What Is Wrong with the Current Continuous Improvement (CI) Practice?

Abstract

Why sound CI programs may fail to deliver on their ambitions is because they are considered a certain type of change management program. According to such a program human resources are meant not only to be in service of assets often at a relatively low scale of the value adding ladder but also to become subject to a culture of regulation focusing on assets, i.e., capital, technology and, indirectly, the intangibles. The general perception of how improvement programs should be structured and conducted is that they should make their impact on assets and asset utilisation. The fact that most CI programs are likewise evaluated as though they were just a bigger finite change program, with technology and process, maybe system metrics invoked, is an indication of the instrumentalisation of CI itself. Operational change programs are prone to engender not only silos but also rigid, die-hard cultures at asset level, incapable of self-reflection and cooperation. Operational change management fails in both ways as a CI platform. Western Lean has always been under the spell of change programs and while so it is not capable of supporting either customer orientation or CI.