CIP – Con­tin­u­ous Im­prove­ment for Your Company

Business people normally always want to improve their company’s man­u­fac­tured products and services, as well as increase customer sat­is­fac­tion. But there is no need for a big turn­around, a tabula rasa or a rev­o­lu­tion. Many small changes are more effective than one large one. With a con­tin­u­ous im­prove­ment process (CIP), every company can increase quality for the long term.

Anyone working with CIP would like to con­stant­ly improve their company – without requiring great trans­for­ma­tions either. Instead of ground-breaking in­no­va­tions, the con­tin­u­ous im­prove­ment process is designed for small changes. At the same time, CIP is less an elaborate system than it is a certain way of thinking that shapes the company’s culture: Every employee should un­der­stand it is their task to introduce im­prove­ments in their area of work. The result of these small op­ti­miza­tions is then reflected in increased service, product and process quality:

• Product: The man­u­fac­tured product or offered services – thanks to CIP – are better at meeting the needs of the customer base and therefore generate more turnover.
• Service: In­ter­ac­tions with service employees are more geared toward the needs of the customer base, which is directly reflected in customer sat­is­fac­tion.
• Process: Workflows are organized so that they are more efficient, which enables the company to save costs.

Even though every in­di­vid­ual employee is called on to con­tribute, the man­age­ment plays an important role in the success of CIP. Only when the man­age­ment sets a good example and motivates employees suf­fi­cient­ly can this method be suc­cess­ful.

Two forms of in­cen­tives can be dis­tin­guished: Intrinsic mo­ti­va­tion comes from the in­di­vid­ual. The employee who would like to implement im­prove­ments of their own accord in order to follow their inner drive for op­ti­miza­tion. However, man­age­ment should not rely solely on this type of mo­ti­va­tion source, as people often strongly differ with respect to their internal mo­ti­va­tion. The extrinsic mo­ti­va­tion, on the other hand, results from an outer stimulus: For example, the man­age­ment can strength­en the will to optimize by offering financial rewards or pro­mo­tions.

When CIP is applied to a company, it is typically ac­com­pa­nied by the PDCA cycle at the same time. Through the cycli­cal­ly recurring phases of planning, doing, checking, and acting, small changes can quickly be im­ple­ment­ed in a way that is sus­tain­able, while also being well-conceived.

A con­tin­u­ous im­prove­ment process can also be spe­cial­ized, although this is by no means a necessity. The product quality in par­tic­u­lar can best be improved with profound knowledge of the man­u­fac­tur­ing process and the use of materials. However, process and service quality are often most ef­fec­tive­ly optimized through better work or­ga­ni­za­tion. For this reason, tidiness and order have a sig­nif­i­cant role: Mess makes it easier for errors to arise and work stages last much longer than needed.

Every employee should plan and apply im­prove­ments in their own area. Of­ten­times, the employee affected can best determine what potential there is for im­prove­ment in their area due to their many years of ex­pe­ri­ence. Changes that are dictated from above, on the other hand, have for the most part unwanted negative effects: A change that the workforce does not go along with cannot achieve the desired effect. In addition, employees generally know their area of work better than their manager, which is also why the ap­pro­pri­ate experts should decide what changes are advisable.

The con­tin­u­ous im­prove­ment process is similar to the Kaizan method that orig­i­nat­ed in Japan and is also based on it. The concept is strongly linked to Japanese culture and simply means “im­prove­ment” in the Japanese language. In the 1950s, it became a working method based on the constant desire for self-op­ti­miza­tion – also con­sid­er­ing the teachings of quality man­age­ment expert William Edward Deming. In par­tic­u­lar, Toyota used the Kaizan approach. Beginning in the au­to­mo­bile industry, the working method then spread worldwide. In this way, CIP even­tu­al­ly emerged from Kaizan. Just like CIP, however, Kaizan remains rather a basic concept and doesn’t provide a concrete plan.

Now CIP is accepted as standard practice in many companies, including in larger cor­po­ra­tions and or­ga­ni­za­tions. And anyone who has their quality man­age­ment system (QMS) certified according to ISO 9001 must work on the basis of a con­tin­u­ous im­prove­ment process re­gard­less. This is because the in­ter­na­tion­al standard ex­plic­it­ly demands CIP in all areas of a certified company.

Although CIP has its origins in the au­to­mo­bile industry and has also ensured sub­stan­tial success in this sector, in principal the method can be im­ple­ment­ed in every company – large cor­po­ra­tions as well as single-person op­er­a­tions. The goal is to ul­ti­mate­ly introduce small or even the smallest im­prove­ments that sus­tain­ably improve the quality of work. Even beginning with the arrange­ment of an employee’s work desk: In this way, better document and work tool or­ga­ni­za­tion could improve workflow.

However, CIP has the most effect in companies with a complex structure. In a cor­po­ra­tion, even a small change can have a big impact. The reason for this is related precisely to this com­plex­i­ty of larger companies and scaling: A small change in work steps can sometimes have a big effect on sub­se­quent steps, thereby in­creas­ing the positive effect. On the other hand, an enormous mea­sur­able effect can also be seen in large busi­ness­es on the basis of their high output, once minimal changes have been im­ple­ment­ed.

One of the most popular im­prove­ments in terms of CIP is in es­tab­lish­ing more order while stream­lin­ing. This is why not every re­or­ga­ni­za­tion is advisable: If every­thing becomes more complex due to the ordering process and this means more work in the end, it is best to avoid doing it. A very simple example of how one can combine sim­plic­i­ty and re­struc­tur­ing is provided by virtually every office: How does the handling of documents work on a PC?

Consider the following scenario: Everyday emails with at­tach­ments end up in the inbox, employees them­selves issue letters or invoices, and col­leagues have files assigned to them. Every­thing lands in a single folder. Some col­leagues prepare different files, however, and these do not have a con­sis­tent structure. What’s more, employees con­stant­ly have to search for the correct document.

An employee therefore notices this problem and comes up with an idea: The entire team should use the same folder for sorting and apply the same standard for naming. The employee passes along their idea to their team leader, who then considers whether the idea is viable and eco­nom­i­cal­ly feasible. Because there are no costs as­so­ci­at­ed with this step, they share the idea and all employees adopt the new system. Now, everyone can quickly orient them­selves within the folder structure.

If you are a sole-pro­pri­etor­ship, then the step for au­tho­riz­ing a change obviously becomes un­nec­es­sary. After all, you are the only one who has to consider whether a new working method would be practical for you.

Click here for important legal dis­claimers.