In our industry, we are already used to being bombarded with new technologies and ways to manage them. ITIL has long been the most widely adopted IT Service Management framework, though certainly not the only one — coexisting with other widely used approaches such as Lean, ISO standards, and more. But if there is one thing they all have in common, it is their focus on continuous improvement based on the Deming cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act, aka PDCA).
Beyond these IT-focused frameworks, continuous improvement is not the exclusive
domain of technology and its services — it spans every area of life and, of course,
of work in general. That is why, when embarking on improvement projects,
questions like "Where do we even start?" inevitably arise. Not relying on a practical
guide can be decisive in determining the success or failure of a project, where the
best intentions are launched into the void without a parachute. This time, I would
like to show you how a well-used tool can transcend the world it was conceived for
and help us in a wide range of scenarios.
Recently, I took on the leadership of a teaching improvement project within a
university-level course. The first step was to find a methodological framework that
could guide us through this challenge. The chosen approach was to build on ITIL's
7-Step Improvement Method. It is worth noting that in essence it is equivalent to
others such as Lean's DMAIC for problem-solving or the Kaizen event from the
same methodology (all rooted in the PDCA cycle mentioned above), but we chose
ITIL's 7-step model for the level of granularity it provides in the given context.
The 7-Step Model Proposes:
- Define a vision.
- Establish a baseline.
- Define, based on the vision and the current situation, S.M.A.R.T. objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant to the vision, and Time-bound).
- Generate the actions deemed necessary to meet those objectives.
- Execute.
- Measure throughout the established project timeframe to determine whether objectives are being met.
- Sustain the momentum.
The vision was defined as the long-term expectation sought through the project
(strategy).
The baseline was established through surveys of students and faculty, as well as
collaborative sessions where impressions and experiences from previous course
deliveries were shared. In addition, classroom observations were conducted by
subject-matter experts to complete the "snapshot" of strengths and weaknesses,
with the goal of mitigating the latter by leveraging the former. It is worth noting that
the vision was set at the course level, so the observations resulted in an
anonymized report on classroom findings.
All of this information was used to generate both quantitative and qualitative
indicators — having both is essential to balance objectivity with lived experience.
It also served as the basis for defining:
- Medium-term objectives (tactics)
- Short-term actions to achieve them (operations)
Next, agreements were reached for the execution of those actions — in this case,
customized teacher training sessions and regular collaborative meetings, among
others.
During execution, measurements are taken using the same mechanisms
established in the second step, in order to monitor and recalibrate progress toward
the defined objectives.
Finally, and no less importantly, the goal is to generate feedback.
Let me pause on that last point. Regardless of whether the objectives were fully
met — and especially if they were not — this feedback loop makes it possible to
update the vision, establish a new starting point, and repeat the cycle, whether to
refine what was already being done or to drive new improvements.
This is precisely how the cycle becomes what we all aspire to but sometimes misunderstand or misapply: "continuous improvement."