Download pdf - Selecting opportunities to improve your processes

Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2004 / 83

© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/tqem.20028

Robert B. Pojasek

QUALITY TOOLBOX

Selecting Opportunities To Improve Your Processes

Pollution prevention (aka cleaner production) is

one aspect of what business refers to as process

improvement—a form of improvement that has

flourished since the beginning of the Industrial

Revolution.

At the heart of process improvement lies the

identification and selection of improvement op-

portunities. Once potential opportunities have

been found, there must be a means for choosing

the particular opportunities that will be the focus

of the process-improvement program.

The reader is cautioned that the choice of a

process-improvement opportunity does not dic-

tate that a particular solution must be followed in

order to realize that improvement opportunity. I

add this caution since many process-improvement

specialists do not seem to recognize the distinction

between an opportunity for improvement and an

alternative solution (aka a recommendation).

This installment of the “Quality Toolbox” col-

umn begins by discussing some commonly used

methodologies that can lead practitioners into

this confusion—and then explains how using the

Systems Approach to process improvement can

help keep these steps distinct, while greatly en-

hancing the selection process.

Commonly Used Methods for ApproachingImprovement Opportunities

Pollution Prevention OpportunityAssessments

Pollution prevention opportunity assess-

ments (PPOAs) were first formalized in 1988 with

the publication of the U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency’s Waste Minimization Opportunity As-

sessment Manual (EPA 625/7-88/003). PPOAs are

still the method of choice among many practi-

tioners who offer pollution prevention (P2) tech-

nical assistance.

This methodology enables a person who is in-

dependent of a facility to conduct an assessment

of the facility’s operation. Often, checklists and

literature describing sector-specific success stories

are used to support the assessment. Emphasis is

placed on materials substitution and the use of

what is referred to as “clean technology.”

Those using the PPOA approach tend to blur

the distinction between opportunities for im-

provement and recommendations for ways to

make the improvement. They often make defini-

tive recommendations that they present as “right

answers” to the problems they identify.

These practitioners generally make no at-

tempt to create a complete list of opportunities

for improving the process. In addition, employ-

ees are not actively involved in the selection of

opportunities or the derivation of alternative so-

lutions. The focus is on the facility’s wastes and

process losses, not on the process itself. Users of

the PPOA approach rarely use root cause analysis

to understand the ultimate cause of process losses

and materials use.

They also give little consideration to “sys-

tems thinking” (i.e., the concept that every-

Robert B. Pojasek 84 / Autumn 2004 / Environmental Quality Management

thing in the process is connected to everything

else). Because of this lack of systems thinking,

the alternative solutions that PPOA users pro-

pose often cause other problems after they are

implemented.

Despite these obvious drawbacks, the PPOA

approach remains vibrant today—in large part be-

cause it is the methodology with which most P2

technical assistance providers are most familiar.

Mass Balance AnalysisThose technical assistance providers who

have been trained with the United Nations In-

dustrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

method generally use mass balance to find op-

portunities for cleaner production. This meth-

odology provides a

more complete listing

of opportunities than

do PPOAs. However, it

is still focused on

wastes and not on the

process per se.

Mass balance is

also very time-

consuming and expensive to pursue. One techni-

cal assistance group using this method was quite

proud of the fact that it takes five engineers about

three weeks to produce a voluminous report,

complete with the independent recommenda-

tions that are the hallmark of the approach.

As with PPOAs, little consideration is paid to

systems thinking. Often, the technical assistance

providers ignore important supporting opera-

tions since they are considered to be separate

processes, and thus not part of the system that is

under review.

In addition, they often rely heavily on the use

of success stories; accounts of past successes typi-

cally are organized by sector and maintained in a

variety of different databases, with many avail-

able on the Internet. As with the PPOA approach,

employees are not usually directly involved in

the mass balance process.

Identifying and Selecting Opportunities withthe Systems Approach

The Systems Approach uses a very different

methodology to identify and select opportunities

for improvement.

The Systems Approach first seeks to under-

stand the production process by preparing a se-

ries of hierarchical process maps, which describe

process work steps in more detail as the user pro-

gresses through successive levels of maps. All sup-

porting processes, as well as resources used and

losses incurred, are linked to their appropriate

process work steps using accounting sheets.1

Process maps take some skill to prepare. How-

ever, the necessary proficiency can be readily de-

veloped with practice.

Process maps are first prepared in preliminary

form using process documentation from both the

facility and the available literature. These prelim-

inary process maps are then verified during as-

sessment of the process itself. Employees are ac-

tively involved in this verification activity, and

are asked two direct questions:

• What has been accomplished in the past two

years to improve this work step?

• If money was not an object and you could

have your own way, what would you suggest

could be done to improve your work step?

The answers to these questions provide the first

step toward identifying opportunities for improv-

ing the process. Identifying past process improve-

ments reminds employees that process improve-

ment is not a new program. It also creates an

impression that the process-improvement program

will simply add to what has been done before.

Because employees “never resist their own

ideas,” this method of questioning directly en-

As with the PPOA approach,employees are not usually directlyinvolved in the mass balanceprocess.

Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2004 / 85Quality Toolbox

(that is, conserve resources and eliminate wastes)

will be a very long one. There has to be a method

to help the organization focus on the “vital few”

processes that lie among the “trivial many.”

The Pareto ScreenIn order to avoid being overwhelmed, the Sys-

tems Approach recommends that a process im-

provement program focus on only eight to 11 op-

portunities at a time. One useful tool for

narrowing down the list of potential opportuni-

ties is Pareto screening.

Pareto analysis is based on the observation

that, in general, about

20 percent of the op-

portunities that you

identify will generate

80 percent of the value

associated with your

process-improvement

program. This is why

Pareto analysis is often

referred to as the

“80/20 principle.” Pareto screening will help you

identify this essential 20 percent.

There are two key virtues of using Pareto

screening. First, it helps the facility focus on

those opportunities that are likely to be most im-

portant. Second, the results of such screening can

be converted into a bar graph. This creates an eye-

catching visual image that clearly shows manage-

ment and employees why it is imperative to ad-

dress certain opportunities.

An example of a Pareto chart for a silverplat-

ing operation is shown in Exhibit 1. The various

activities associated with the plating operation

have been organized according to the costs they

incur. As you can see, only a handful of activities

account for a large majority of the overall cost of

the plating process. This type of visual depiction

of impacts can quickly grab people’s attention

and focus their interest on key problems.

gages them in coming up with opportunities for

improvement. Contrast this interactive, “hands-

on” approach with the standard PPOA method,

which involves using checklists and does not

reach out to employees.

Hierarchical process maps encourage systems

thinking. Using them, employees can see how

each work step utilizes resources and creates

wastes. They can also see how supporting

processes add to the use of resources and create

additional wastes as a direct result of their own

particular work steps.

More importantly, employees can see that real

prevention often happens upstream from their ac-

tivity. That is, something in a previous work step

may be causing them not to have to drill a hole or

wash the assembly. Such knowledge allows re-

sources to be conserved and wastes avoided.

By contrast, if problems are solved only where

they occur, downstream consequences are likely

to remain. It is impossible to conjecture what all

these downstream consequences may be.

Another list of opportunities to improve the

process can be generated from the resource ac-

counting sheets that are prepared as part of the

Systems Approach.2 Remember that every use of a

resource (such as energy, water, and materials)

represents an opportunity to conserve the use of

that resource. Every loss of a resource in a process

represents an opportunity not to have that loss.

The available literature represents another

source of potential process-improvement oppor-

tunities. However, much of the literature is fo-

cused on wastes (i.e., losses from the process). In

order to make use of information from the litera-

ture, you will need to check it against the process-

specific information you have gathered and link

it to the correct work step in the process. Much of

the literature does not provide such a link to a

process work step.

As you can see, with the Systems Approach,

the list of opportunities to improve the process

Remember that every use of aresource (such as energy, water,

and materials) represents anopportunity to conserve the use of

that resource.


Once you have a complete list of process-

improvement opportunities listed, assemble a

group of people who are knowledgeable about

the facility. Ask the group whether about one-

fifth of the opportunities listed (i.e., 20 percent of

the total) are significantly more important to the

facility than the remaining opportunities. In

most cases, the answer will be yes.

I have found that I am usually able to get

agreement on which opportunities should be in-

cluded in this 20 percent. If the group cannot de-

cide, I ask them to rate each opportunity with

dollar signs, using four signs ($$$$) when the op-

portunity is very important to the facility; less

important opportunities are rated with three,

two, and one dollar signs. By counting up the

dollar signs, we can see which opportunities we

should focus on when making a selection.

Opportunities that do not make the 20-

percent screen can still be included in the selec-

tion process if managers or employees are partic-

ularly interested in addressing them. However,

you should remind participants of the need to

stay focused and to make an informed decision

on which opportunities to include in the process-

improvement program.

Even after Pareto screening is completed,

there often are more than eight to 11 opportuni-

ties remaining. In such a case, some additional

method will be needed to provide further focus

and enable the final selection.

Scoring OpportunitiesScoring methodology can be useful to further

narrow down the range of opportunities. If the fa-

cility has an ISO 14001-based environmental

management system (EMS), the process improve-

ment opportunities (arranged by work step in the

hierarchical process maps) can be related to the

EMS “aspects” that are found on the resource ac-

counting sheets. You can then formally score

these aspects using the same criteria matrix that

Exhibit 1. Pareto Chart for a Silverplating Operation

Letters below bars refer to two-letter codes assigned to activities in the process.


with fewer than about seven or eight interrelated

projects. On the other hand, it is difficult for an

oversight committee to keep track of more than

11 or 12 interrelated projects during a given pe-

riod of time.

With this in mind, how should projects ulti-

mately be selected?

By scoring the opportunities you have identi-

fied, as described above, you can get a sense of

their importance to the facility. This should give

you an initial idea of where your priorities

should lie.

However, when first starting a process-

improvement program, other considerations may

also be important. For

instance, are some em-

ployees particularly in-

terested in addressing

one of the identified

opportunities? What

opportunities, if any,

are being addressed in

the facility’s current

budget or operational excellence programs?

Would a more formal examination of funded or

committed opportunities help ensure their suc-

cessful resolution? Do some of these considera-

tions overlap?

The greatest weight should be given to proj-

ects that employees mentioned when the hierar-

chical process maps were being verified. Next in

importance would be those that are similar to ex-

isting initiatives that may already be in the man-

agement budget, or that are currently being pur-

sued in improvement programs such as lean

production and Six Sigma.

It is a good idea to conduct a dialog about the

various projects before making the selection. It is

crucial to generate enthusiastic employee interest

in the opportunities that you select. This will

help ensure the successful implementation of the

first set of projects in your process-improvement

the organization employs to make its “determi-

nation of significance” for purposes of the EMS.

In order to obtain a Pareto (i.e., 80 percent/20

percent) distribution of opportunities, it may be

necessary to use an “exaggerated” scoring system,

such as the following:

• Low significance: 1 point

• Medium significance: 3 points

• High significance: 9 points.

Some of the most common significance crite-

ria used to score process-improvement opportu-

nities, and their associated environmental as-

pects, are as follows:

• Probability of occurrence of the impact asso-

ciated with the opportunity;

• Potential for damaging vegetation, animals,

or drinking water;

• Existence of regulations governing the oppor-

tunity or impact;

• Potential for necessitating costly remediation

activities;

• Potential for generating substantial govern-

ment enforcement penalties;

• Potential for creating a negative organiza-

tional image;

• Potential for causing full or partial opera-

tional shutdowns;

• Potential for generating substantial cost sav-

ings if the adverse impacts, risks, or liabilities

can be eliminated or minimized; and

• Other considerations deemed important by the

employees who are conducting the scoring.

Selecting OpportunitiesThe objective of these screening and scoring

activities is to select eight to 11 opportunities

that will constitute the process-improvement

program. Why this range of numbers? Because it

is not possible to have program “critical mass”

The greatest weight should be givento projects that employees

mentioned when the hierarchicalprocess maps were being verified.


program—which in turn will help ensure that the

overall program itself will be successful.

Learning from My ExperienceI should mention here that I have previ-

ously written a column on this same topic

under the title “Selecting P2 Opportunities.” It

appeared as an installment in my former col-

umn, “Practical Pollution Prevention,” in Pollu-

tion Prevention Review.3

In that column, I offered a more specific guide

to opportunity selec-

tion. Since writing that

column, however, ex-

perience has shown

me that selecting the

right opportunity for

process improvement

is even more impor-

tant than I previously

realized, and that the decision must be made by

each facility based on its own circumstances. The

choice cannot be dictated by a set procedure that

fits all cases.

Scoring Additional Opportunities Having a complete scored inventory of po-

tential opportunities for process improvement is

of great value for any continuous improvement

program. For this reason, I allow employees to

address additional opportunities (that is, be-

yond the eight to 11 formal projects) within the

program. This also helps ensure that no one

feels left out.

These additional opportunities can be desig-

nated as “look-out” projects, to be presented to

the management oversight committee at one of

their regularly scheduled meetings. Look-out

projects require sufficient supporting documen-

tation, similar to that prepared for the formal

projects.

Alternative SolutionsOnce you have selected opportunities for

process improvement, the next step is forming an

employee team to deal with each of them. The

team should meet with a facilitator trained in the

use of the Systems Approach, in order to accom-

plish the following:

• reach agreement on a statement of what the

problem is;

• address the root causes of the problem;

• derive a number of possible alternative solu-

tions for eliminating the problem, or reducing

its intensity;

• select an alternative solution (or solutions);

and

• prepare a draft action plan for implementing

the solutions chosen.

Once these steps have been taken, the man-

agement program oversight committee can de-

cide which projects to approve. It can also make

suggestions for enhancing the implementation of

the draft action plans presented to them, and for-

malize them in accountability agreements. This

interaction provides good elements of both

“bottom-up” and “top-down” management.

ConclusionAt the end of the selection process described

here, the organization will have a set of

employee-created action plans for solving specific

problems, instead of simply having an outside

consultant’s recommendations to consider.

Because the opportunities and solutions cho-

sen via the Systems Approach are agreed upon by

employees, not imposed by someone from out-

side, they are more likely to be accepted. More-

over, creating a specific action plan makes it far

more likely that the facility will actually follow

through on the improvement process. Experience

Having a complete scoredinventory of potential opportunitiesfor process improvement is ofgreat value for any continuousimprovement program.


on a regular basis. The ideas for improvement se-

lected through the Systems Approach do not need

to be updated each year because this approach is

opportunity-based, not “right answer”–based.

Remember that the quality-based Systems Ap-

proach can be easily and quickly incorporated

into your organization’s culture. It can then be

expanded to cover other issues as they arise, and

as the organization seeks to continuously im-

prove its operations.

Notes1. See Pojasek, R. B. (2003). Quality toolbox: Selecting yourown approach to P2. Environmental Quality Management,12(4), 85–94.

2. For a discussion of accounting sheets, see Pojasek, R. B.(2004). Quality toolbox: Mapping information flow throughthe production process. Environmental Quality Management,13(3), 89–97.

3. Pojasek, R. B. (1998). Practical pollution prevention: Se-lecting P2 opportunities. Pollution Prevention Review, 8(2),103–110.

has shown that proposals crafted via the Systems

Approach have a significantly higher implemen-

tation rate than those arrived at through PPOAs

or mass balance analysis.

It is crucial to recognize the extremely impor-

tant role that opportunity selection plays in the

initial phases of implementing a process-

improvement program. Once the program is es-

tablished, it is also important to institute periodic

program reviews (on, for instance, a quarterly

and annual basis). Such reviews provide chances

to consider “lessons learned” and to select an-

other eight to 11 opportunities for inclusion in

the next stage of the program (e.g., for the next

budget year).

While organizations sometimes like to seek in-

dependent third-party reviews of their process-

improvement programs, it is not necessary to con-

duct formal pollution prevention opportunity

assessments or make mass balance determinations

Robert B. Pojasek, PhD, is president of Pojasek & Associates, a management consulting practice specializing in facilitat-ing programs for quality management, resource conservation, odor elimination, cleaner production, pollution prevention,safety improvement, and sustainability. He can be reached by telephone at 781-641-2422 or by e-mail [email protected].