kondo, y. - 2000 - innovation versus standardization

7/28/2019 KONDO, Y. - 2000 - Innovation Versus Standardization

1/5

Innovation versusstandardization

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 forenhancing 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

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

Perspectives

This paper was presented at the 4th ICIT at the

HKBU Conference Center, Hong Kong, 7-9 April

1999 and revised afterwards.

6

The TQM Magazine

Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . pp. 610

# MCB University Press . ISSN 0954-478X
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers/quality.asphttp://www.mcbup.com/research_registers/quality.asphttp://www.emerald-library.com/http://www.emerald-library.com/http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers/quality.asp


2/5

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-companystandards 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 non-

conformance. 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 standardizedmeans 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 isessential 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

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 motivatingfactor

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 thedeveloped 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 theelements 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

7

Innovation versus standardization

Yoshio Kondo

The TQM Magazine

Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . 610


3/5

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 theintermediate 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

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 notof 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 `èxist

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 `àppealing'', `àttractive'', ``helpful''

and `àdventurous''.

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 tosociety 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.

8


Yoshio Kondo

The TQM Magazine

Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . 610


4/5

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 standardizedworking 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 thiswill 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 experiencedworkers.

The first of these two types of standards

(manuals for novices) are for helping people

understand the basic actions and making the

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 ideasbut 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 requestedto 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

9


Yoshio Kondo

The TQM Magazine

Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . 610


5/5

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 fraKvalitetssyring I, Japan, p. 87.

Herzberg, F. (1969), The Motivation to Work, John Wileyand Sons, New York, NY.

Japanese Standards Association (1969), StandardsDepartment, 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


Yoshio Kondo

The TQM Magazine

Volume 12 . Number 1 . 2000 . 610

kondo, y. - 2000 - innovation versus standardization

Documents