Friday, October 30, 2009

Quality Assurance

QA is absolutely necessary for companies and organizations to take very seriously. Everyone expects some baseline of quality, even in low-cost products. There is no more luxury of allowing poor quality products or services to hit the market. The intense competition will take advantage of the weakness and quickly fill the gap with better products. Many talk a good quality line, but are unable to implement a culture of quality such as Toyota and Hyundai have done. GM has talked about quality for 30+ years but have not caught up to their rivals and based on their current troubles are unlikely to bridge the quality gap. Also, once a company has a reputation for weak quality it is very difficult to overcome that perception.

The text mentions QA departments within an organization whose sole purpose is to check and test for quality, but I think truly that the quality responsibility must be placed into the hands of each and every employee in the organization. Everyone must be able to address quality problems at the source and not wait until the issues make their way to the QA team. Quality must be everyone's responsibility and not just shifted to a QA department.

Should there even be a QA department is a question that was posed during my Operations class over the summer. The argument was that a QA team effectively absolves the other employees of the quality responsibility by shifting the QA analysis and decisions to the QA department. Not that there shouldn't be benchmarking, quality audits, or statistical analysis done by a specific team, but ultimately the responsibility for the overall quality must be at the highest priority for the management all the way down to the line staff. Only this way will the culture of the organization be truly quality focused in practice and not just in slogans.

Introduction to Systems Thinking by Daniel Aronson

My article summary is on Introduction to Systems Thinking by Daniel Aronson. In this article he outlines some of the key concepts that defines systems thinking such as seeing the "big picture", looking at recurring problems differently, considering the consequences of actions, and analysing problems where solutions are evasive and complex. The goal of systems thinking is to ultimately view problems and solutions in the totality of the whole system not just the individual part.

The traditional way to solve problems is break them down into constituent parts and work from that level, but the systems approach is to take into account the system as a whole and study the complex interactions between the parts of the system. For an example Aronson uses the problem of insect damage to a crop. The standard way to solve this type of problem is to find out what will reduce to insects to the level that will ensure the crop's integrity will be protected. The typical approach is to apply a pesticide to kill the insects and then the crops will be safe. However, this is not the system approach.

The systems way of thinking is to analyse this problem from many more facets. Other factors that need to be considered are the short-term and long -term orientation of this system, what purpose does the invader insect currently serve that will be eliminated after the pesticide application, and the historical effects that may occur such as soil damage and water pollution. Aronson further elaborates this scenario by examining what has often happened in practice; the main effect of eliminating the problem insect is only a short lived solution because the insects that were previously controlled have grown into another problem that needs to be addressed. By looking at this problem through an integrated long-term manner this costly and potentially damaging action could have been addressed correctly the first-time by truly considering the whole system that would be affected by the specific action.

IT projects also can benefit from the system approach. Often solutions are offered through many differing perspectives, but tend to be biased toward the views, experience and culture to such a degree that the solution itself does not really address the entire problem and the organization in which it will be deployed, but only a small and narrow slice that is seen by the proposer.

The complexity of systems today make the systems approach ideal for project management as was discussed in the textbook in chapter two. Aronson proposes system thinking as a method to manage this complexity and address the type of one-dimensional thinking that has plagued organizations in the past. He states that an effectively implemented approach of system thinking can elevate our thinking when we begin the problem analysis.

I believe that systems thinking is needed to address many of the complex problems that we face today. Too often a quick political solution is proposed and is implemented without total systems consideration. For example, in Illinois the smoking ban was implemented without much forethought. Questions such as who will enforce the ban, how will businesses be affected, is the timing correct, how will tax revenue be impacted, who will gain or lose from this ban, were not addressed in the beginning and many resources such as police, health, and court systems have had to try to address some of the oversights of the law as written. Many other types of shortsighted decisions could have be avoided with a systems thinking approach.

Article URL:
http://www.thinking.net/Systems_Thinking/Intro_to_ST/intro_to_st.html

Friday, October 9, 2009

How can IT enhance mass customization?

IT has played a pivotal role in the mass-customization industry that is common today. Without the technology that enables customers to visualize their options through a website and the globalization 3.0 infrastructure that allows companies to manage their products and offerings, mass-customization would be difficult and costly to deploy in the ubiquitous manner now experienced.

Mass-customization is the method of "effectively postponing the task of differentiating a product for a specific customer until the latest possible point in the supply network." (Chase, Jacobs, Aquilano, 2006, p.419).

This is largely made possible through IT systems that allow the customer to order a base product that is mass-produced such as a My-Touch from T-Mobile and add a personalized design to the phone exterior, selected apps, or other features, and it is through the same IT system which enables customers to "try out" a design at their convenience before committing to the order. For example, the website invites you to "Imagine being able to create a phone as individual as you are. One that you can make completely your own —inside and out—with dynamic apps, one-of-a-kind home screen themes and exterior shells and gel skins." The advertisements for the phone emphasize this personalization by showing such diverse personalities as Whoopi Goldberg and Phil Jackson that have each customized their own phone.

Another company that has employed the mass-customization concept is Disney. Instead of a product, Disney mass-customizes the type of experience you are willing to design. When you buy your ticket to the park it is a base ticket. Then you can add features just as you would to a Dell laptop or a Nissan Cube. Maybe you would like to stay on one of the many resorts or add a dining plan to better suit your vacation dreams. There are many other additional choices you can make such as stay length, park-hopper, in-room flowers, have a cake ordered or a special fireworks cruise. You can even have lunch with one of the Imagineers. The options for customization are quite vast and are limited only by your fiscal resources. This gives each customer the ability to design the vacation package that will extract the most value for their families needs, which helps Disney provide the experience that each guest is expecting.

A third example is the new Coke vending machine, Freestyle, that can hold more than 100 sodas. The new fountain is like an ink printer with space for hundreds of cartridges. Each cartridge contains a concentrated formula of ingredients. When you press your choice, say Diet Coke, the machine will tell cartridge 12 to release three squirts, cartridge 81 two squirts and so on, then it combines it with carbonated water and you get the same drink as old machines. According to Fast Company, Freestyle machines are currently being tested in Georgia, California, and Utah and Coca-Cola has said it plans to place 60 test dispensers around the country by the end of the summer.

Finally, mass-customization has allowed business to hold on to the product rule, Hotelling’s Law, that states it’s natural and rational for businesses to make their products as similar as possible for cost effective reasons, while also taking these very similar base products and allowing the customer to "make it their own" by adding features they want at the moment of purchase. As technology continues to advance, I think that we will soon have something like a replicator as featured in STTNG.

Thursday, October 8, 2009