One of the hallmarks of total quality management has been the utilization of the Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer (SIPOC) model (see Figure 1). As a starting point for any continuous improvement effort, the SIPOC paradigm is a good model. It has successfully refocused many businesses on customer satisfaction as the critical consequence and required suppliers to do a better job providing the major input. It has helped the work force to see their own importance as the process link between supplier and customer. The model's intent has essentially been to:
Change the
worker's and manager's perspective to being customer-focused. Their work
is to proc-ess in a quality manner in order to satisfy the customer; they
promote an attitude of quality long before the customer receives the output. Encourage/require
suppliers to provide quality input. Otherwise the opportunity to do quality
processing is diminished. Improve continuously
(add value to) the process so that quality inputs become quality outputs
that meet customer satisfaction.There are, of course, other ways to describe and use the SIPOC model, but the emphasis on customer satisfaction, quality suppliers and continuous process improvement remain fundamental.
The SIPOC model has served many continuous-improvement processes well in focusing the work force on what is important. However, the SIPOC model does not function well as a means for the average manager and worker to use in individually improving quality on a daily basis. Most of the work force do not by themselves improve the quality of their own job. Rather, we find workers and managers processing in groups (e.g., quality improvement committees, work teams) using standard procedures (e.g., problem-solving models) or formulas (e.g., Pareto analysis).
Group effort is important and needed, but until individual initiative is well-entrenched in a quality-driven culture, no organization will achieve the full measure of quality it is capable of-thus the meaning of total quality. To think otherwise is like believing that your individual happiness, health or mental well-being will be achieved for you by the work of others around you, when in fact it is achieved by your individual work on yourself, then the assistance of others.
What is wrong with the SIPOC model?
Basically, SIPOC is limited because it:
Focuses on
the customer as the only consequence. Presents a
very limited view of important inputs and their ownership. Presents an
extremely limited view of process, which is perhaps its greatest limitation.SIPOC focuses exclusive attention on the customer in terms of "customer satisfaction." Of course, no one can deny the importance of this view. But is it the only important point of view? What about, for example, the personal satisfaction of the worker and manager who produce the output? Is not the satisfaction of the individual worker or manager important in the scheme of processing to produce customer satisfaction? Of course it is, but it is not found in the SIPOC model. Of no lesser importance are other considerations such as profit, opportunities realized, needs met.
A second problem with the SIPOC model is the limited view it provides of input to work. It addresses only the input known as the supplier. Suppliers are generally considered to be the internal and external people, products or services used to process business outputs. The acronym GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) summarizes the need for quality input. But what about the other kinds of input that are just as critical as suppliers?
The most significant and missing input in the SIPOC model is "client need," the customer's defined or to-be-determined want. It is some kind of product, service or knowledge that the client desires from us.
Finally, we come to the problems with process in the model. Nowhere in the SIPOC model is there a greater problem than here. To suggest that work is only process not only limits our thinking but is fundamentally incorrect. It is a view that leads workers to think, "I'll get around to trying to improve the process when I finish the work I am doing." Also, it creates the manager who says: "I haven't got time for this TQM stuff. We need to get this project out on time!"
The SIPOC view of process squarely places the worker/manager as the owner of only the process. On their left is the supplier. On their right is the customer. Worker and manager are in the middle-the process. This "we" and "they" mentality is not healthy because it means that worker and manager can (and on occasion do) ignore customer or suppliers or both. The SIPOC model needs a way for the individual worker and manager to realize that they own the whole of the model and not just the middle ground known as process.
What then would be a better model that overcomes the described limitations of SIPOC? A model that at the same instance achieves an understanding of work ownership and action for the individual that reflects the slogan, "Quality is me!"
ICPOCF: The work model
Several years ago, while director of a TQM process in the nation's largest environmental engineering company, I began to experiment with expanding employees' and managers' perception of what work is. This ultimately led to the development of what I call the Input-Conditions-Process-Output-Consequences-Feedback (ICPOCF) model. I began asking managers and employees what work is, and, much to my surprise, they identified a rather limited view of work-usually a 2/6 view of work. Most would say that work is: what I do and what I produce.
The first is process and the second is output. This is a 2/6 view of work (see Figure 2). By definition, "process" is the series of actions necessary for using the inputs to produce outputs under certain conditions. "Output" is that which is produced as a result of using inputs under certain conditions and through a process.
Occasionally, I have found that some employees would say that work is also: what I use in processing what I produce. This is the element of work known as "input." Input is defined as the resources and requests available or needed to produce outputs under certain conditions. Those who know the three elements of input, process and output of work have a 3/6 view of work (see figure 3). (The limited view is said with some caution because in asking hundreds of workers and managers what their inputs and outputs are, they sometimes fail to list some. This failure at total identification is more true of outputs than inputs-a fact that further emphasizes the fundamental misunderstanding of what work is.)
Most workers and managers have a 2/6 or 3/6 view of work. It also turns out that these fractions represent how much of work they feel like they own and are accountable for. Workers and managers need an expanded view of work so that they understand and own-and therefore act upon to improve themselves-all that really makes up work.
The fourth element of the ICPOCF work model is consequences. Customer satisfaction, as embedded in the SIPOC model, is one consequence of work. Others include personal satisfaction, a need that is met, a problem that is overcome, an opportunity realized and the like. Consequences are the positive (or negative) results we desire or get for the output that is produced. Consequences have a huge impact on how we view work and how successful the business is.
When the customer is satisfied, the business has succeeded (at one level) and enhanced the likelihood that the customer may return for additional services or products, and that a profit will be realized. When individual workers and managers are happy, they do better quality work or perhaps produce even greater output. As workers and managers, we need to own the consequences of our work because we are the ones who produce it from quality outputs. Therefore, in ICPOCF, we expand consequences beyond customers to include worker and manager satisfaction, and important consequences (e.g., profit) for overall business satisfaction.
The fifth element of work is conditions. Conditions are the existing factors that influence the use of inputs and processing. There are generally two classes of conditions: internal and external. The internal conditions include things like company policies and procedures or attitudes (e.g., slogans such as Ford Motor Co.'s "Quality is job one") toward work promoted by the company. External conditions include the laws, regulations, professional standards and policies that affect the inputs we use and how we process. Workers need to acknowledge conditions while working, otherwise they are ignored or simply forgotten over time.
The sixth element of work is feedback. This element completes the 6/6 view of work (see Figure 4). Two important opportunities for feedback need to be planned and implemented. The first is feedback from the one who receives the output. Did the customer like or dislike our output? Is the worker satisfied or not? Note that we need to ask, not just assume that the feedback will come to us. The second kind of feedback does or should occur while processing. Typical of this feedback is the manager evaluating and providing facilitative assistance to the workers who are processing, or workers who seek feedback on their work as they are processing.
We see, then, that work really has six elements, which are symbolized in Figure 5. The relationship between the six elements of the ICPOCF model are symbolically depicted in Figure 6. Essentially, ICPOCF specifies five relationships as an expanded version of what constitutes work for the individual, team, work procedure, work group and the entire business unit:
Inputs are
needed to produce outputs. Outputs are
produced from inputs using a process. Conditions
influence the use of inputs and the actions of process and feedback. All outputs
have consequences. Feedback is
needed to evaluate output and enhance quality of inputs and processing,
as well as attending to adherence to conditions.There are, of course, other relationships. These are the fundamental relationships among the five major elements of work. Identifying each element is important. Knowing how to use the relationships is key to improving quality, morale and profit.
Advantages of the new paradigm
Consequences
encompass the value of the worker and business with the customer. In the
SIPOC model, only the customer is valued by measuring his or her satisfaction.
In the ICPOCF model, the customer, individual worker/manager and business
motive are all valued for their contribution to the survival of the business.In the case of the worker/manager, we should include in the model personal satisfaction. In the same way that customers value satisfaction, the business should value the personal satisfaction of workers and managers. An analogy is that of a good marriage or relationship with a friend. Healthy shared relationships depend on the personal health of each individual. In a similar way, in business, satisfied workers and managers enhance the likelihood of customer satisfaction. Put another way, it may be possible to create a satisfied customer without a satisfied work force, but it is much more difficult for the business and the individuals who work in that business.
In addition to developing satisfied customers and employees, the business must attend to the primary consequences for its survival: profit. Nowhere in the SIPOC model do we give real attention to the important issue of profit. Perhaps we assume that satisfied customers will always produce profit. Managers and workers need to give attention to profit for their own benefit, as well as that of the business. When managers in particular see profit as a consequence, then they can see the value of quality-improvement efforts like TQM that improve inputs, process, outputs and attention to conditions and use of feedback.
ICPOCF encompasses
all the elements that are input. In SIPOC, we see only the value of suppliers.
In ICPOCF, we see the value and own the importance of each and every input
to our success as workers and managers. Inputs to work include not only
suppliers but other people, ideas, equipment, facilities, money, information
and the specific requests we are to process into outputs. We need to ensure
not only that our suppliers give us quality input but that other people
and other sources are up to quality.Especially important in relation to inputs is making sure we are clear about clients' needs. It may well be that lack of such clarity is the greatest single cause of not satisfying the customer-we simply don't meet their real need or listen to them very well. When we view client need as an "us" input, it improves our ability to listen clearly and not assume the client has the sole responsibility to provide input.
As workers and managers, we need to understand that we own all the inputs to produce quality outputs. This includes ensuring that the inputs are themselves in a quality form for our processing. In this regard, we may well be wise to take a lesson from the kaizen approach. In U.S. business, we are used to waiting for an input to come to us. With kaizen, it is suggested that perhaps it would be better for us to go and seek inputs. In that way we may be more apt to insist on product quality when we look into the eyes of those who give us the input.
ICPOCF expands
our attention to conditions. It's not uncommon in business to hear those
in power say, "If they (the work force) would only follow the rules
and procedures, we wouldn't have the problem we have!" This is because,
typically, little attention is paid to conditions or no reinforcement is
provided to people for following them. Largely this is because we don't
tie the conditions directly to the inputs and processes they are designed
to govern. The SIPOC model does not address conditions at all. The ICPOCF
model places conditions in the context of how they influence inputs, processes
and feedback. ICPOCF employs
feedback. In its simplest sense, feedback is information-communication-given
to and received by managers and sought by workers. Without information,
we can't really understand how well work is going and how well it was done.
Not having enough information about work in progress is like taking a course
in college and only getting one chance-the final exam-to prove how well
we did. More frequent examinations tell us what knowledge to correct so
that we may perform better by the end of the course. In work, more frequent
information helps ensure that we are correctly following the process to
produce the best output. In the ICPOCF model, we define and see where information,
called feedback, will ensure that the customer is satisfied and that during
processing, workers do the best they can. While SIPOC does address customer
satisfaction as feedback, it does not address feedback to workers as either
personal satisfaction or information needed about work quality during processing. ICPOCF encompasses
responsibility for quality in the individual. One of the principal goals
of the quality effort has been and continues to be the desire to have individuals
own up to their responsibility in producing quality. In the SIPOC model,
we see this primarily as owning customer satisfaction and developing quality
suppliers as part of our quality processing. In ICPOCF, the worker or manager,
separately and together, own all six elements of work.A more complete model
You have seen that the ICPOCF model is far more complete than SIPOC. However, like any paradigm, the work model is no better than the direct use to which it may be applied. The author has been applying the ICPOCF model to virtually every aspect of the manager/worker interface (e.g., work assignments, problem solving, work planning, measuring and improving work). Managers use it by themselves. Workers use it by themselves. Managers and workers use it together. Beyond these individual and team uses, there are far-reaching uses of the ICPOCF model in terms of defining and measuring the whole business, individual and shared processes, and work groups.
ICPOCF is a significant step beyond SIPOC. When integrated as a new model in current continuous-improvement processes, it focuses individuals on what they can do on their own as well as in teams. When implemented as a way of thinking and performing work, the ICPOCF model produces systematic thinkers who can work with management to achieve total quality that is truly customer-driven.
About the author
Danny G. Langdon is a nationally known expert in instructional design and performance technology. He is a former corporate director of training for a Fortune 500 company and TQM director for the nation's largest environmental engineering company. Currently, he heads his own firm, Performance International, at 1338 Stanford St., Suite D, Santa Monica, CA 90404, telephone (310) 453-8440.
Langdon has presented at the White House, is a former international president of the National Society for Performance and Instruction, and author of several books and articles in the field of human performance technology. His latest book is titled The New Language of Work (HRD Press, 1995, Amherst, MA. Telephone (800) 822-2801).
