#QualityImprovement can be dangerous.
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?