Too Much of a good thing ?

The central theme of the article is that quality can be an obstacle to innovation.
The belief that there is a positive link between quality and innovation is widely shared among quality professionals. Yet the experience of Japanese manufacturing firms, who are well known for their high standards of quality performance, casts doubt upon this relationship. In fact, the inability of some
Japanese high­technology firms to introduce radical and disruptive new technologies is in part due to the emphasis they have placed on product quality.
The author cites case studies of three Japanese high tech firms that lost out on competition because of too much stress on quality. Using these case studies from the Japanese high­tech sector, this article analyzes what kinds of innovation might be undermined by a focus on quality and explores its managerial implications
The Japanese loss of DRAM industry is one good example. They were making incremental innovations but were not responding to the more expansive meaning of quality.
The second example is the delayed response by Japanese electronic firms gave first­to­market advantages to Cisco in its development of network equipment for the Internet.Cisco was then able to slowly learn what customers needed and then get their new products (such as routers) deployed in the marketplace By delaying the introduction of new technologies until their quality could be assured, they lost out to
American firms who were willing to introduce new products and service features that met the needs of consumers, even though they were not free from deficiencies, such as Apple’s iPod.
The highly successful quality strategy of moving error prevention activities upstream can have the unanticipated effect of creating a highly risk averse organization. The third case talks about the NTT
DATA which had proven record of quality. The firm’s “no bug” culture, however, bred risk aversion and slowness in introducing new features and technologies. It lost the competition to the explosive growth in the IT application in the private sector.
The author at the end discusses about possible solution and tactics.
He says that one possible solution to it could be Beta testing. Beta testing can occur in the phase just prior to mass production and distribution; it is a way of allowing the company to test the market and engage selected customers over the most desirable product features and functionality. He cites examples of companies like Samsung and Sharp Co. that has been following Beta testing and are still able to maintain their brand value. By releasing the product early to selected markets, Samsung minimizes damage to the brand when problems surface. However, it also gathers—just as with beta testing—valuable market intelligence that allows it to adjust the product to better meet user needs as well as to solve particular quality problems, such as what level of defect is noticeable by viewers of LCD displays for specific applications.
The author explains the importance of being the first to launch the product to beat the competition.
He cites example of the release of Apple ipod which even though had durability issues was considered as business decision. There is always a trade­off and that trade­off is always reasoned about informally. If both the revenue and experience­curve benefits of going to the market merely are large and the costs of weaker than “normal quality” are judged to be manageable, a firm might well consider taking the risk of going to market early.
The author suggests that high­tech firms might benefit from thinking more strategically and flexibly about the role of quality at the early stages of the product cycle.