(From: Alive and Well, by David Wayne, Improvement Science Advisor and Senior Partner, Corpus Optima)

Improvement and Problem Solving

There is a good deal of confusion in the field between improvement and problem solving. Although many of the same improvement tools can be used for both, the aim is fundamentally different. It should be noted that the term problem is being used here in a certain way: an unusual circumstance or event that is undesirable. Unusual can best be operationally defined by referring to the Shewhart control chart, points that are out of statistical control, those that have a special cause (Deming’s term). But we can often intuitively identify unusual occurrences without the aid of data and determine the need for corrective action and problem solving whose aim it is to determine the root cause, remove or solve it, and return the process to where it operated prior to the problem’s occurrence.Problem solving by this operational definition can often be done by focusing on a single metric, assuming of course that all was generally stable prior to the occurrence of the “problem.”

Improvement is something different. It is generally accomplished with a stable process or system and requires improvement action that affects all points and has an impact on the overall system—and perhaps more important, an improvement campaign or project that considers all key measures of system performance. Improvement addresses not the root cause but a system of causes.

Sporadic Spike Versus Chronic Loss

This idea was well illustrated by Juran’s chronic loss theory, though in a somewhat narrower context. Juran had noticed that teamwork and collaboration toward a common goal were evident when there was a crisis (Juran,1992). Everyone works together toward the common purpose of resolving the assignable cause or removing it, returning the process performance or system performance to what it was before the problem occurred. Juran observed that in most organizations, there is a level of loss, which he referred to as chronic, that organizations get used to living with, accepting it as part of the cost of doing business. It is loss that is embedded in routine process operation over time. To address it, these interdependent processes must be addressed. If improvement can truly be achieved, the chronic losses will drop over time and stabilize at some new, much lower level.

When generalized, this insight and the concepts underlying it apply quite well to system optimization. Unlike problem solving, where the key question is generally something like, “What went wrong?” the key question in system optimization, considering all aspects of the system, is, “What changes can we make that will result in improvement?”