Talk:Continual improvement process/Archives/2018

Triple-nested lark
A broader definition is that of the Institute of Quality Assurance who defined "continuous improvement as a gradual never-ending change which is: '... focused on increasing the effectiveness and/or efficiency of an organisation to fulfil its policy and objectives. It is not limited to quality initiatives. Improvement in business strategy, business results, customer, employee and supplier relationships can be subject to continual improvement. Put simply, it means ‘getting better all the time’.' "

I don't actually like the tone of the final phrase, notwithstanding the triple nesting, which almost makes it appear that some editor was having a bit of a chuckle at Wikipedia's expense.

In particular, constantly seeking improvement does not necessarily translate into "getting better", as anyone can attest who has met the Red Queen. Not many people know this, but her comment here is actually a deprecating self-reference to her overdue Botox booster shot. What stops an improvement process from having a mathematical fixed point? inquiring rabbits want to know. And what stops that fixed point from setting like the sun?

I would personally excise the entire paragraph, and find an alternate means of expression of the entire sentiment. &mdash; MaxEnt 17:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The presumptive frame here is that corporations live in a complex, ever-changing world, so by the standards of yesteryear, we can usually adduce objective growth. However by the standards of readiness for today, there's no guarantee that your CPI is cutting the mustard, and putting for par. Furthermore, corporations often seek out challenging new business opportunities, which knocks them back to the beginner stage. What's annoying me here is the embedded metaphor that dates back to the 1960s: that every company aspires to become staid and stable like your grandfather's Big Blue. Yeah, those guys, who invented the IBM PC, and lost control of the entire market sector within three years. I'm sure they thought they were getting better and better, but soon they discovered they were the best of nothing much, which was shrinking at light speed. Word to the wise: any kind of outcome-driven narrative woven around CPI risks descending into naked teleology. Definitely there are situations in the world where a management philosophy of big change delivered by fire-and-forget leads to poor organizational outcomes. And probably almost everyone, personally, benefits from some element of sober, structured, self-review. But it is, of course, merely a tool, and like any tool, one can become too enamored of the tool, and lose sight of the big picture while doing so. &mdash; MaxEnt 17:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)