Thoughts on Process Improvement

I belabored the point on simplicity of process thinking in my last post. Was planning to do more of it but better sense prevailed. Please read through the Wikipedia post on time and motion studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_motion_study). That too illustrates what I penned about (or was it pinned about…pun intended) in my last post.

Moving on, the next question is how much do we break-down a process? A seeming simple question and there could be seemingly simple answers. A good rule of thumb I follow is as follows:
1. If the process is broke down to a level (call it step) where you cannot isolate / measure the impact of a particular input on the step, you have gone too deep.
2. If the process is at a level where the measure / impact does not allow for generating a meaningful conclusion, you are looking at it far too high a level.

Regardless of the confusing rules of thumb up there, the simple statement of fact is it should be at a level where:
1. It can be defined
2. It can be measured
3. It should lend itself to some improvement or even better removal from the process
4. It should have a clear link to the next step in the process

Believe it or not, while I did not really plan it that way, when I re-read the above statements, I saw D M I of DMAIC. Call it coincidence if you will. (I won’t push myself to add the A or C right here)

For someone who does not know DMAIC, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMAIC#DMAIC will provide all the dope you need. It is simply Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve & Control.

The above link talks about six sigma and also DMAIC. There are some good words and some criticism. I would not spend too much time on the criticism and stuff. When I look at these frameworks, all I see is just that—a framework.

For me, DMAIC is five cool English verbs that can help provide structure to a problem.

More in the next post…