CLICK HERE
13 Learning, Change and Process Improvement
13.2 Process Improvement
The basis of continual improvement of processes is the scientific model, as embedded in the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycle. This model suggests that we need to begin with a goal and then develop a plan as to how the goal might be achieved; the plan needs then to be enacted and the results (good and bad) observed. The analysis of these results (and our understanding of the causes) then leads us to act to modify our original plan, which brings us back to the start of the cycle. There are a huge number of improvement models, but careful analysis reveals the PDSA underpinning all of them.
It is imperative that when we seek to improve a process we recognise that we need to remember what we are trying to do, and how we shall know when we have achieved it. A practical model is provided by Process Management International (Gillet and Seddon, 2009).
Figure 13.1. The three question model (Gillet and Seddon, 2009)
Quality Management
151
Learning, Change and Process Improvement
The plan-do-study-act cycle (PDSA) guides the definition of appropriate actions, allowing for learning as implementation happens and promoting reflection on the outcome of actions, while this occurs in the context of a clear understanding of not only the goals of the change, but also (crucially) how we will recognise improvement. This recognises that all improvement requires change, but not all change is an improvement.
Probably the most popular model for process improvement at the present time is the Six Sigma Define-Measure-Analyse-Improve-Control (DMAIC) model. This model is not treated in detail here as it is, unsurprisingly, a derivative of the PDSA model. However, more detail can be found in the companion text (also on Bookboon.com) “Six Sigma: Principles and Practice”.
13.2.1 Focus of Improvement
Improvement activities basically focus on one (or a combination of) three areas:
1. Reducing process cost.
2. Increasing process quality.
3. Increasing process speed (reducing time).
The precise focus will depend upon the analysis of customer priorities and current performance to assess where maximum benefit can be gained. It should be noted that these areas are not mutually exclusive, as was once thought to be the case.
13.2.2 Improvement Approach
There are essentially two approaches to process improvement: the Kaizen, or continuous improvement approach and the step change approach.
• Kaizen: Favours the use of a large number of small local projects (such as those run by quality circles) in order to deliver significant aggregate improvement. This is the mainstay of Japanese organizations and is about the cultural change to everyone pursuing improvement. It has advantages in gaining company-wide momentum and delivering behavioural change and lasting improvements but may miss opportunities to rethink larger systems.
• Step Change: Is a more Western idea and modern approaches such as Six Sigma which are expert led epitomise the approach. The advantage is that it allows a radical rethink of processes giving much bigger potential improvements, and may take into account wider processes rather than the local focus of Kaizen.
However, the nature of the approach means that it has higher levels of risk (bigger changes always mean more risk ) and Imai (1986) amongst others points out that the lack of local ownership of changes proposed by ‘expert’ teams means that improvements often fail to be sustained.
Quality Management
152
Learning, Change and Process Improvement
Figure 13.2. Standard Step-Change and integrated Step-Change and Kaizen. (Imai, 1986)
Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more Click on the ad to read more
EXPERIENCE THE POWER OF FULL ENGAGEMENT…
RUN FASTER.
RUN LONGER..
RUN EASIER…
READ MORE & PRE-ORDER TODAY WWW.GAITEYE.COM Challenge the way we run1349906_A6_4+0.indd 1 22-08-2014 12:56:57
Quality Management
153
Learning, Change and Process Improvement
Figure 13.2 shows how Imai (1986) suggests that step change projects fail to hold the (admittedly significant) gains made when the project team departs. The lower diagram shows how he suggests that by integrating Kaizen into step change the gains can be both sustained and built upon. This would imply a much greater involvement, and deference to the opinions of, local staff in step change projects. This is now recognised as the most appropriate model to strive for; an underlying basis of Kaizen with step-change projects implemented sympathetically with this system in areas where significant (sometimes called ‘breakthrough’) performance improvement is required.
13.2.3 Waste and Variation
Both waste and variation have been touched upon in earlier chapters. In the context of improvement they represent different focuses: waste approaches look to improve process flows and to reduce non-value adding activities as well as to reduce the time taken to do a task, whereas variation centred approaches look to improve consistency of processes and products. In many ways they are complimentary, but most improvement efforts will principally focus on one or the other depending upon the circumstances.