How do we prove that we are improving the continual improvement process?

[WALLACE]

continuous improvement is not a process, it is the output of a process.

Please expand on your thoughts?
Wallace

 

[Jen Kirley]

Jennifer

You are talking about corrective and preventive action processes - these are processes which you can rightly improve on, the measure of which is improvement, or more improvement, or indeed no improvement.

The point is that continuous improvement is not a process, it is the output of a process.

Is it true that the results of the improvement process are its output, or am I confused about this?

Is a process to improve processes a concept? Or is it an effort to notice how one can do better, sooner, with fewer defects than before the corrective/preventive action occurred?

Can one call the shift away from corrective action and into preventive action a process into continuous improvement? PDCA, PDCA...

 

[skumar]

The way I look at this is that if we improved a process by say 10% last year than it is a improvement.
If we keep on improving the same process 10% every year than it is continuous improvement.
But if we not only improve every year but the rate of improvement also keeps on increasing than we can say that we are improving our continuous improvement process itself.
How much is it possible in practice is another question.
Sandeep

 

[Jen Kirley]

The way I look at this is that if we improved a process by say 10% last year than it is a improvement.
If we keep on improving the same process 10% every year than it is continuous improvement.
But if we not only improve every year but the rate of improvement also keeps on increasing than we can say that we are improving our continuous improvement process itself.
How much is it possible in practice is another question.
Sandeep

You said it as I understand it. As to how much is possible in practice depends on the organization's culture. If you can show a slope of improvement, mathematically I would expect it to turn into a curve over time.

But since new things always arise in whatever aspect: man, material and/or machine there are bound to be opportunities to improve all the time. Show that you are going about it better, and you are improving upon the improving process.

I don't expect most auditors would hit on more than the results of the improvement itself; as comments have gone in general, do that and I feel sure the element will be met. No one expects you to nuke this process!

 

[Jim Wynne]

Show that you are going about it better, and you are improving upon the improving process.

My original point was that the nesting of this idea is infinite, which is evidence of unclear thinking or belaboring the obvious. It's axiomatic that improvement means that something is demonstrably better than it was at some previous point. If continual improvement is to be indoctrinated (the term is used advisedly) into the culture of a company, it means that people must be given permission to innovate, and then be expected to do so. It must be a part of daily life, like eating and breathing. If that sort of culture exists, the only way it can be improved upon is by getting rid of people who, after having been given ample opportunity and encouragement to do so, refuse to think for themselves.

 

[RoxaneB]

The way I look at this is that if we improved a process by say 10% last year than it is a improvement.
If we keep on improving the same process 10% every year than it is continuous improvement.
But if we not only improve every year but the rate of improvement also keeps on increasing than we can say that we are improving our continuous improvement process itself.
How much is it possible in practice is another question.

Here's how I look at your example...

How did you know what you wanted to improve and by how much and who would be involved and what resources were required? If your improvement of 10% was sheer luck and coincidence, then while you have an improvement, you have not applied the concepts of continual improvement. As Jennifer said...PDCA, PDCA.

The practice of continual improvement is quite easy, actually. You plan. You do. You check. You act. The difficulties arise when you start to deviate from the plan due to unforseen issues and taking proper action when the desired results are not achieved.

If continual improvement is to be indoctrinated (the term is used advisedly) into the culture of a company, it means that people must be given permission to innovate, and then be expected to do so. It must be a part of daily life, like eating and breathing. If that sort of culture exists, the only way it can be improved upon is by getting rid of people who, after having been given ample opportunity and encouragement to do so, refuse to think for themselves.

Ah, there's the kicker...allowing people to innovate. Easy to say, but not every culture is willing to share the tools of continual improvement amongst the ranks. But those that do...well...we're starting to see some impressive numbers, great team work (in and outside of team meetings) and an overall boost in morale and a willingness to learn (and question).

To teach the tools and skills involved in the continual improvement process to personnel at levels has been a bit of resource drain, but as the old saying goes "Short term losses. Long term gains."

 

[Craig H.]

I think maybe we are missing something here. If we improve a process 10% this year, and a completely different process 10% next year, is that not continuous improvement? I think what the standard and common sense dictate is that we look at all of our processes and make a business decision concerning the risks of allowing each one to remain in its present state, or to decline, without any extra effort expended on behalf of that process. Then we decide which one(s) we should concentrate on first considering the risks involved and the objectives of the organization. The decisions made will change over time.

My point is that the need for continuous improvement does not exist in a vacuum, but should be interpreted within the context in which it appears within the standard. This addresses one of the (IMO valid) arguments against the previous versions of ISO 9000, that you can be certified and still ship junk. Having to show improvement over time, having to show that our business management system is EFFECTIVE, should pretty much lay that argument to rest.

Of course that assumes the effective application and enforcement of the tenants of ISO 9001, but that is another thread.

 

[RoxaneB]

I think maybe we are missing something here. If we improve a process 10% this year, and a completely different process 10% next year, is that not continuous improvement? I think what the standard and common sense dictate is that we look at all of our processes and make a business decision concerning the risks of allowing each one to remain in its present state, or to decline, without any extra effort expended on behalf of that process. Then we decide which one(s) we should concentrate on first considering the risks involved and the objectives of the organization. The decisions made will change over time.

Very good points!

My company looks at what we need to improve, where we can, the risks and benefits involved and develops a 1, 3 and 5 year improvement plan. This is done annually and the plans may change as our organization does.

Thanks for the reminder!

 

[Sajjad Chaudhry]

How do we prove that we are improving the continual improvement process

I think, the act(s) of Improvement is a process. It has inputs in form of methods, procedures etc. resulting in issues, problems or simply opportunities for improvement. It has outputs in form of better procedures, operations, processes etc. The methods, techniques, approaches we use for converting inputs into outputs is the process of 'improvement'.

Now, the degree of success in converting inputs to outputs can be assessed for the efectiveness of the methods we used. Examples are reduced customer complaints, shorter cycle time etc.

The other measure is the effeiciency i.e. using less resources and achieving better results. The improved efficiency may be due to better methods, for example, for measuring customer perception and associated QFD, team approach towards improvement indicated or measured through employee suggestions program, better auditing (process) approach and follow up methods etc.

The above explanation can be supported with several practical examples that I have not got into for keeping my note short.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I think, the act(s) of Improvement is a process. It has inputs in form of methods, procedures etc. resulting in issues, problems or simply opportunities for improvement. It has outputs in form of better procedures, operations, processes etc. The methods, techniques, approaches we use for converting inputs into outputs is the process of 'improvement'.

Now, the degree of success in converting inputs to outputs can be assessed for the efectiveness of the methods we used. Examples are reduced customer complaints, shorter cycle time etc.

The other measure is the effeiciency i.e. using less resources and achieving better results. The improved efficiency may be due to better methods, for example, for measuring customer perception and associated QFD, team approach towards improvement indicated or measured through employee suggestions program, better auditing (process) approach and follow up methods etc.

The above explanation can be supported with several practical examples that I have not got into for keeping my note short.

All good observations, Sajjad, but this type of discussion reminds me of the two men who encounter a large carnivorous reptile and get eaten by it while arguing about whether it's a crocodile or and alligator. The spirit of and impetus for continuous improvement can't be quantified or codified or come into existence through spontaneous generation or by merit of festooning the walls with banners. If, by dint of leadership, the spirit and impetus exist, the rest will follow.