«Improvement usually means doing something that we have never done before. But if it doesn’t show up in the bottom line, it’s not improvement — it’s decoration.»
— H. James Harrington
This quote, as accurate as it is uncomfortable, deserves to hang at the entrance of every continuous improvement department. Because in the industrial world, continuous improvement has become an omnipresent mantra. But like all mantras, repetition does not guarantee understanding.
This leads us to a question that many organizations avoid or consider answered too quickly:
Should continuous improvement be managed under the Quality function or as an autonomous, transformative force focused on operational efficiency?
This is not about opposing functions or arguing over ownership of tools. In fact, much of the knowledge, discipline, and methodology we now associate with continuous improvement has deep roots in quality management — and vice versa. Both functions have historically fed into each other, sharing principles, practices, and common goals.
Both approaches can work, but both carry risks if not managed with strategic clarity.
Scenario 1: Continuous Improvement within the Quality Function
In some organizations, continuous improvement is managed within the Quality department. This provides structure, methodological rigor, and strong data and traceability orientation. It can support standardization, sustainability, and operational discipline. Improvement, in this context, is systematic and documented.
However, when Quality fully absorbs the improvement function, there’s a risk it becomes overly compliance-focused, detaching from operational transformation and tangible business impact. Improvement becomes more about showing it was “attempted” than actually achieved — flawless reports, finalized timelines, well-documented root causes… but no visible change.
A classic example of this approach can be found in Ford for much of the 20th century, where quality and improvement were driven mainly by hierarchical structures focused on compliance and standardization. While many advancements were made, the improvement culture failed to take root across the organization and didn’t deliver a sustainable competitive advantage against companies like Toyota. This was well documented in the MIT study The Machine That Changed the World (Womack, Jones & Roos, 1990).
In such contexts, symbolic gestures can emerge: 5S initiatives relaunched every five years — as if the “5” referred to “every 5 years we try again” — certified programs that shine in PowerPoint but fade in the shop floor, or initiatives that vanish as soon as their champions leave.
Scenario 2: Continuous Improvement as an Autonomous Transformative Function
In other cases, continuous improvement is set up as a transversal function, independent from Quality, with a clear mandate: transform, accelerate, and connect strategy to execution. Here, improvement is focused on efficiency, value flow, and end-customer impact. It doesn’t compete with Quality — it complements it. One ensures stability, the other drives change.
A paradigmatic example beyond the usual Toyota reference is Amazon. In Amazon’s operating model, continuous improvement isn’t tied to a single function — it is part of the organization’s nervous system. From its “one-way doors” to its famous six-pagers, each team is empowered to identify inefficiencies, challenge processes, and implement change in real time.
This approach is thoroughly described in Working Backwards by Colin Bryar and Bill Carr (2021), highlighting how Amazon turns continuous improvement into a structural advantage. It is measured in speed, cost, customer satisfaction, and scalability — and deeply linked to leadership and decision-making.
Still, this model is not foolproof. Autonomy without integration or shared purpose can result in islands of improvement: brilliant teams working in silos, promising initiatives lacking anchoring, enthusiasm that doesn’t scale. Sometimes, what begins as a bold transformation ends up diluted due to cultural misalignment or operational disconnect.
So then…?
Perhaps the real question isn’t choosing between Quality and autonomy, but rather:
Is there a strategic method in place that ensures continuous improvement is connected to the business — and to those who must execute it?
In that direction, approaches like Hoshin Kanri provide a structured response: translating strategic vision into specific objectives across all levels, with continuous review and learning cycles. This method, developed at Toyota and refined by other global companies, is well documented in Hoshin Kanri for the Lean Enterprise by Thomas L. Jackson (2006).
There are also real-world examples that have successfully put this into practice. 3M, for instance, has shown how to combine operational freedom with strategic direction, embedding innovation and improvement into daily management. This case is analyzed in various Harvard Business Review studies and in The Future of Management by Gary Hamel, highlighting 3M’s culture of distributed improvement and incentives tied to continuous experimentation.
When improvement is expressed through shared objectives, aligned with strategy, and lived through daily practice, its impact is real and sustainable.
Because without clear objectives, coherent deployment across areas, aligned incentives, and real support, continuous improvement risks losing its transformative power — and becoming a hollow ritual.
And when that happens — when improvement fails to change how we think, decide, and act — it may no longer be improvement.
It may just be decoration.