程，也是每一個組織應該採用的方法。
雖然不明白「六個標準差」，但我想國內產業界所常用的一些方法像 QCC(品管圈), TQM (Total Quality Management,全面品質管理), TPM (Total Productive Maintenance,全面生產保養)多少有些雷同，或只是在適用範圍加大，或標準重新設定等等，一種進階或升級。我想完全獨立發展的一套品質提升的學問，這幾乎是不可能的，但如果叫作TQM2.0好像功勞還是TQM的，而且不易吸引注意，所以就取了新名「六個標準差」。
企管這個領域，新奇或時髦新鮮的名詞似乎很有必要。近年來幾本轟動的名著，內容平平，談不上什麼創見。Larry BOSSIDY & Ram CHARAN 包熙迪、夏藍著的「執行力」，厚厚一本，說穿了不過在說明流程的重要。金偉燦(W. Chan KIM)、芮妮‧莫伯尼(Renee MAUBORGNE)著的「藍海策略」是說要開創無人競爭的全新市場。這不都是很淺顯易懂的事嗎？沒有一個好的流程，談何執行力呢？每個人也想重新定義或修改自己的商品或服務，開創無人競爭的全新市場。「設計思考」(Design Thinking)以使用者為本的設計思考；今天絕大多數的人會反問：如果不以使用者為本來設計，那要怎麼設計呢？
我本來只是認為這是一種標新立異，但這似乎符合了美國人創新的風格，不用典故。－－「不用典」這不是當年提倡白話文的胡適之先生在「文學改良芻議」中提出的原則之一嗎？要進行文學改良，必須先從「八事」入手︰
一曰須言之有物。
二曰不摹仿古人。
三曰須講求文法。
四曰不作無病之呻吟。
五曰務去爛調套語。
六曰不用典。
七曰不講對仗。
八曰不避俗字俗語。
二曰不摹仿古人。
三曰須講求文法。
四曰不作無病之呻吟。
五曰務去爛調套語。
六曰不用典。
七曰不講對仗。
八曰不避俗字俗語。
高中時背得滾瓜爛熟的原則，但卻不曾試著去做過。剛上網查了一下，胡適之先生「文學改良芻議」是在1917年提出的，距今已有九十多年了。九十多年年前胡適之先生就已經明白指出的原則，正是最符合市場需求的寫作原則，雖然我不了解文學領域是否也是如此，但是在非文學類創作中，這似乎是金科玉律。「執行力」、「藍海策略」 ...等，不都是我們現今社會中常聽到的語彙嗎？胡適先生的「白話八部」心法，我已習得二十餘載，卻未曾明白箇中奧妙，直至今時！
Prototype
Welcoming the New, Improving the Old
By SARA BECKMAN
FOR decades, companies from Cisco Systems to Staples to Bank of America have worked to embed the basic techniques of Six Sigma, the business approach that relies on measurement and analysis to make operations as efficient as possible.
More recently, in the last 5 to 10 years, they have been told they must master a new set of skills known as “design thinking.” Aiming to help companies innovate, design thinking starts with an intense focus on understanding real problems customers face in their day-to-day lives — often using techniques derived from ethnographers — and then entertains a range of possible solutions.
enthnographic adj. 人種學的，指人種學的，有關人種學的
entertain vt. 4. 採納(建議、要求等),考慮
entertain vt. 4. 採納(建議、要求等),考慮
To many, the two skill sets don’t fit together well, and Chuck Jones, vice president for global consumer design at Whirlpool, explains why that may be so. Design thinkers, he says, are like quantum physicists, able to consider a world in which anything — like traveling at the speed of light — is theoretically possible. But a majority of people, including the Six Sigma advocates in most corporations, think more like Newtonian physicists — focused on measurement along three well-defined dimensions.
Six Sigma, a kit of analytical tools first developed in the 1980s at Motorola, has been embraced by many businesses — big and small. Joy Ulickey, a quality consultant in San Francisco, applied them in 2008 to help a midsize Sonoma winery figure out why it was having so many failed fermentations.
fermentation n. 發酵;騷動;動亂;興奮
Through a detailed analysis of possible factors affecting fermentation, like yeast type, temperature and the rate of cycling wine through the tanks, Ms. Ulickey identified the primary problem as temperature control. Then she suggested several “countermeasures,” including hiring workers to monitor temperature or investing in newer fermentation tanks. Her work allowed the winery to save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and improve its wine.
On a much larger scale, it is unimaginable that Intel could produce a single one of its highly complex semiconductor chips or that Procter & Gamble could deliver laundry detergent of consistent quality globally without these types of analytical techniques.
Design thinking can be equally effective, but in different ways. While in business school, Jeff Denby and Jason Kibbey concocted an online underwear company called Pact, applying design thinking to understand prospective customers and to rethink how underwear is developed and sold. They visited underwear stores and asked friends and family to send pictures of the underwear in their dresser drawers, or, for those brave enough, shots of themselves posing in their favorite boxers or panties.
They tested different approaches to marketing, including subscription programs, and different ways of developing stylish products. For example, they considered letting up-and-coming designers compete to create designs showcasing particular causes.
Today, their company, based in Berkeley, Calif., sells organic cotton underwear created by the designer Yves Béhar. The designs use graphics that highlight the work of groups like 826 National, which helps young writers, and a portion of revenue is contributed to those causes.
To survive, many businesses will have to figure out how to incorporate both approaches. Design thinking offers tools for exploring new markets and opportunities; Six Sigma skills can be applied to improve existing products. Companies that adhere strictly to one or the other risk failure. “The practices that make for success at one time can trap firms and contribute to their downfall at a later time,” says Bob Cole, a quality expert and professor emeritus at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.
Professor Cole uses the history of the Japanese DRAM industry to illustrate his point:
In the early 1990s, Japanese DRAM producers doggedly pursued quality improvement, investing in engineering and equipment to develop products of higher and higher quality. The market, however, was shifting from mainframes to personal computers, a shift that South Korean producers observed.
Samsung, for example, released a 128-megabyte DRAM in 2000 that was a perfect fit for vendors of low-priced PCs, and it leveraged that design into other products. By gathering valuable knowledge on emerging user needs, Samsung was able to rapidly respond to a changing market, while Japanese producers slowly left the DRAM field.
According to Michael Barry, a consulting assistant professor at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford and a partner at the design firm Point Forward, the Six Sigma process starts with an assumption about what is good — like higher-quality DRAM chips. Design thinking, meanwhile, inquires as to what is good — as lower-cost, higher-speed DRAM chips were for PCs and other products.
THE different world views, however, can be brought together.
At Whirlpool, Mr. Jones first proved the value of design with the introduction of the Duet washer and dryer. Duet’s novel, easy-to-use, energy-efficient design made Whirlpool a player in the front-loader market. After that success, he invited Whirlpool’s Six Sigma experts to help him improve design processes. They developed various new metrics — for how customers evaluate product quality, for example — that allowed designers and Six Sigma types to understand each other better.
Whirlpool used the principles of design thinkingfor its Duet washers and dryers, then applied the business methods of Six Sigma to enhance them.
Progressive Insurance has also turned design and Six Sigma techniques into reasonably comfortable bedfellows. In the early 1990s, it started emphasizing showing up at an accident scene and handling situations in real time, according to a 2004 article by Michael Hammer in The Harvard Business Review. That move reflected a designer’s way of thinking about customer needs, but the company was able to execute the idea through its ability to measure, analyze and improve its processes.
Both worlds — the quantum one where designers push boundaries to surprise and delight, and the Newtonian one where workers meet deadlines and margins — are meaningful. The most successful companies will learn to build bridges between them and leverage them both.
Sara Beckman is faculty director of the Management of Technology Program at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06proto.html?em
The New York Times is the registered trademark of The New York Times Company. The story was taken from The New York Times. The copyright remains with its original owner. The author of this story and The New York Times are not involved with, nor endorse the production of this blog.