The success of the First Optimisation created a problem.
Improvement had become increasingly important.
Yet improvement itself remained largely unmanaged.
This was widely regarded as inefficient.
Following extensive consultation, it was therefore decided that improvement should be improved.
To achieve this objective, the Department of Continuous Improvement was established.
The decision was universally praised.
The Department's mandate was straightforward:
To optimise the organisation's capacity for optimisation.
At the time, this was considered perfectly clear.
The Department initially consisted of three people and a strategic vision.
Within two years, the strategic vision had expanded considerably.
The Department soon acquired:
an Optimisation Lead,
a Senior Transformation Officer,
a Director of Process Excellence,
three Continuous Improvement Facilitators,
a Strategic Enhancement Coordinator,
and a Deputy Executive Director for Organisational Acceleration.
The expansion was regarded as evidence of success.
The Department's first task was to identify areas requiring improvement.
Its second task was to identify additional areas requiring improvement.
Its third task was to improve the process by which areas requiring improvement were identified.
This was considered a significant achievement.
Annual reports documented steady progress.
Improvement opportunities increased year after year.
The Department interpreted this as proof that improvement culture was flourishing.
No one considered the possibility that the organisation was becoming increasingly proficient at discovering imperfections.
Indeed, discovering imperfections soon became one of the organisation's most successful activities.
Several teams received awards.
One division achieved record levels of identified inefficiency.
This accomplishment was celebrated at a luncheon.
The keynote address was entitled:
"The Future of Improvement Discovery."
It was extremely well attended.
As the Department matured, it began producing frameworks.
These were highly valued.
Frameworks demonstrated seriousness.
Frameworks also generated additional opportunities for improvement.
The most influential framework was the Continuous Improvement Maturity Model.
The model consisted of six stages.
Stage One organisations were classified as Reactive.
Stage Two organisations were Emerging.
Stage Three organisations were Developing.
Stage Four organisations were Advanced.
Stage Five organisations were Integrated.
Stage Six organisations were Transformational.
The existence of a Stage Seven remained a matter of speculation.
Many hoped it would eventually be discovered.
The model rapidly became central to organisational life.
Managers devoted considerable energy to determining their maturity level.
Working groups were established.
Self-assessment tools were developed.
Benchmarking exercises were conducted.
Progress reviews became routine.
Meanwhile, the original purpose of the organisation received somewhat less attention.
This was unavoidable.
Continuous improvement required resources.
A substantial proportion of those resources were now dedicated to continuous improvement.
The Department regarded this as a prudent investment.
A senior executive later explained:
"We must improve today in order to improve tomorrow's ability to improve."
The statement was widely admired.
Several listeners described it as profound.
One listener described it as recursive.
This comment was not pursued.
Over time, a subtle change occurred.
Employees increasingly found themselves participating in activities designed to improve the effectiveness of activities designed to improve effectiveness.
The distinction between work and the improvement of work became increasingly difficult to maintain.
Many regarded this as evidence of organisational maturity.
The Department certainly did.
Its annual report proudly announced:
"Improvement is now embedded in every aspect of organisational life."
This was true.
Staff attended optimisation workshops.
Improvement retreats.
Transformation forums.
Strategic enhancement reviews.
Performance acceleration sessions.
Continuous improvement had become continuous.
The Department regarded this as a historic achievement.
A small number of observers expressed concern.
One employee noted that actual operational work appeared to be declining.
The comment was reviewed.
A task force was established.
After six months, the task force concluded that operational work would benefit from additional optimisation.
This recommendation was accepted immediately.
By now, the Department had become indispensable.
No major decision could proceed without improvement analysis.
No initiative could begin without optimisation review.
No project could conclude without transformation assessment.
Improvement had become the medium through which all activity was understood.
The Department's influence grew accordingly.
Its budget increased.
Its staffing expanded.
Its frameworks multiplied.
Its strategic significance became unquestionable.
At the annual Continuous Improvement Excellence Awards, the Director addressed the assembled audience.
The speech has since become famous.
After reviewing a decade of progress, the Director declared:
"Our greatest achievement is that improvement is no longer something we do."
The audience listened attentively.
The Director continued:
"It is something we are."
The applause lasted several minutes.
Historians now regard this moment as pivotal.
For the first time, optimisation had ceased to function merely as a tool.
It had become an identity.
The Church of Instrumental Reason had acquired its first institution.
And institutions, unlike goals, possess a remarkable instinct for self-preservation.
No comments:
Post a Comment