Evaluating for continuous improvement

Continuous improvement demands proper evaluation. This chapter explains how to evaluate the impact of safety interventions from an environment, behavior, and person perspective. More employees need to contribute information pertinent to intervention evaluation. This chapter shows you fejw to make this happen. The principles described here will make you a smarter consumer of marketed safety programs and help you evaluate your own customized intervention process. 

Hansen (1994) used these words in his Professional Safety article on managing occupational safety (page 41). You have probably heard words to this effect. Indeed, they are key to any continuous improvement effort, but there is a problem with how workplace safety is traditionally measured. As I indicated earlier in Chapter 3, too much weight is given to outcome numbers that people cannot control directly. People must be held accountable for results they can control. Yet, corporations, divisions, plants, and departments are often ranked according to abstract outcome numbers like the total recordable injury rate. These rankings often determine bonus rewards or penalties. 

What behavior improves when safety awards are based only on an injury rate If employees can link their daily activities to safety results, then celebrating reduced injury rates can be useful, even motivating. It is critical, however, to recognize the behaviors, procedures, and processes that led to fewer injuries or lower workers compensation costs. 

Deming (1991) admonished his audiences for ranking people, departments, and organizations. In fact, he recommended that grades and performance appraisals be abolished completely from education and business. In his words, The fact is that performance 

I have met very few employees who respect and appreciate annual performance appraisals. They do not see the evaluations as being fair, objective, and motivational. I am sure you know department heads and supervisors who complete performance appraisals only because it is mandatory. They are not interested in providing constructive, performance-focused feedback for continuous improvement. They do not maintain ongoing records of employees accomplishments and less-than-adequate performance. Instead, they typically wait until a few days before appraisals are due and then make their best-guess estimate of an individual s ranking, using nebulous performance dimensions like competent, enthusiastic, self-motivated, cooperative, responsive to feedback, and willing to improve.  

---

The standard requires the supplier to evaluate the performance of the quality system to verify the effectiveness of its operation. It also requires the results to be used for continuous improvement or corrective action as appropriate. 

The data obtained from measurements are analysed and the subsequent information is used for fact-based decision-making. Such data are used to demonstrate the suitabihty and effectiveness of the quahty management system and to evaluate the continual improvement. The analysis of the data provides information relating to... 

When teamed together, the process owner and the quality assurance counterpart for a process will make a favorable impression upon regulators, be able to explain all operations involving the process, supporting documentation, and any ongoing projects or process improvements. This pair is the best to evaluate and consider any deviations to the process or recommendations for continuous improvement. 

Provides a viable mechanism for continuous improvement to forward quality. Change can be a big contributing factor toward continuous improvement. A good system gives you a systematic, documented way to evaluate and incorporate product and process improvements. 

Once the key questions have been articulated, it is important to consider the source of the information and how the data may be collected within resource constraints of the program. Effective program evaluation makes use of multiple data collection methods at multiple points in the program. Some of the methods used in existing programs to determine quality and design plans for continuous improvement are described here. These include document reviews, interviews, surveys, instructor reflections, expert reviews, and longitudinal studies. 

Evaluation groups regularly review the impact of active learning methods and make recommendations for continuous improvement... 

The individual chent evaluates the factual assessment results against his or her own requirements and agrees with the logistics service provider on priorities for continuous improvement. 

In Sect. 2 the curriculum design process is illustrated that meets the course objectives. The pedagogical practices used in the course delivery and rubrics used for assessing student learning are discussed in detail. Section 3 illustrates the evaluation of the course and Sect. 4 lists the steps taken for continuous improvement. The conclusion is presented in Sect. 5. 

The Japanese model for the continuous change process is called Kaizen. It suggests that every process can and should be continually evaluated and continually improved. The primary focus of the improvements is on waste elimination, for example ... 

On the other hand, numbers that measure the quantity and quality of process activities related to safety performance provide the context needed to motivate individual and team responsibility. They direct continuous improvement of the process. Chapter 19 in Section 6 of this Handbook presents more details on developing a process-based evaluation system for continuously improving safety. The following chapters in Section 5 recommend a variety of additional strategies for cultivating a work culture that promotes actively caring behavior. 

---