Continuous Performance Improvement

As a Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) Program Manager, I really enjoy delivering training. I feel effective when I weather the initial storm of doubt and resistance from trainees: "CPI is another management flavor of the month...," "CPI is just a rehash of Total Quality Management...," "How is this different than process re-engineering (or any of dozens of brands of process improvement." After a few hours, I can literally see the conversions start taking place as very smart people realize that the processes that they manage are not smart. By the end of the training, only a few hold-outs still remain: individuals who still see no value in the techniques and tools associated with improving processes.

Needless to say, I was surprised when I realized that I don't care about process improvement. Process improvement, for me, is only a means to an end. The only reason I want our organizational processes to be improved is to improve our organizational performance. In an online discussion recently, Jim Hill pointed out this inconsistency to me. He coined the phrase "Continuous Performance Improvement" and instantly converted me to thinking of an accomplishments-based approach to process improvement. I can't wait to incorporate this new golden nugget into my curriculum -- this very small shift in emphasis should fill a critical gap in how I deliver CPI courses. Thanks, Jim.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Society of Professional Hispanic Engineers Lean Six Sigma Workshop

Key Performance Indicators in a Nutshell

Priming the Project Pump: Lean Six Sigma on a Shoestring