A Continual Improvement Programme Nobody Uses

Diagnosis. The programme has built intake and enthusiasm, but none of the machinery that turns ideas into changed outcomes:

• No prioritisation or selection method. 210 ideas and 6 implementations means ideas are neither evaluated nor rejected; they simply decay. An unprioritised backlog destroys credibility faster than no programme.
• No linkage to value. The register is disconnected from the service value chain and from any measure, so improvement is indistinguishable from suggestions. Nothing can be shown to have improved.
• No authority or capacity. Champions were trained but not empowered; middle managers are measured on delivery, so improvement work is rationally deprioritised. This is a structural incentive problem, not a motivation problem.
• No ownership of outcomes. The reverted dispatch change is the clearest signal: a change was designed without the people who do the work, so it was rejected at the point of use.

Why a communications campaign is wrong. Awareness is not the constraint - 210 ideas prove people are aware and willing. Running a campaign on a system that cannot process ideas will generate more unactioned suggestions and deepen the cynicism. It also lets leadership avoid the real question of authority and capacity.

Reframe for executives. The programme is not failing at demand generation; it is failing at conversion and reinforcement. Measure it accordingly: implemented changes, realised benefit, time from idea to decision.

Selection. Introduce a small, explicit evaluation: expected value (linked to a service outcome or measure), effort, risk, and the urgency of the pain. Cap the work in progress at what the organisation can genuinely resource - three or four improvements at a time beats 210 in a queue. Publish the decisions including the rejections and the reasons, because a visible 'no' is what makes a 'yes' credible.

Ownership and capacity. Every accepted improvement has a named accountable owner and named participants, with the time explicitly agreed with their line manager rather than assumed. Adjust the middle managers' objectives so that releasing people for improvement is recognised, since as long as delivery is the only measured commitment, improvement will always lose.

Measurement. Baseline the affected measure before the change and report the movement afterwards. The register should record, for each item, which service or value stream step it affects and which measure it is expected to move. Improvements that cannot name a measure should be treated as suggestions, not improvements.

Handling the depot resistance. Do not treat it as resistance to change; treat it as valid feedback on a change that was imposed. Return to the depot, have the people who do the work describe the dispatch flow, and co-design the revision. Involve them before the design is fixed, not after. Address the practical questions they will actually ask - what changes in my shift, what training, what happens if it fails - and agree what will be reviewed and when.

Communication approach. Stop broad awareness campaigning. Communicate through the people affected: owner-led updates on the few live improvements, with results and next steps, and the reasoning behind rejected ideas. Reinforcement comes from seeing changes stick, not from being told the programme exists.

Judgement point. Deliver two or three visible, measured improvements next quarter before scaling the idea intake again. Scaling demand before the conversion mechanism works is how the first seven months were spent.