Using Continuous Improvement Tools Effectively
Continuous Improvement has become a central concept in manufacturing processes over the last three decades. Large industrial producers may be staffed with a Continuous Improvement department. Virtually all industrial producers of any size would describe CI as a key operational initiative, even if they are not formally equipped with such resources. CI has become a cornerstone of industrial management.
While CI is now a common cultural element, it’s important to understand that effective usage of CI tools requires more than providing training in these tools. Successful deployment of continuous improvement requires a deep understanding of CI tools, and the wisdom of knowing which tools to deploy for a given area or problem.
As an example, utilizing a Disciplined Problem Solving method is fundamental (such as an 8 Step). This step wise method provides a template to help determine the root cause of an issue. It’s also an effective way to document actions taken to diagnose the problem, and prevent recurrence.
Yet, by its structure, an 8 Step process takes time to work through, and to document properly. There may be a case where a problem is simple enough to solve that use of a 5 Why question list will lead the investigator to the root cause. The associated documentation can be far less for a 5 Why Analysis than for a complete 8 step process.
Another aspect of CI tool deployment relates to resource allocation. For a complex problem, or a significant customer concern, it may be necessary and desirable to assemble a formal cross functional team. Considerable thought may be needed to assess team makeup, to optimize its effectiveness. Team meeting logistics may be daunting. This approach should be followed if needed.
A less significant issue may solved through discussion with one key operator, or one department, with no cross functional representation. Resource allocation should be based on practical evaluation of the issue’s importance, not on a perceived need to always follow a standard problem solving path.
Matching the appropriate tool to an issue provides both cultural and tangible benefits. Time spent on problem solving subtracts from other value added activities. Selecting the tool or tools to be utilized in a structure problem solving approach is critical. A team which spends time using the wrong tool may become frustrated, and suffer from reduced energy and enthusiasm.
Suppose a team tries to use a Cause and Effect diagram for a complex process which hasn’t already been mapped thoroughly. The process may fail because information was missing which was critical to effective use of the Cause and Effect tool. Potential interactions between causes and effects could be missed, or improperly assessed, and the outputs from the tool would thus be less useful.
If a Fishbone diagram, or a detailed Process Flow diagram is created first, then the Cause and Effect diagram has a greater chance of being helpful. This is because all key sub steps can now be expressed, and discussed, in the Cause and Effect matrix discussion.
The CI toolbox houses a variety of useful tools and methods. They are based on common sense principles, and most are reasonably easy to use. It is critical to understand when and how they should be deploye. They are not a substitute for process knowledge. Instead, they help team members with process knowledge to apply that knowledge to effective problem solving. Selecting the wrong tool can damage problem solving efficiency, or actually cause it to fail. Selecting the proper tool, at the proper time, increases the likelihood of problem solving success.
