CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT: METHODS AND MADNESS Alan J. Peterson Training Designer Plexus Corporation St. Paul, MN R. Dan Reid Supplier Quality Requirements Task Force GM-Powertrain Detroit, MI SUMMARY No matter who you talk to, everyone (or so it seems) has a different interpretation of continuous improvement. From supplier organizations to the auditors that assess them, the definitions vary widely. It's almost enough to drive a sane person mad. To get a handle on the basic concept of continuous improvement (and a grip on our sanity), it makes sense to define continuous improvement by demonstrating how it can be differentiated from corrective action and innovation, the two concepts with which it is most often confused. Why is this differentiation important? Improvements in quality, service and price can, and do, take place as the system corrects problems; corrective actions that eliminate special causes and thereby stabilize processes. But once the processes (a process) has achieved stability (and acceptable capability and performance), the process (or system) has only achieved a minimum, or what is considered to be the expected quality level for any process or system. By achieving a stable process along with acceptable capability and performance the customers' needs have been met. Trouble is, customers want their expectations to be exceeded and, in fact, they want to be delighted! Corrective actions do not produce delight. Only innovation and continuous improvement produce results that exceed expectations and may lead to delight. Innovation has drawbacks for the supplier. Yes, it can produce delight, but it is reliant upon capital expenditures, specialists, research and development and is most often sporadic in producing outcomes. Continuous improvement is characterized by having all employees involved, producing daily improvement, focusing on product characteristics and by being evolutionary rather than revolutionary. KEY WORDS continuous improvement, corrective action, innovation INTRODUCTION To get a handle on the basic concept of continuous improvement, it makes sense to define continuous improvement by demonstrating how it can be differentiated from corrective action and innovation, the two concepts with which it is most often confused. This paper discusses each concept and illustrates through applications and examples how they differ. The focus, of course, is to set continuous improvement apart from the other two; particularly to set it apart from corrective action. 218 ASQ’s 53rd Annual Quality Congress Proceedings 219 There is a sense of frustration felt by the groups (and individuals in those groups) who concern themselves with developing effective and efficient supplier quality systems. The frustration stems from the misunderstandings that surround continuous improvement. Managers in charge of supplier development often observe that corrective action is thought to be synonymous with continuous improvement. Though this observation is anecdotal, the perception is that the misunderstanding is prevalent in supplier organizations, and compounding the situation, the outcome of the misunderstanding is often accepted by the auditors who assess the suppliers’ quality systems. Consequently, the misunderstanding is not corrected. SO WHAT? Though some may argue, the main problem with not being able to differentiate continuous improvement from innovation and corrective action is that the organization may never really systematically improve. They may very well continue to fight fires, which is the modus operandi of corrective action and/or they will, in all likelihood, wait for the magic pill of innovation. Either way, the chances for measured, systematic improvement are nonexistent. So what’s the big deal? Some improvement will take place if one mixes all quality improvement concepts in one big definition; after all, the problems are getting fixed and ways of getting faster, bigger, better are being looked into. But that is exactly the problem; to correct only, means that the process will only reach stability, it will not truly improve. Stability is not improvement; stability is (and should be) the baseline expectation of any customer. Customers of an airline expect (and rightly so) that the process of getting them from one destination to another is stable; particularly, the stability of the part of process where they are 30,000 feet from terra firma. Imagine for a minute that you are a maker of a complex gadget that is highly scrutinized by both consumers and lawmakers. The gadget is subjected to the fickleness of the buyer as well as the restraints of the regulators. Changes have to be made often to keep the buyer buying and to keep the regulators happy. And you are not alone; many other groups are producing the same gadget, trying to entice the same buyers and trying to please the same regulators. As the maker of this complex gadget, you have found, after years of experience, that you simply cannot make all the things necessary to build the gadget in one building or even one group of buildings, nor is it a good idea that you do. You need to have groups with their own buildings, independent of your group, make 70–80% of the things that, when assembled by you, form the final complicated gadget; the final complicated gadget which you must sell and warranty. You are dependent upon the consistent quality of the parts assembled by you, the timeliness of their arrival, their conformity to your specifications, and the price required for each. For you, the group responsible for the entire gadget, to improve each part of the system you first must have a stable process. As long as there are fires to put out, they will require the most attention and energy by you and the rest of the system. The gadget, and the process of making it, will not improve, at least in any consistent and predictable manner; you and the system will struggle simply to not lose any ground. SO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? Corrective Action The first necessary component of establishing a system that knows, understands and does continuous improvement, is to be sure what continuous improvement is not. Continuous improvement is not corrective action. True, there is a continuum of quality improvement that includes corrective actions and continuous improvement, but one stops where the other starts. According to ISO 8402:1994 the definition for a corrective action is, “action taken to eliminate the causes of an existing nonconformity (a nonfulfilment of a specified requirement), defect (nonfulfilment of an intended usage requirement of reasonable expectation, including one concerned with safety) or other undesirable situation in order to prevent recurrence.” Corrective actions concern themselves with nonconformities and defects. Corrective actions deal with those things that are not acceptable. Corrective actions move the system toward where it should be as a minimum expectation. Correction actions work to eliminate special causes, which must be eliminated before a process is considered stable. 220 ASQ’s 53rd Annual Quality Congress Proceedings Table 1. Improvement Activities Improvement. Examples/Intent/Characteristics Innovation Capital expenditure R&D Relies on specialists Sporadic breakthroughs Revolutionary Project-based OK Continuous Improvement Product (part) characteristics, especially special characteristics (within specifications) Variable data are mandatory Small increments All employees are involved Evolutionary May be project-based Daily improvements Not OK Corrective Action Problem resolution (4.1.4.1.1) Product characteristics are out of specifications Assigned case by case as required Improvements that lead to product and process conformance Attribute data INNOVATION Innovation is something newly introduced: a new method, custom, or device or perhaps, a change in the way of doing things. Innovation is generally considered to be on the opposite end of the continuum from corrective action, but it does hold some of its key characteristics. Like corrective action, innovation’s intended outcome is to improve quality. Like corrective action, it can cause a variable amount of improvement, from small to huge improvements. And, like corrective action, it can make you feel like you are making efforts toward improvements, and are actually improving to some extent; but at the end of the day, you did not get where you wanted, or needed, to go. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Continuous improvement is perhaps most succinctly described in the Quality System Requirements QS-9000 Third Edition element 4.2.5—Continuous Improvement (1998). The third note of the section states: “For those product characteristics and process parameters that can be evaluated using variable data (data where measurements are used for analysis), continuous improvement means optimizing the characteristics and parameters at a target value and reducing variation around the value. For those product characteristics and process parameters that can only be evaluated using attribute data (data that can be counted for recording and analysis—attributes data are usually gathered in the form of nonconforming units or of nonconformities), continuous improvement is not possible until characteristics are conforming. If attribute data results do not equal zero defects, it is by definition nonconforming product. Improvements made in these situations are definition corrective actions, not continuous improvement.” Continuing in that same element, it is stated, “. . . continuous improvement [shall be undertaken] in processes that have demonstrated stability, acceptable capability and performance.” CONCLUSION Table 1 compares and contrasts the three concepts discussed in this paper: continuous improvement, corrective action and innovation. The graph provides a good summary of the discussion. ASQ’s 53rd Annual Quality Congress Proceedings 221 Quality improvement, if it is to take place in a system, must have all three processes in place. But each must be understood and differentiated, if the system is to reach a state of consistent and predictable improvements. Continuous improvement is the tool that delivers the most bang for the buck. It does not require the specialized resources required by both corrective action and innovation and it does produce results. Whether you manage a QS-9000 compliant system or are part of a TQM implementation, you need to understand that continuous improvement is not corrective action. Affordable improvements can be achieved to the delight of the customer with properly focused continuous improvement efforts. REFERENCES ISO 8402:1994 Quality Management and Quality Assurance Vocabulary. Quality System Requirements QS-9000, Third Edition, March, 1998. Copyright © 1999 American Society for Quality. All rights reserved.
