<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1907245749562386&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Event_bg

The Leonardo Blog

All Posts

Continuous Improvement and Discontinuous Innovation - We Need Both

Improving non-existent processes - QuoteThere is often a tension between process improvement and innovation. Improvement is seen to be just fiddling around at the edges, rather than making the massive gains offered by radical transformation. Continuous process improvement is important, and we also need discontinuous innovation. However, process improvement needs a performance boost; as well as counteracting weaknesses and threats, it needs to focus on opportunities and strengths. We need to work beyond the tangible current state to discover and improve non-existent processes.

Imagine this. Monday morning 9:05, and we are at a government agency starting an in-house five-day training course on process analysis and improvement. My 25 students are all eager to get going, and their CEO is there to kick us off with some well-chosen words of encouragement (I know she had good words, because I wrote them for her). Going completely off script, she starts out by saying, “I’m not interested in improvement—I want innovation!” Interesting way to start a week all about improvement!

I knew what the CEO meant. She’d had too many experiences where process-improvement exercises had delivered lots of recommendations, but very little change. She wanted stuff to happen; she wanted the performance of the organization to be demonstrably and significantly improved. Her targets weren’t aspirational—they were real, practical, and urgent. Just as Edison did not invent the light bulb by improving the candle, she could see that incremental change was unlikely to be enough to meet her objectives. She was understandably concerned that her well-meaning analysts were about to fiddle about at the edges, while ancient, deeply-flawed processes burned up her budget, public goodwill—and, perhaps, her next employment contract.

Our CEO wanted us to be improving processes that didn’t yet exist. That’s a challenge both impossible and necessary. Although it is important to pursue continuous improvement, there is a limit to the benefits to be gained by incremental improvement; from time to time, we need to make a significant leap to a whole new performance level.

There are many ways to categorize innovation: lifecycle, industry, impact, scope, product, process, source, internal vs external, and marketing methods. This discussion focuses on process innovation, which heavily influences all innovation, since my definition of a process includes all the activities required to transform inputs into outputs, and all the elements required for management and execution of the process.

There are two key differences between process improvement and innovation. They are both about change and, inevitably, that is about changing processes. The first difference is a matter of degree: how much change is involved? An innovation will result in a new process that is radically different to the one it replaces. A more modest process improvement leaves us with a process that is recognizably the same, although improved in some way.


The second difference comes from the drivers of the ideas for change. There are two broad categories, with some overlap.

Innovation will generally be idea driven, while process improvement will be performance driven. Process improvement will be based on a problem looking for a solution (e.g. we need to take two weeks out of the supply chain execution time). Innovation will likely come from a solution looking for a problem (e.g. how could we use RFID technology to improve our supply chain?).

We need both: continuous improvement and discontinuous innovation.

Big problems and big opportunities require big change. Opportunities and problems are also changing; largely, but not only, because of digitization, they are morphing into something qualitative and quantitatively different: check-in becomes check-through; a shopping list becomes a shipping list; and a regular check-up changes to continual assessment.

The process of process improvement needs a lot of work. It is too often restricted to resolving operational problems defined by performance data and failure reports. Current and urgent defects must be fixed expeditiously, but that should not limit the scope for improvement.

If the airport check-in counter queues are too long, many things might be analyzed: physical queuing arrangements; the number of check-in staff available, and their level of efficiency; common problems that slow the process; business rules regarding status and upgrades; possible IT changes, etc. Perhaps, though, you could challenge the need for check-in counters, or even the need to check in. What if a simple fingerprint scan was enough to check in? Or, perhaps, the detection of a passenger’s smartphone on arrival at the terminal checks them in automatically. What queue problem?

Process improvement is about SWOT: strengths need to be protected and amplified, weaknesses need to be removed, opportunities needs to be seized, and threats need countermeasures. The problem is we almost always focus on the W, and perhaps the T—the negative perspectives. Innovation happens in the O, and perhaps the S.

In analyzing processes, we need to put much more emphasis on The Big O; this is where innovation happens. Of course, we need to improve the candle, and we also need to invent the incandescent light bulb—and then go on to invent the LED, then the LED smart light, and then… whatever comes next.

Process improvement suffers if we are just working with what we have now, what we can see and touch. To maximize the benefits, we need to also consider what is not there; those future processes that have the potential for radical improvement.


Incremental improvement of the current state is important and, if done properly, delivers significant benefit. Innovation leading to radical improvement comes when we explore non-existent processes.

New Call-to-action

Roger Tregear
Roger Tregear
Roger is a Consulting Director with Leonardo. He delivers consulting and education assignments around the world. This work has involved many industry sectors, diverse cultures, and organization types. Roger briefs executives, coach managers, and support project teams to develop process-based management. Several thousand people have attended Roger's training courses and seminars in many countries - and Roger frequently presents at international business conferences. Roger has been writing a column on BPTrends called Practical Process for over 10 years. This led to the 2013 book of the same name. In 2011, he co-authored Establishing the Office of Business Process Management. He contributed a chapter in The International Handbook on Business Process Management (2010, 2015). With Paul Harmon in 2016, Roger co-edited Questioning BPM?, a book discussing key BPM questions. Roger's own book, Reimagining Management, was published in 2016.

Related Posts

The Ultimate Guide to Process Modelling

A new day, a new process modelling project. The project plan has been signed off, reference documentation was gathered, all stakeholders have been identified and now…now what? While process models increase in popularity and most businesses seem to agree that process models are indeed a good way of representing how an organisation creates and delivers value, there is little to no guidance on what a good process model is, how to create one and how to successfully go about executing a process modelling project. While this guide does not claim to be a silver bullet for all your process modelling problems (look at our Modelling Excellence framework for that!), it aims to be a guide for Project Managers and BPM Professionals in every stage of the modelling journey, regardless of whether you’re just kicking off a new modelling project, are in the middle of a major project, or are just looking for a refresh. Please note that this guide does not address steps to set up or configure a process modelling tool. It is focused on the activity of process modelling.   Let’s get started! This section includes topics that should be covered prior to kicking off any process modelling project. If a project is already underway, but struggling, we recommend revisiting this section to ensure the basics have been covered. If your project is already underway and going well, you may opt to skip ahead to the “Business Process Modelling” section. It’s all about the purpose… Firstly, ensure the purpose for modelling has been identified and agreed upon by all stakeholders. Whether it is communication, training, process measurement, improvement or configuration of a workflow tool, any modelling effort must serve a purpose. Major decisions such as “What modelling tool is the right one?” as well as minor decisions such as “Should I include this detail in my model?” can easily, logically and consistently be answered once the purpose has been identified. Consequently, if a clear purpose for modelling cannot be identified, no time and money should be spent on modelling as the models would end up being waste. The start of a process modelling project is also a good time to identify additional use cases for process models and pitch those to the stakeholders. The more use cases there are, the more robust the business case for process modelling becomes. Models that are re-used often are valuable to the organisation, rather than just useful for a one-off project. This does not mean that creating models for one-off use is waste. Although we generally recommend maintaining and re-using process models as much as possible, there are many valid use cases for and circumstances under which organisations choose to create process models that will be deleted once the project is completed. We do however emphasise that this purpose needs to be clearly identified and agreed upon, so nobody comes looking for the model two years later and needs to then kick off another modelling project since the former models are either out-of-date or nowhere to be found. Understanding the purpose of modelling will also help Modellers in the information elicitation and model validation stages of the project. They must always be prepared to explain what they are doing, why they are doing it and how it benefits the organisation. A strong pitch for modelling, tied back to the purpose, will help to keep stakeholders focused during workshops.

Moving From Continuous Improvement to Continuous Process Management

  Continuous process improvement is a common organizational aspiration, and it is one of the most difficult things an organization can attempt. The continuous aspect is quite a challenge, as is realizing business performance improvements—especially once the easy and obvious changes have been made. Organizations need an ‘internal improvement engine’ that replaces insistence with evidence.

Process Architecture vs the Organisation Chart

  In my working life I spend a lot of time working with client organizations to discover and capture useful models of their process architecture. In every country, industry sector, organization type and size, there is a common problem that bedevils every project. We all, and I include myself here, can too easily slip into the habit of the last 100 years (or you might argue 1,000 years) of visualizing the organization as its organization chart. Comments such as “What about the work they do in department X?” might just be a useful test for a developing process architecture, or they might indicate a lack of understanding of what the architecture represents.