Quality Improvement – considered dangerous?

#QualityImprovement can be dangerous.

Very popular in the NHS, and beyond. Very good, in context. Our clients are doing our systems-flavoured #LeadingTransformation programme, and asked me how it fits with #QI.

This isn’t new, and I constantly say: ‘but *really good* QI people look outside the box at this stuff’.

But QI should be considered dangerous.

It’s a powerful weapon if you aim it right; if you know the problem, and it’s a process problem.


Drucker: ‘There is nothing quite so useless, as doing with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.’

You have to look at the frame the #process fits inside – is the process meaningful?

> In Ackoff’s terms, can you *dissolve* the problem by redesigning the context?

> In the RedQuadrant five worlds, QI is in service world – you have to look out to customer world and management and leadership worlds

> In ‘seven ways to save and improve’, QI cuts waste and optimises resources – and should look at shaping demand and economies of flow.

> In the Viable Systems Model, QI works on S1 and S2, and needs to connect to the other systems

> and you need to connect to future needs, or your optimised process might be washed away.

Some examples in the document attached.

>>> What’s *your* experience?

2 thoughts on “Quality Improvement – considered dangerous?

  1. “How does it fit with X?”

    A question asked by a person who wants to avoid thinking at all costs.

    If you answer it, you are acquiescing to operate within their frame.

    The consequence of which is not good.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s