There is a famous process in continuous improvement called Plan-Do-Check-Act and it is a cycle that keeps repeating. It is a perpetual motion machine that just keeps going, there is no end. There other more sophisticated patterns as well, such as Shiba’s seven step method and each has its place. We prefer Shiba’s method when things are out of control and in the early stages of maturity. We like processes like Toyota’s when you are in control, in the top 10-15% of your domain and you are monitoring, keeping in control, and doing the fine tweaking and tuning.

You may be able to say that you have a great course or a great program, but you do not simply say it without proof. Even if things are perceived and 'proven' to be going well, the attitude is, 'this is fine, but we should look for ways to make things even better'. It is also possible to think that things are great when they are not (easy to be perceived the eagle in a flock of turkeys) or if you have no baseline. Arrogance and defensive attitudes can arise when there is no growth mindset, or the individuals feel insecure and are in over their heads. They will not want anything critically examined or questioned; things are just fine and we are going to keep doing what we are doing (I am ok, you are ok, I love you, you love me, I love me). They are taking it personal.

Quality movements come and go, the methods come and go, the methods get re-invented. There were major quality and waste elimination programs in the 1920’s. There were concurrent-engineering efforts, listening to the voice of the customer, just-in-time, etc. all before 1930. Unfortunately, processes such as these are soft processes and are subject to organizational memory, generations of management coming and going, and the same mistakes seem to arise from the ashes like a phoenix. If business is good, competition is low or the same, quality and improvement is often set aside. If there are business incentives, quality and ‘effectiveness and efficiency’ once again become movements and the thing to do.

Some cultures and business sectors have other drivers (historical, cultural, situational) that constantly drive a search for improvement and it is not only business drivers that inspire or move individuals and organizations.

In the end, it is the same game though: do not be satisfied with the present status quo, both the how and the what, think critically about it, do not take it personally, and take it up a notch. It is important to have reasonable and feasible goals for the end game and the next increment. Firms and organizations have failed dramatically when unrealistic goals have been set given the context (e.g., high quality usually comes at a price and you cannot deliver a cheap family sedan with the same quality materials, parts, and assembly care (fit and finish) as a luxury sedan. High quality processes take time to develop and are not 'free'; they definitely do not materialize through chanting and wishing. Bottomline, the goals must match the organization’s mission and objectives.

Some observations…

• If properly done, it is not management of change or management of innovation. It is management during change and management during innovation.
• It is important for the big people, the bosses, the managers, the executive team (e.g., Presidents, Provosts, Deans, Associates, Chairs, unit Directors, Managers etc.) to first do continuous improvement in their own duties and lead by doing. This is critical for establishing credibility and creating a culture of innovation, improvement and change. There is a difference between being in charge and being a leader. The leaders need to understand what it means to go through the process and be able to walk the talk and inspire the organization.

• A continuous improvement exercise requires a variety of cognitive skills and it cannot be assumed that everyone has the necessary skills and level of expertise, or is capable of developing them. There are different skills required to identify an opportunity, to understand the import of the situation, what the cost/benefit analysis is with respect to doing it, not doing it, how much should be invested in doing it, understanding the problem, deriving a solution (set thereof), picking the appropriate solution, creating/acquiring it, testing it, piloting it, rolling it out, training, maintaining, and sustaining. Everyone does these tasks in a naïve, ad hoc fashion since birth, but this does not mean that such repetition and familiarity has created any actual expertise in the task!
• A learning curve will exist as the individuals learn what to do, how to do it.
• Do not try to launch a continuous improvement initiative in all areas at the same time. Be patient, learn how to interpret the process. Adjust, and then roll-out. This is the same for any change or improvement arising from a continuous improvement initiative.
• Honda used to have (might still) a policy of 99 failures, 1 success. Failure was rewarded and valued as long as it contributed to organizational knowledge and the mistakes did not escape the chain-link fence.
• One consulting company/guru recommended that management not yell or be upset with a failed attempt. That is the first step. It is neutral. But neutral is not what we want. What is the incentive to try and take controlled risks? Not being yelled at? Really? There is no incentive in such a situation. There must be a reward (of some kind).
• Pick a few activities to practice on, out of the lime light, away from prying eyes, where mistakes and learning can be dealt with. Never learn with a magnifying glass on the activity.
• Pick a high impact, low effort, low risk activity to start with; after the training wheels are off. Under promise, over deliver.
• Be careful about claims and expectations. In the beginning there will be lots of low hanging fruit, shooting fish in the barrel, stuff on the ground and any systematic effort or attention is likely to yield results. Do not confuse the cause and effect relationships as many gains have nothing about the continuous improvement methods or movement.
• Understand the complete process and all of the assumptions, inter-dependencies, and co-dependencies in any method or solution. Failure often comes from picking one highly visible aspect and assuming that this one item is the trick, necessary and sufficient. Rarely so.
• Think about how much education and coaching the people need to do continuous improvement and the tools needed. Do you have a full time teaching and design expert in the department, do you have helpers to help alter/create content, deal with the mechanics? Do the instructors know how to do change management? How to improve? Do not assume that they know.

• It is vital to manage the changes that involve the students. There are ways to introduce a change (btw, any change can be thought of as an innovation) and control the introduction. Transparency is needed. Time is needed. Mistakes must be eaten. The first moments of a change will set expectations and the tone for a long time.
• Do a dry run of any change first, before trying it with students in a live setting. Students like to think that the department, program, faculty, and university are innovative, but they do not want innovation on their watch, when their marks might be affected.
• It is possible to use external advisors and helpers when doing continuous improvement, but the do’ers should be the long term owners and must learn what to do and how to do it themselves. We suggest that the helpers offload the regular duties and help in that way and not do the actual work for the task owners.
• Regular discussions in a community of practice can help with sharing experiences, knowledge, insights etc. Organizational knowledge and helping each other is key for a mature culture of innovation and change.
• When an individual or group is undergoing a major improvement task, other areas and groups around the change area should expect flux and be prepared. They should also help the area under change by offloading tasks where possible, or helping with the tasks.

Further reading

• https://asq.org/quality-resources/pdca-cycle
• https://asq.org/quality-resources/articles/process-improvement-using-toyotas-a3-reports?id=44579296022f4642973c66be0fa33035
• https://www.walden-family.com/public/iaq-paper.pdf