We're in our 5th episode of our series about generating ideas with our team toward action. The first two episodes were all about idea generation. The 3rd was about grouping and exploring ideas. The 4th was about screening ideas. Now, we'll look at ways to compare ideas.
We’re still considering that we're just after brainstorming, at the point where we have many ideas and no next steps.
Let's compare ideas with our team so we can move toward action. We explore these Quality Tools and how to use them after a brainstorming or other idea-generating team activity:
paired comparison
prioritization matrix
DMRCS
Visit the podcast blog for extra images, links, and more.
Previous episodes in our series about generating ideas with our team toward action:
**NEW COURSE** FMEA in Practice: from Plan to Risk-Based Decision Making is enrolling students now. Visit the course page for more information and to sign up today! Click Here
**FREE RESOURCES** Quality during Design engineering and new product development is actionable. It's also a mindset. Subscribe for consistency, inspiration, and ideas at www.qualityduringdesign.com.
About me Dianna Deeney helps product designers work with their cross-functional team to reduce concept design time and increase product success, using quality and reliability methods.
She consults with businesses to incorporate quality within their product development processes. She also coaches individuals in using Quality during Design for their projects.
She founded Quality during Design through her company Deeney Enterprises, LLC. Her vision is a world of products that are easy to use, dependable, and safe – possible by using Quality during Design engineering and product development.
Speaker 1:
This is our fifth episode in our series about generating ideas with our team toward action. In the first two episodes was started at the beginning of 2023. We generated ideas and discussed different ways that we can approach our problem or our goal in order to generate ideas. We're now at the point where we have a lot of ideas and we can't really define next steps. We have to narrow into our choice in order to take action. We have talked about ideas to screen and select ideas using quality tools. We talked about affinity diagrams and two by two charts and multivoting. Today we're going to talk about paired comparison, more about paired comparison after this brief introduction. Hello and welcome to Quality During Design, the place to use quality thinking to create products, others love for less. Each week we talk about ways to use quality during design, engineering, and product development. My name is Diana Dini. I'm a senior level quality, professional, and engineer with over 20 years of experience in manufacturing and design. Listen in and then join us. Visit quality during design.com. Do you know what 12 things you should have before a design concept makes it to the engineering drawing board where you're setting specifications. I've got a free checklist for you and you can do some assessments of your own. Where do you stack up with the checklist? You can log into a learning portal to access the checklist and an introduction to more information about how to get those 12 things. To get this free information, just sign up@qualityduringdesign.com. On the homepage, there's a link in the middle of the page. Just click it and say, I want it. Welcome back. We're using quality tools as visual aids to do team-based activities, to take a creative phase of teamwork and move that toward decisions where we can take next steps. We're not really looking to get a quick decision and just eliminate a bunch of ideas. Instead, we're handling ideas systematically so that we can get the most benefit from our creative phase. What is it about this idea we can use? What can we do to make this idea work? Here's our scenario for this episode. We have done, uh, team brainstorming activity or idea generation activity, and we've already taken some steps to prioritize or group them or reduce our list of ideas. With some projects, there's a lot of ideas, so we need to group them and further explore them before we can decide what actions to take. In that case, we may have used an affinity diagram team sorting method, and if we needed to further explore ideas, we used a fishbone or a tree diagram. All of these are visual quality tools. If our team needed to think through ideas together, then we likely used a list reduction activity to reduce the number of ideas and combine like ideas. There are times that we'll do a brainstorming session, group ideas in a two by two chart, like urgent versus important or value versus effort, and then decide which action to take, and then we're done. We move on with actions, and sometimes still there's too many good ideas, so we use the brain trust of the team to vote on what they think are the top priorities. We use multivoting to narrow the list of choices and further discuss options. Now what? Now we may still need to make a final decision. One way we can do this is to use paired comparisons. In paired comparisons, we're going to compare ideas against each other. Idea versus idea in pairs or sets. This does different things than the other things that we've done. In the two by two chart, we compared ideas against criteria. In multivoting, we compared ideas against a goal impaired comparisons, we're comparing ideas against each other, and we're also ranking ideas based on individual preferences versus overall criteria. Here's what I mean. For each pair of ideas, we're going to make a comparison. We're going to use a three level comparison like major, moderate, or minimal, or we could use a two level comparison. We're assessing each idea against the other in this comparison, so we would say that this idea is moderately better than the other idea or this idea is minorly better than the other idea. We're not only choosing which idea is the better out of the two, but we're also assigning a weight to it. How much better is this idea than the other idea? The better The idea is, the higher the value we assign, each idea that is better gets a plus value added to its rank. Here's an example. We're going to compare idea alpha against Idea Bravo, and we think Bravo is moderately better, so we're going to assign Bravo a moderately better ranking and given a value of two. Then we compare Idea Charlie against Idea Bravo, and we think Bravo is significantly better in a major way, so we're going to assign idea Bravo a value of three. Now, idea Bravo has a total ranking value of two plus three equals five. In the end, we'll have our list of ideas that are ranked in order of preference. I'll post an example of paired comparison on the podcast blog and the example compares five ideas, and it'll be easier to see how this all fits together and how paired comparison works. We can compare ideas systematically with our team. We could also combine this activity with the multivoting. Either way, we are comparing ideas and giving them a rank and priority based on which one is better and by how much. Our goal is team consensus, which again is that place where everyone supports the decision even if it wasn't their first choice, and we're going to look for a clear option, so we need to ensure that we're all voting on the same ideas or the same understanding of the ideas. In last week's episode with Multivoting, we talked about the importance of getting the decider involved and they can get involved in the paired comparison process. Also, or another way to get the decider involved is to have the best idea and then an alternative idea ready with the pros and cons of each. The paired comparison approach will give you that listing of ideas in order of rank. What if the decision that we face is really complicated or expensive? Which supplier should we use? For example, we have options for how we want to run our experiment. Which options should we choose to get the maximum benefit out of the activity? When the decision has competing objectives and we have multiple criteria that we can measure our ideas against, then we wanna do something different than a binary yes no or pass fail. We can do a prioritization matrix which adds weighted value to both the criteria and the options. To do this, we have a goal that is clearly defined. We have criteria that the decision must meet, and then we do a paired comparison of the criteria first to give them a weighted value. Then we compare the ideas versus their criteria using those weighted values. We can do this as a team or we can do this like we do. The affinity diagrams and the multivoting individuals give their weights and their tallied after each step. Big differences are discussed for understanding. This method requires more work and a lot more matrices. Not only are we comparing criteria against each other, we're comparing the ideas against each individual criteria, and then we're combining it all in the end to give us a ranking of the idea. But when we have a decision that is complicated or that there's a lot at stake, these extra steps could mean a better decision. Another more robust method is D M R C S. Short four, define, measure, reduce, combine, and select. It's modeled after the six sigma D M A I C instead. D M R C S is a structured understanding of competitive choices. This method may add more vigor to our problem statement. It also helps us to slow down to consider how we're going to measure our options and then consider if the measures we choose link back to what we're trying to accomplish. The analysis is more rigorous too. With appropriate measures, we can start to analyze our ideas graphically for comparisons and plots like scatter plots and mixture plots. We get into more detail about Dmrc s and another podcast episode, which I'll link to in the blog. In that episode, I quoted a statistician, and I think it applies at the end of this episode. Also, Dr. Anderson Cook warned about some assumptions when using any of these decision making models. She says, sometimes even the best decision making can yield an undesirable outcome in the post-decision assessment. Try to separate the outcome from the process of making the decision. Sometimes you're just unlucky that this should not negate the fact that you followed a sound process to make the decision. The opposite is also possible. You can see a great outcome despite a non thoughtful process, but you shouldn't always count on this working out. In other words, using a team to generate ideas and then systematically following through on those ideas with the team in order to make a decision or come to a conclusion can maximize all that creativity that our team has. If we rush to a decision about which option to take without really thoroughly exploring the ideas that our team created, we're cutting short the creation process, and we may end up with an idea that was quick to come to, but may not be the best idea or the most creative idea that we could have come up with. What's today's insight to action? Paired comparison is a way that we can systematically compare ideas against each other and against multiple criteria, and we can use a D M RRCs process, which allows us to have a structured understanding of many competitive choices by using some of these quality tools. On the back end of a brainstorming session where we're doing quiet brainstorming individually, coming up with ideas, we're giving ourselves the best chance to come up with the best idea by using frameworks in order to share, discuss, prioritize, and decide on the best way forward. Listen in to next week's episodes. While I'll be talking about design sprints, a lot of what we've been covering in this mini-series folds nicely into that. I look forward to joining you. Then, If you like this topic or the content in this episode, there's much more on our website, including information about how to join our signature coaching program. The quality during design journey consistency is important, so subscribe to the Weekly newsletter. This has been a production of Dean Enterprises. Thanks for listening.