Are you Designing or are you Improving?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any place else in business where there is such a bright line between "designing" and "improving" than in Six Sigma methods.  One might be tempted to think that this is a distinction without a difference, since you can't improve without designing something new.

But, alas!

In Six Sigma, we differentiate between the two.  And every group that I've worked with has asked similar questions about why and when to use either the Design methodology or the Improvement methodology.  The reason it's important goes beyond the academic objective of "I want to better understand six sigma" in these ways:

1. How to prove the project is important.  Both methods have a Define phase where this issue is addressed.  But a Design project needs to focus on opportunity -- e.g., you just did a portfolio review and feel there is opportunity to restack your Denver metro.  Improvement focuses on problem-solving -- e.g., you see from customer satisfaction scores that you have a problem in your Move/Add/Change process.
2. How to identify solution components.  In an Improve project, you have historic data (or facts) coming in to the project and one of your main tasks is to look at root causes the performance of which, if improved, would achieve your customers' expectations.  In a Design project you are not currently providing the service so you have to use a lot more customer input to make up for your lack of historic performance information.  You need this additional customer input to zero in on your solution.

These are just a couple of issues to consider.  One of the most common questions about applying Design or Improve methods in six sigma is driven by the assumption of whether or not there is already a process.  People usually feel that if there is not a common workflow, written down, articulated, understood by all, that there is not a process.  Not true!  If you do the work today, there is a process -- use the Improve (DMAIC) method.