J
jaimezepeda
RCBeyette said:Over the past few years, we started to notice that our gains were getting smaller and smaller...i.e., it was becoming more difficult to improve. Introducing some new CI tools into our "toolbox" has allowed to identify areas we never thought of before and the movement upward has increased.
Will CI reach the point where the improvements made are so negligible that it may not be worth the effort to introduce any improvements?
Jaime
jaimezepeda said:
Absolutely when it comes to the Law Of Diminishing Returns. Makes no sense spending $10,000 in capital to yield a $100 net gain..
There will need to be other types of improvements beyond manufacturing. Utilize Pareto's Law (80-20 rule), and when you get so good, 1) get rid of the 80% of your customers that yield 20% of your profit. . . 2) get rid of the 20% of the customers that cause 80% of your excess costs. . .3) Replace them with customers like the ones that are left. . . 20% who yield 80% of your profit.
Last edited:
J
Jim Howe
Good question Jamie, when ever I see a question like this I am reminded of my early days in electronics. As a capacitor charges to its rated voltage it follows a "natural growth curve". In the beginning the charge up is very rapid but as it nears the max it slows considerably.jaimezepeda said:
If you ace your state final (all answers 100% correct) can you improve? Or do you move on? My math professor always stated " ...you can never approach infinity to do so would mean it was not infinite..." "...on the other hand a finite value can become infinitly large...". My personal feeling is that you are correct but I am not sure what you do when that happens.
Jim
jaimezepeda said:
Part of me agree's with my fuzzy companion's comments on diminishing returns, but the other part says that will only hold true if industry does not continue to evolve.
If the benchmark never changes, Jaime, then, yes, eventually CI would become negligible. But that's why the benchmarks in our industries are the benchmarks...they don't accept their current level of performance as being the best they can do. New technologies come into play. New people with fresh ideas of thinking and doing. The bar is always raised and there will always be areas for fantastic gains!
Don't get me wrong, though, there are some areas in my organization were CI is possible, but the analysis shows it not to be feasible at this time...especially when compared to other areas where the Return on Investment is huge! We decide where to improve and how and when and why....but the point is we never stop improving.
Okay...putting down the pompoms and picking up my lightsabre again...
B
Bill Pflanz
Rob Nix said:
Sometime in the past I remember switching terms and using continual rather than continous improvement. At the time, I realized it was more accurate or better but I had forgotten why I switched. Your definitions fit what I remember.
I believe the problem with continuous improvement was that it implied getting to an unattainable place that just frustrated workers. Continual improvement allows the worker to evaluate where they are now and work on something that will make things better. It could be a stretch goal or a much smaller step but either way it improved the product or service.
I have been told that you see good ideas to Steal Shamelessly. If you don't mind, I think I will keep your definitions for future reference.
Bill Pflanz
Claes Gefvenberg
Admin
Well said. When you start hitting the ceiling the time for a breakthrough has come... New technology, process, philosophy... whatever...RCBeyette said:
/Claes
J
Jim Howe
I remember these definitions. I recall a graphic that illustrated the difference between the two. One graph was a straight linear line with a 45 degree slope upward (continuous) and the other graph was a random crooked line with a slope that was generally upward (continual). Does anyone in the cove remember this graph? Does anyone perhaps still have a copy that they could post?Rob Nix said:I hope I'm in the right thread now Claes...
I'll start with this:
Continous Improvement - Perpetual (Webster = "uninterupted extension") improvement made every day, hour, and minute. This term was unrealistic and therefore changed in the standards to continual improvement.
Continual Improvement - Non-ceasing (Webster = "recurring in steady succession") acts to enhance value, excellence, quality, or simply: to make things better than they were before.
Instead of it being an entity of its own in an organization, e.g. having its own procedure or "process" or other such thing, it should be an evident and intrinsic part of the management environment. A chief goal of top management should be that no process in the organization ever stagnate. Everything must get better over time.
Evidence of continual improvement can then be found in MANY areas:
- Strategic Business Planning
- Benchmarking
- Training & Education Initiatives
- Corrective & Preventive Actions
- Audit OFIs
- SPC
- Reliability Growth
- Waste reduction
- ETC.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. I look forward to more on this.
Jim
Similar threads
