INNOVATION

Winning Combination

D
esign thinking (DT) and design for lean Six Sigma (DFLSS) have
INTEGRATING been described as formal methods and approaches to the process
DESIGN THINKING of innovation and product development. Both have their own sets
of tools to achieve the best possible design solution.
AND DESIGN FOR All the steps of their methods can be linked to the innovation value
chain1 along with the Anthony W. Ulwick’s model for the process of
LEAN SIX SIGMA innovation,2 and von Hasso Plattner’s model for design thinking,3 all of
IN THE INNOVATION which are summarized in Table 1.
The main difference between the DT and DFLSS methods is that they
PROCESS seem to relate to different tactics with regard to idea generation. It can
be deducted from comparing DT to DFLSS that:
• The DT method is concerned with empathy and responsiveness to
customer needs and desires, and focuses mostly on the discovery
stage—that is, when features tend to polarize into pairs of oppo-
site constructs and are often tied to ambiguous responses without
cancelling themselves out, which are then used to build parallel
solution concepts.
• DFLSS doesn’t seem to focus much on a comprehensive under-
by Ondina standing of any hidden and subtle mental and emotional atti-
tudes toward a potential product, but aims to create at least one
M. Castillo cost effective and error-free solution design4 that seems to have
few competing features. DFLSS mostly focuses on development
Amaya, Alianza and implementation.
Professional S.A. From data collected, the two approaches infer what could be the prob-
able success of the product designed. They equally test and prototype the
de C.V. prospective concepts and solutions, mainly with help of cross-functional
teams and a considerable degree of customer interaction. This explora-
tion helps the innovation team come up with a higher-value solution
and consequently makes the organization thrive in the target market.
The models are similar in the objective followed because each one
aims at improving customer value. The main similarities are:
1. They want to acquire knowledge from the potential customer.
2. The ways they acquire knowledge—observing, exploring and
understanding.
Naturally, there are further similarities and disparities between DT
and DFLSS, as shown in Table 2, which also categorizes the approaches’
comparisons and classifies them by answering: “Are these methods
similar or different in that respect and approach?” Different was labeled
“D” and similar was labeled “S.”
You can see that DT and DFLSS have as much in common as they
have differences (about 50% of the categories), which may come as a

8 I FEBRUARY 2017 I WWW.ASQ.ORG

 W i n n i n g C o m b i n a ti on

Table 1. Comparison of approaches to the process of innovation

Innovation value chain Process of innovation Design thinking Design thinking Design for lean Six
Morton T. Hansen and Anthony Ulwick Jeanne Liedtka and von Hasso-Plattner Sigma
Julian Birkinshaw Tim Ogilvie DMEDI model
Idea generation Define customer and job What is? Empathize Define
Uncover, discover need Define Measure
Find Opportunity What if? Ideate Explore
Conversion Define solution What wows? Prototype Develop and optimize
Evaluate solution What works? Test
Diffusion Position solution Implement

revelation. This fact might lead you to think that
both approaches are not contradictory but instead
harmonizing and complementary.
A theoretical but feasible integration of both
approaches would support their combination as par-
allel practices. That means both methods could be
connected during the innovation process, not used
as standalone methods.
It is advisable to integrate analytical thinkers with
intuitive design thinkers early on so both can deliber-
ate about the product or service combining human-
centered design, risk avoidance and value analysis.
After all, hybridity matters now because the problems
that organizations must solve are simply too complex
for any one skill set to tackle.5
By applying DT, the following wastes in innovation
related to wrong product choices and nonrelevant
learning can be avoided:
• A market chosen that’s too broad or imprecise.
• A wrong choice in a portfolio offering.
Figure 1. The knowledge funnel
Mystery Heuristic Algorithm
Design thinking Design for lean Six Sigma
Exploration Exploitation
Fuzzy front Formal development
Adapted from Roger Martin, Design of Business,
Harvard Business Press, 2009.
• An inclusion of product functionalities that the
customer doesn’t need.
• Information not translated into relevant
insights.
• Relevant knowledge not shared.
• Testing performed without learning.
• Adopting uncoordinated goals and silo think-
ing.6
The focus of the innovation process would move
across a knowledge funnel model to create value.7
DT moves in the mystery-heuristic range, creating
value from going to the mystery toward the heuristics
(which involves pondering over a concept or issue,
and narrowing it to manageable size). DFLSS is in
the form of an algorithm (code range, going from
the algorithm toward a deeper understanding of the
solution) to study the particular issue and find the
right rules for it (see Figure 1).
A controversy arises for the management of the
innovation process between improvisation and con-
trol because these are obviously opposing forces, and
they tend to create conflicts between different psy-
chological attitudes, cognitive tools, organizational
resources, and rewards and punishment systems.8
Other authors recommend, however, that synergis-
tic, balanced and combined approaches to innovation
are necessary. That is, processes for greater control
Procedure
(continuous improvement and exploitation) and dis-
junctive change (radical innovation and exploration)
are mutually reinforcing, and facilitate and contrib-
ute to the effectiveness of the other.9
When managing the hybrid innovation process,
there will be no need to address the differences and
conflicts between the DT and DFLSS approaches. On
the contrary, the organization must keep the tension
healthy and balanced, and serving a purpose.

SIX SIGMA FORUM MAGAZINE I FEBRUARY 2017 I 9

Table 2. Differences and similarities between DT and DFLSS

# Category of comparison Design thinking (DT) Design for lean Six Sigma (DFLSS) S/D
1 Mental process Creative problem solving Creative problem solving S
2 Target market Potential and current market Potential and current market S
3 Constested market Red ocean, blue ocean Red ocean, blue ocean S
4 Intended outcome Existing and new products Existing and new products S
5 Source of information Customer data Customer data S
6 Common data type Qualitative Quantitative D
7 Relevant information Customer insights (implicit) Customer requirement (explicit) D
8 Costumer connection Customer intimacy Customer relationship D
9 Emotions involvement Emotional Unemotional D
10 Communication of desires Empathy Voice of the customer, conjoint analysis D
11 Understanding the desire Inspiration, art Knowledge, science D
12 Knowledge acquisition Learning Learning S
13 Management tool Project management Project management S
14 Work structure Team based Team based S
15 Type of team Cross-functional teams Crossfunctional teams S
16 Project management priority Low High D
17 Innovation process Roadmap based on steps and iterations Roadmap based on steps and feedback loops S
18 Lead researcher's mind Designer Engineer, business person D
19 Approach to idea generation Creativity, heuristics Analysis, critical thinking D
20 Approach to idea evaluation Productive thinking Systems thinking S
21 Common tool for ideation Brainstorming, 6 hats thinking Brainstorming, TRIZ D
22 Line of thought Lateral thinking X-Y connection, cause and effect D
23 Mind of the inventor Intuitive Rational D
24 System approach Holism concept, gestalt psychology Reductionist D
25 Focus approach Unfocus Focus D
26 Decision-making approach Divergence Convergence D
27 Trade-off preference Validity Reliability D
28 Success viewpoint Effectiveness Efficiency, time to market D
29 Success measure Produce desired result Produce desired result S
30 Waste avoidance Avoids wasting efforts during design and Avoids wasting efforts during design and S
implementation implementation
31 Type of solutions Systemic solutions Systemic solutions S
32 Opportunity goal Find a breakthrough opportunity Capitalize on a new opportunity S
33 Expected results Novelty Bottom line, robustness D
34 Business results Increased business Increased business S
35 Evaluation of concepts Pugh matrix Pugh matrix S
36 Verification of product Testing Testing S
37 Communication of Visualization, simulation Visualization, simulation S
requirements
38 Modeling Rapid prototyping, guided tours Complex prototyping, experiments D
39 Customer value-adding One-day job and journey mapping Customer experience mapping and value D
activity stream mapping
40 Optimazation Optimize design Optimize business net value D
41 Uncertainty Accept ambiguity Box and Bayesian modeling D
42 Risk Accept full risk Accept adequate risk S
D = different
S = similar
Winning C omb in a ti o n

Healthy balance between DT and DFLSS Figure 2. Innovation wheels influenced

by DT and DFLSS
Validity and reliability could be strengthening sepa-
rate processes, which could be linked in a hybrid Design
innovation system: A front-end innovation process thinking
Human (DT)
will provide validity and a back-end innovation pro- factor
cess (also known as formal product development) will (validity)
provide reliability.
Let’s face it: Doing new things in a faster or cheaper Technology
way won’t be beneficial if it isn’t done in the right (reliability)
Business
direction—that is, the direction that makes the Design for (feasibility $$)
customer happy. Validity in design is to know what lean Six Sigma
will make the customer happy. It would save us itera- (DFLSS)
tions while we try to find the best solution, which is
Adapted from IDEO, www.ideo.com/about.
a starting point for more reliability of the end result.
Reliability in the design means to know that the
design won’t fail in its purpose while trying to bring
it to the customer. Optimizing the parameters of quality, cost and
DFLSS and DT increase learning aptitudes and time (related to lean Six Sigma) suits a strategy of
change culture. By using both, learning actually can dominating the already contested markets (the red
be done in a wider pattern of thinking. As Peter Senge ocean), but it doesn’t mean the organization won’t
pointed out: “Over the long run, superior perfor- find a way to form a blue ocean while looking for a
mance depends on superior learning.”10 design concept.
DFLSS and DT differ most in introducing variation The materialization of an idea cannot turn out
at the earliest stage of idea generation, which happens to be a real innovation without the proper medium
to be the originator of the subsequent value. That’s to sell it with profit in the future and the ability to
why the proposition is to use more DT at first, and implant it successfully in the organization’s business
move to analytical thinking to challenge or optimize model. That’s why the DFLSS and DT methods could
the concepts and solutions. complement each other.
Figure 2 shows how the DT and DFLSS can operate “Designing a product, process or service to provide
to give better results as the combination of compo- the intended function at the lower cost with six sigma
nents. Innovation seeks a combination of desirability, quality level (3.4 defects per million opportunities)
business viability and technical feasibility that rest in of value for customers is design for lean Six Sigma,”
the design. The more creative the idea and the more wrote Rajesh Jugulum and Phillip Samuel in Design
stable the solution give these “innovation wheels”
more speed.
“Perhaps we should think of design thinking and Figure 3. Analogy of the solution garden
Six Sigma as being part of a cycle, each feeding the
other to create new and improved products, services The best seeds should have
and experiences. Of course the biggest challenge will the best features inside
be to build business cultures that are agile enough to Design their DNA structure.
incorporate both,” wrote Tim Brown in Six Sigma and thinking The results
Seeds Integration
Design Thinking.11 are more
and better
Introducing a great deal of alternatives and impos-
outcomes.
sible ideas related to the DT approach might increase Beautiful,
the likelihood to think indiscriminately and randomly Solution profitable
land in a completely different, unexpected need and Design solutions.
garden
opportunity, called the blue ocean of uncontested for lean
Six Sigma Soil that is fertile will grow
market12 that can be explored and optimized with
whatever is planted efficiently
DFLSS. Soil and will protect it.

10 I FEBRUARY 2017 I WWW.ASQ.ORG


Figure 4. The integrative mindset
Intuitive Analytical
thinking thinking
Integrative
mindset
100% validity Appropriate mix 100% reliability
Source: Ellen DiResta, “Design Thinking and the Integrative Mindset,”
Pulse, Sept. 9, 2014, http://tinyurl.com/integrative-mindset.
for Lean Six Sigma: A Holistic Approach to Design and
Innovation.13 This is done exactly to ensure that the
product designed can be manufactured to continu-
ously meet customer specifications in a viable way.
Later on, this will help maintain future quality levels
and customer satisfaction levels.
Figure 6. Steps of the integration roadmap
Phase
0 Define innovation
strategy and
Which way?
innovation field
1 Identify and define
the opportunity
What is?
2 Explore, design and
evaluate Ideas
What if?
3 Design and evaluate
product concept
What wows?
4 Prototype the
preliminary product
Develop and
5 optimize product
functions
6 Validate and test
the product
7 Start and launch
product
W i n n i n g C o m b i n a t i on
Figure 5. DFLSS + DT + innovation
value chain
Divergent, heuristic Convergent, Y=F(x)
Variation in
Idea generation Conversion Diffusion
Realize opportunity Materialize solution Variation out
Define Develop Verify
product product and test
Design thinking (DT) approach Design for lean Six Sigma (DFLSS) approach
Figure 3 illustrates an analogy of integrating
DFLSS and DT. Think of DT as a seed (many valid,
useful and value-adding designs) and DFLSS as the
fertile soil where the seed will grow (many reliable
and profitable new solutions).
To find the healthy balance between DT and DFLSS,
Main tools Observations
Project charter Align to overall corporate strategy
and goals.
Business case
Frontloading and value chain analysis
Jobs and journey mapping Integrate some loss function and
customer experience mapping
Innovation sweet spot, voice of the
elements.
customer (VOC)
Lateral thinking, productive thinking, Review the budget and project
visualization workshops charter. Use TRIZ or design of
experiments (DoE) if needed.
Sketching Follow up and iterate between steps
1 and 3.
Pugh matrix
Design failure mode and effects
analysis
Rapid prototyping simulations, Make this a “pulse” (or a milestone).
models, customer workshop
Function QFD, product failure mode Design the product life cycle (design
and effects analysis, DoE, value for X) review of systems. Manage
stream mapping, Bayesian tools maturity levels.
Partial launch and prelaunch Iterate between steps 3 and 6.
customer workshops
Control plans, customer feedback Don’t forget to measure. Take rate
and marketing plan and success rate.
SIX SIGMA FORUM MAGAZINE I FEBRUARY 2017 I 11
Winning C omb in a ti o n
innovators must use an integrative mindset. In the
middle of analytical thinking and intuitive thinking
would be the integration needed to find balance
between reliability and validity (see Figure 4, p. 11).
Designers must see fuzzy mysteries and algorithms
not as opposing forces but as polar components in a
continuum of practices. They are free to move along
from analytical to intuitive thinking and vice versa,
in search of balance in hopes of reaching the best
option and in that way alleviating tension between
the methods.
The design phase (or front end)—in which the
ideas are sought and evaluated—is indeed the core of
the potential for success. This is in tune with the lean
philosophy of front loading.14 To reap the most value,
the firm seeks to improve identification of alternative
ideas (concepts and solutions): Put more efforts into
earlier phases of a product development process to
create more knowledge.
The DT method realizes an opportunity and
materializes a solution. Initially, the system will start
using DT to realize the opportunity. Later, shown
in Figure 5 (p. 11), the process to define it in a six
sigma function f = (x) would run parallel to the
materialization of the solution when some iterations
of DT have been done.
The organization would take the most refined pre-
liminary prototypes and outcomes and pass them
to the DFLSS treatment to enlarge the scope of the
solution to an analysis beyond customer jobs and mar-
kets served, toward quality level, technology function,
cost function, reliability and deployment. Product
innovation is not “operational innovation,”15 but it
sure enables it.
Figure 6 (p. 11) shows an example of an integration
roadmap using Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie’s
model phases of an innovation process.16 The exam-
ple shows how an organization might want to combine
both methods. Seven steps are shown, but innovators
could actually pick and choose which ones to empha-
size for a given innovation approach related to their
own innovation strategy. The main point is to use DT
first to keep pre-known facts and statistics away from
the discussion at the early stages.
There are more DT tools in the early stages (What
is? What if? What wows?), and there are more DFLSS
tools in the latter stages (What works?). The first step
is zero because the overall strategy must be clear
before the innovation projects start. Next, the seven
steps that are presented are a combination of both
approaches.
12 I FEBRUARY 2017 I WWW.ASQ.ORG
It is not necessary to resolve any trade-offs—such
as time vs. value, cost vs. value or art vs. engineer-
ing. Instead, there is a need to apply an integrative
mindset.
Driving the solution
DT should be used to strengthen validity in the front
end, which avoids wasteful mistakes related to what
a customer really desires, and DFLSS should be used
to strengthen reliability in the back end to optimize
the solution and transform it into a superior develop-
ment.
To safeguard incessant value of an ingenious and
effective concept, the organization must drive a
quality solution that eventually reaches the hands
of the customer, and an innovation process must
be established to push innovators toward a deeper
understanding of the solution. Executive guidance
toward quality improvement—provided by the
DFLSS approach—can drive a solution in the right
direction toward future continuous customer satis-
faction.
REFERENCES
1. Morten T. Hansen and Julian Birkinshaw, “The Innovation Value Chain,“
Harvard Business Review, June 2007, pp. 121-130.
2. Anthony W. Ulwick, What Customers Want: Using Outcome-Driven Innovation
to Create Breakthrough Products and Services, McGraw-Hill Cos. Inc., 2005.
3. von Hasso Plattner, Christoph Meinl and Ulrich Weinberg, Design Think-
ing: Innovation Lernen—Ideenwelten Oeffnen, Muenchen: mi Wirtschats-
buch Finanzbuch Verlag GmbH, 2009.
4. Subir Chowdhury, Design for Six Sigma: The Revolutionary Process for Achiev-
ing Extraordinary Profits, Kaplan Publishing, 2005.
5. Dev Patnaik, “Forget Design Thinking and Try Hybrid Thinking,“ Fast
Company, August 2009.
6. Claus Sehested and Henrik Sonnenberg, Lean Innovation: A Fast Path
From Knowledge to Value, Berlin/Heidelberg:Springer Verlag, 2011.
7. Roger Martin, Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive
Advantage, third edition, Harvard Business Press, 2009.
8. Francesca Ricciardi, Innovation Processes in Business Networks: Manag-
ing Inter-Organizational Relationships for Innovational Excellence, Springer
Gabler Verlag, 2014.
9. Tor Tønnessen, Managing the Process of Innovation Through Exploitation and
Exploration, Springer Gabler Verlag, 2014.
10. Peter Senge, The 5th Discipline, revised edition, Doubleday, 2006.
11. Tim Brown, Six Sigma and Design Thinking, IDEO Web, 2009, http://
designthinking.ideo.com/?p=387.
12. W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, Blue Ocean Strategy, Harvard Busi-
ness School Press, 2005.
13. Rajesh Jugulum and Phillip Samuel, Design for Lean Six Sigma: A Holistic
Approach to Design and Innovation, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2008.
14. Stefan Thomke and Takahiro Fujimoto, “The Effect of Front-Loading
Problem Solving on Product Development Performance,“ Journal of
Production Innovation Management, 2000, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 128-142.
15. Michael Hammer, “Deep Change: How Operational Innovation Can
Transform Your Company,” Harvard Business Review, 2004, https://hbr.
org/2004/04/deep-change-how-operational-innovation-can-transform-
your-company.
16. Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie, Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking
Tool Kit for Managers, Columbia University Press, 2011.