Perspectives Innovation versus standardization

Yoshio Kondo

Introduction
The coming twenty-first century is foreseen as the century of quality. It is evident that the momentum towards an increasingly open and globally competitive market has an unstoppable force, and that this will mean an enormous increase in the competitive pressure on almost all companies. It is clear that quality is the key to competitiveness and that it has become a fundamental way of managing any business anywhere for market growth and profitability. When quality is improved in creative ways, cost is reduced and productivity is raised (Kondo, 1977; Deming, 1980): a quality-first philosophy and innovative efforts are indispensable and appropriate ways for enhancing corporate performance. Work and money used to be extremely closely linked in the past, when times were hard and living standards were low. In those days, a clear distinction was drawn between work and play; work was regarded as simply a way of making money, while play was something that used it up. As educational levels rise and living standards improve, however, the value of money in relation to work diminishes rapidly. According to Herzberg (1969), motivation is generated by two different types of factors, diminishing dissatisfiers and providing satisfiers. Although money is indispensable for diminishing our dissatisfiers, it has no effect on providing satisfiers. In other words, dissatisfiers relate to our survival instinct and can be satisfied in material ways. In contrast to this, satisfiers are intellectual rather than material and have spiritual aspect. Clarifying the essence of satisfiers will become more important in the coming affluent society. On the other hand, the necessity and importance of standardization of quality of product and service and of work itself have been emphasized in order to ensure the product and service quality by documenting the work flow, issuing the work standards as to the means and methods and working in accordance with the standards. The work standardization of this kind is stressed in the registration to ISO 9000 standards. Many corporations are enthusiastic in adopting
This paper was presented at the 4th ICIT at the HKBU Conference Center, Hong Kong, 7-9 April 1999 and revised afterwards.

The author Yoshio Kondo is Professor Emeritus, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. Keywords Creativity, Innovation, Motivation, Standardization Abstract An innovative approach is indispensable, not only for developing new products and technology but also for managing any business for future development resulting in market growth and profitability. Work standardization, on the other hand, is stressed in the ISO 9000 Series Standards to raise work efficiency and to ensure product quality. Although both elements of innovation and standardization are considered indispensable for corporate management, they are often thought to be mutually exclusive, because the remaining space for innovative work is reduced along with the progress of work standardization. It is demonstrated, on the contrary, that they are complementary to each other. Electronic access The research register for this journal is available at http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers/ quality.asp The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com

The TQM Magazine Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . pp. 610 # MCB University Press . ISSN 0954-478X

Innovation versus standardization

Yoshio Kondo

The TQM Magazine Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . 610

standards-based management of this kind in order to secure business opportunity. When it comes to the standardization of work, however, the following problems are pointed out.

Difficulties in standardization
Kume (1993) explains a difficulty in achieving successful standards-based management is that work standards are often not adhered to, even after a lot of time and effort has been put into standardizing the work methods. It is reported (Japanese Standards Association, 1969) that although most Japanese companies have their own regulations stipulating that their in-company standards are to be obeyed, about half of them do not have any definite procedure for ensuring that these regulations are enforced. The job of standardization is a hard job. Is it so difficult for the workers in the work place to follow the work standards that have been set? Work standards are investigated and published in the hope of preventing and diminishing the faults of workers. They are sometimes effective but not always. If the work standards are incorrect, they are only helpful for preserving the present rate of nonconformance. When we find out-of-control in the process, cause removal and prevention of recurrence leading to process improvement are compulsory. This is the basis of continuous improvement. In other words, faults of workers provide the golden opportunity of their on-the-job education and training. Furthermore, it sometimes happens that workers are forced to obey the standardized means and methods without any explanation about the aim of the assigned work. Sense of responsibility towards work cannot be created by treating people as a substitute for a machine or robot, telling them only how to carry out the work but not the aim of the work. On the contrary, we should think that however mechanized and automated a process has become, it is ultimately human beings who use the machines to get the work done. When we adopt this standpoint, it is essential to state the aim of the work clearly so that the people responsible for performing the work can think how best to achieve its aim. The sense of responsibility which is being 7

discussed here is the ``before-the-fact'' type responsibility which can be defined as a strong desire to achieve, by some means or other, the aim of the assigned work. To this end, the following two premises are required: (1) clearly indicating the aim of the work, and (2) providing freedom as much as possible in the means and methods of doing the work. On the contrary, when the aim of the work is not clearly indicated and only a solitary method is given for doing the work, people easily say, ``We are not responsible for the non-conformance of product quality; we only obey the work standards given from the manager''. Nullifying these good creative excuses is a must. Furthermore, it is pointed out that work standardization conflicts with motivation, since it restricts the creativity and ingenuity of the people engaged in the work and reduces their opportunities to exercise those faculties. For the motivation of people, we should try to allow them as much freedom as possible in the means and methods they use in performing their work. The more freedom they are given, the greater their sense of responsibility and the more creative ability they display. Does work standardization really prevent this?

Creativity as a powerful motivating factor

As mentioned earlier, when the living standard and educational level of workers improve, the value of received money as an incentive for work diminishes rapidly. The rise of absenteeism of employees in the developed countries since the 1970s is a manifestation of this. As work and money become more and more separate, the distinction between work and play blurs, and the two begin to overlap. One typical human play is sports. It is a commonly accepted idea that, while work may sometimes be unpleasant, sport is always such fun that it can make us forget even about eating and sleeping. Why are sports so enjoyable? Is it possible to identify the elements which make sports so enjoyable and take positive steps to incorporate them into our daily work? If it is successful, our work would definitely become more pleasurable

Innovation versus standardization

Yoshio Kondo

The TQM Magazine Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . 610

than it is now (Kondo, 1989). In fact we can get many useful ideas from studies of this kind. It is summarized that sports are enjoyable because they always contain the elements of humanity, while our work is sometimes unenjoyable because it might become to a certain extent dehumanized. Nishibori (1972) stresses that human work should always include the following three elements: (1) creativity (the joy of thinking); (2) physical activity (the joy of working with sweat on the forehead); (3) sociality (the joy of sharing pleasure and hardship with colleagues). O'Toole et al. (1972) on the other hand, criticized the US custom of emphasizing monetary compensation for work and proposed that human work should be defined as follows:
an activity that produces something of value for other people.

Although Nishibori's and O'Toole's proposals were made completely separately, they match each other perfectly, if we interpret O'Toole's definition in the following way:
an activity (physical activity) that produces something of value (creativity) for other people (sociality).

It can be said that the essence of human motivation is introducing, and fully displaying, humanity in our daily work and that the creativity and sociality are the indispensable and central elements of humanity.

Innovation versus work standardization

As described earlier, there is an opinion that work standardization prevents the display of creative and innovative activities, and they are mutually exclusive. Work standards usually consist of the following three items: (1) aim of the work; (2) constraints on carrying out the work; (3) means and methods to be employed in carrying out the work. In the manufacturing process, item 1 corresponds to the quality standards for the intermediate or final products that the process must produce. Item 2 consists of restrictions that must be observed during performing the work. The most important ones are those 8

designated to ensure employee safety and preserve the quality created in the upstream processes. Among these three items, item 1 must always be achieved and item 2 must be scrupulously observed by whoever is responsible for doing the work. What we have been discussing so far in this paper could be described as ``mandatory aim, optional methods'' standpoint. It is essential for creating a strong sense of responsibility and achieving the aim of the work. In this context, let us think more about what we mean by the aim of work. The goal of a company is often said to be the pursuit of profit. However, from the standpoint mentioned above, what kind of means and methods may a company use in order to pursue profit? What was meant above was not of course giving people absolute freedom in the means and methods, but giving them as much freedom as possible. Naturally, there are several restrictions, legal and ethical ones being of particular importance. Okusa (1985) cites the contention by the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset and emphasizes that a company that merely exists in the world, or simply exists from day to day, has in fact no reason to exist, and can do nothing but decline into eventual oblivion. On the other hand, companies that ``exist well'' in the world make some form of essential contribution to society by acting in individual and unique ways, and this is important for keeping a company alive. Moreover, employees' sense of involvement in their companies' affairs is increasing as their educational levels rise. In this kind of environment, work aims must be acceptable to all involved. For this to be so, people's duties must be clear and they must be fair and aboveboard. They must be socially useful, and the people entrusted with carrying them out must regard them as worthwhile. They should be ``appealing'', ``attractive'', ``helpful'' and ``adventurous''. This will definitely become more and more important in the future. Moreover, it is precisely because quality itself fulfills these necessary conditions as a work aim that it is capable of acting as one of the mainstays of the long-term management of any company that strives strenuously to contribute to society via its customers. In other words, quality alone cannot satisfy all these conditions, but it is impossible to speak of them without talking about quality.

Innovation versus standardization

Yoshio Kondo

The TQM Magazine Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . 610

Concerning item 2, the constraints on carrying out the work, on the other hand, it is obvious that the fewer the restrictive conditions, the greater the degree of freedom in performing the work. We should, therefore, investigate each of these conditions very carefully and take bold steps to eliminate as many of them as possible. Must item 3 be obeyed in the same way as item 2 regardless of who is responsible for the work? As emphasized before, establishing and enforcing prescribed means and methods without clearly indicating the aim of the work encourage people to avoid responsibility for failures. This must be strenuously guarded against. One of the grounds for insisting that item 3 must be obeyed is that, since standardized working means and methods have been formulated after careful consideration of all the angles, they must be the most productive and efficient means and methods possible, regardless of who uses them at least the people who drew up the standards think so. However, in view of people's different characteristics and habits, it is highly unlikely that any single standard could be the most efficient for everyone, no matter how carefully it was formulated. If we force a left-handed worker to obey the standards formulated for right-handed workers, it is obvious that his/ her efficiency is lowered. We also know that this kind of standardization of action is missing from sports. If such optimally-efficient standards for action did exist in sports, anybody would be able to produce the world record and there would be no need to hold the Olympic Games. To excel at a sport, we must first master the basic actions by reading textbooks and taking lessons from instructors, but this will not allow us to produce the world record right away. The only way to keep improving our personal best is to discover and build on those basic actions through hard work, that is, by continuously practicing and exerting great ingenuity the method that suits us best. In light of this, item 3 should be divided into two types: one would consist of training manuals for beginners, while the other would consist of work standards describing special tips and tricks or know-how for experienced workers. The first of these two types of standards (manuals for novices) are for helping people understand the basic actions and making the 9

process of learning the job more efficient. In using these manuals for novices, it is also important to make it clear to all trainees at the end of the basic training that the working methods they had learned so far are no more than standard actions that are useful hints for improvement, and that, having mastered them, they should actively try to develop methods of working that really suit themselves as individuals. They should be told that this will help them to improve their skills, and that the managers actively support and encourage them to do so. Bringing up new ideas to maturity always requires someone to champion it. In most cases, those in positions of authority are the only ones who can do this. In other words, managers should not go around throwing cold water on the new ideas but should become their patrons and encourage their growth. Conversely, forcing novices to perform standard actions exactly as they have been taught is an absurd way to proceed, since it not only leads to shirking responsibility but also prevents them from improving their skills. Such an approach is nothing short of ridiculous. If workers are encouraged to improve their skills, they are requested to use their own initiative to develop the standard actions into practical working methods, and discover the secrets of performing the work efficiently. Managers should establish a system for recording the hints and tips brought up in this way by individuals or groups and actively encourage them to do so. Innovation and work standardization are thus not mutually exclusive but mutually complementary.

Conclusion
Innovative creativity is indispensable for human motivation. It is closely related to the keen sense of responsibility of doing the good work. Two factors, clearly indicating the true aim of the work and providing freedom in the means and methods, are indispensable. The means and methods given in the work standards are not the enforcement but are important elements similar to the basic actions in sports. The workers are requested to improve their skills further starting from the given work standards. The managers should encourage and assist the workers to do so. In this way, innovation and work

Innovation versus standardization

Yoshio Kondo

The TQM Magazine Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . 610

standardization are not mutually exclusive, but they are complementary to each other.

References
Deming, W.E. (1980), ``Some obstacles to improvement in quality and efficiency'', Erfahringer fra Kvalitetssyring I, Japan, p. 87. Herzberg, F. (1969), The Motivation to Work, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Japanese Standards Association (1969), Standards Department, Science and Technology Agency, Industrial Standardization in Japan, (in Japanese), p. 153.

Kondo, Y. (1977), ``Creativity in daily work'', 1977 ASQC Technical Conference Transactions Philadelphia, p. 430. Kondo, Y. (1989), Human Motivation A Key Factor for Management, 3A Corporation, Tokyo, p. 27. Kume, H. (1993), ``Quality management by ISO 9000 and by TQM'', Proceedings of EOQ '93 World Quality Congress, Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 3, p. 14. Nishibori, E.E. (1972), Humanity and Development of Creativity, (in Japanese), Japan Productivity Center, Tokyo. Okusa, F. (1985), ``TQC for what purpose?'', Hinshitsu Kanri, (in Japanese), Vol. 36 No. 1, p. 88. O'Toole, J. et al. (1972), Work in America, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 3.

Commentary
A characteristically elegant contribution from one of the genuinely important figures in the development of quality management thought and practice. 10