I believe while there is some subjectivity included - but, let's be honest here, when is there not? - the "amount" of it is reduced by putting the focus on the
establishment of a process for CI and not on the actual existence of demonstrated improvement.
Auditing Continual Improvement said:
The only real solution for the auditor is to verify how the organization has determined this proposed rate of improvement, how it has evaluated the associated risks, and how this relates to customer requirements and the monitoring of feedback on customer satisfaction. It would be almost impossible to issue a non-conformance report stating: ?There was not enough continual improvement.
Recommendations should be geared towards the process of CI such as the sources for triggering CI initiatives and objectives. For example, a company may have an amazing warehouse of data in a Business Intelligence system. Yet, if the objectives and CI initiatives are all based on customer feedback, the company is missing out on a key information-based source for assessing process capability and identifying possible CI opportunity.
Or perhaps an organization has a wonderful Employee Suggestion process, yet does not capture the process for handing suggestions or implementing those that it accepts.
To me, auditors should be focusing on the process for CI (identifying, capturing, addressing CI opportunities), not necessarily whether or not CI was achieved. Then again, the process of failing to meet a CI goal should be part of the CI process. ;-)