Principle 4 - To improve the outcome, improve the system (Item 1)

In order to improve the outcome; improve the system and its associated processes.

Corollary: All people work in a system: outcomes are improved when people work on improving the system

Why this question is important

You should understand the Process Capability of your main processes.

All systems, including your company, produce exactly what they are designed to produce. To get a different outcome, you must modify the system. If targets are outside capability, you must change the system in order to achieve them. Working harder is not the answer. Incentives or training are seldom the answer – though most often tried. A manager's job is to improve the system.

Process Capability

Process Capability is the capability of a process to deliver, produce or perform to specifications, a result, a target or anything. Process Capability is a fundamental concept. It underpins Principle 4. It is arguably the most important concept of Business Excellence.

Consider some examples:

• The Sydney CDB is about 5 miles (8km) from Sydney airport. How long does it take to get to the airport from the CBD? When asked this, the informed traveler would say about 30 minutes. Could you do it in 5 minutes? Impossible! What if we trained you better? No. What if we gave you a bonus if you did it? Well, I would like the money, but it is still no. What if we had a helicopter waiting? Ah, that is better. You could do it then. However, you changed the process — which is usually what has to happen. The process will deliver exactly what it is capable of delivering. No amount of extra money, training or working harder will get more out of it.
• How long does it take to be served in your local restaurant? Can they do it quicker? What is their service time capability? What about the quality of the food? What is their capability for that? Would incentives work to change the quality of the food? If you offered to pay more (or less!) would the food quality improve? Would it improve to the standard of the best restaurant you know of? Or, would they have to change their process (new chef, new cooking methods, new kitchen, new menu) to achieve that? Does the process determine the outcome?

Escapologist

A few months ago, there was TV coverage about a skydiver escapologist. He jumped from a helicopter while wrapped up in chains and handcuffs. He jumps out at 4,000 feet. From that height, he has 25 seconds before he hits the ground. It takes 7 seconds for his parachute to deploy properly. How quickly should he be able to get out of those chains? If he takes 18 seconds, he just makes it. If he takes 18.1 seconds, he is dead. Would you be happy if you could get out of the chains on average (or even most of the time) in 18 seconds or less? Not me! Notice this is not an example of `do it right first time'. Would you try to get out of the chains for the first time while dropping to earth? No way! You would do it in the comfort of your lounge room until you could do it every time in less than 10 seconds. Next, you would move to places that are more difficult (e.g., places with wind, noise and cold) and practice until you could do it every time in less than 10 seconds. That 10 seconds is his process specification. He is going to keep working on his escape process until he can do it every time in 10 seconds. In this case training (or at least practice) does work – it helps remove all the little kinks in the process. Would an incentive work?

Trains and cars

• In Sydney, the trains are supposed to run on time. `On time' is defined as leaving within 3 minutes of the scheduled time. Would this be acceptable in Tokyo? Definitely not! Would incentive pay get the trains to run on time? "If you are on time you will get a bonus". At one stage, the train drivers were being measured on achieving 5 minutes — as though it was their fault. Consequently, and because they could not control the system, the drivers began to skip stations. It solved the on-time statistics, but was a tad annoying to passengers (customers) who wanted to get on or off at the skipped stations. What causes trains to leave late? The conventional wisdom in Sydney was that it was wheelchairs. Yes, that is right, the time taken for a wheelchair to board the train. They studied `late leaving trains' and the astonishing result was found that the real cause of `late departures' was `late arrivals'. If the train arrived late, it departed late. To solve this, they had to find out what causes late arrivals? The answer, unserviceable trains or breakdowns. Getting to that point required a thinking shift — away from blaming wheelchairs or train drivers and towards acting on the real process issues.
• In NSW, we have an excellent roadside service for vehicle breakdowns, a motoring organization the NRMA. The NRMA tells its customers it will respond to calls for service within 60 minutes — except on wet days. And they do. Their systems are capable of delivering 60 minutes 95 percent of the time. What would they have to do to be capable of delivering 45 minutes in 95 percent of the time? Would it help to make the roadside mechanics work harder? Of course not. What about the other parts of the system? Traffic flows? The road network? Radio dispatch? The kit the mechanics carry with them? The age of the fleet their customers drive? The number of roadside mechanics scheduled on at any time? All of these are parts of the system that delivers roadside service.