HR-Glossar
Kontinuierlicher Verbesserungsprozess (continuous improvement process)
How continuous improvement works, why it hangs on implementation and where employee suggestion schemes typically fail.
1. What is Kontinuierlicher Verbesserungsprozess (continuous improvement process)?
The continuous improvement process – KVP for short, kaizen in its Japanese origin – is the principle of improving procedures continuously in small steps rather than in rare large initiatives.
One allocation carries it: improvement suggestions come from those who actually do the work. Not because that is motivating, but because that is where the knowledge of the real procedures sits – including the detours and workarounds that appear in no process description.
The usual approach follows a simple cycle: observe, understand the cause, try a small change, check the effect, keep it or discard it. What matters is the smallness of the steps – it makes trying things low-risk and errors correctable.
2. Origin and development
KVP comes from Japanese production organisation and became known as part of lean production systems. The underlying thought is older: someone who performs a task daily sees its weaknesses more precisely than any observer.
In German businesses it met an older institution, the betriebliches Vorschlagswesen – the employee suggestion scheme – and the two are often equated although they work differently. The suggestion scheme collects individual suggestions, assesses them centrally and pays an award for them. KVP moves trying things out and deciding to where the work happens.
That explains why suggestion schemes so often fall asleep: if a suggestion sits for months in an assessment committee and is rejected without reasons, submitting them stops.
For payroll and other administrative processes the approach transfers, although it comes from production. The recurring procedures there have the same property: someone who runs them monthly knows their weak points.
3. Core principles and how it works
Small steps rather than large initiatives
Small changes are low-risk, quickly tried and easily reversed. Their sum outperforms the rare large project over time.
Those doing the work suggest
Not for reasons of participation, but because that is where the knowledge of the real procedures sits.
Cause before solution
Fixing a symptom quickly moves the problem elsewhere. Repeatedly asking why is the simplest and most effective tool in the approach.
Try it and measure
A change is introduced as an experiment and its effect checked. Without checking there is no learning, only change.
Standardise what proves itself
A proven change becomes the new starting point. Without that step the procedure falls back.
Implementation is the bottleneck
What decides is not the number of suggestions but how many are implemented. Where nothing happens, the flow dries up.
Observe co-determination
Award schemes and changes to working procedures can be subject to co-determination.
4. Who is Kontinuierlicher Verbesserungsprozess (continuous improvement process) relevant for?
- Manufacturing businesses – the field it came from.
- Administration and payroll – recurring procedures suit it just as well.
- Managers – it is with them that whether suggestions get implemented is decided.
- Teams with stable processes – they know the detours nobody has documented.
- Works councils – suggestion schemes and awards are subject to co-determination.
5. How it differs from related terms
- KVP and lean management – lean is the overall approach to avoiding waste; KVP is the improvement principle within it. - KVP and the employee suggestion scheme – the suggestion scheme collects and rewards centrally; KVP moves trying things out and deciding to where the work is. - KVP and innovation – KVP improves what exists in small steps. It does not reach leaps or new business models – those need other formats. - KVP and quality management – quality management secures a standard; KVP raises it. - KVP and the retrospective – the retrospective in agile methods is a KVP format under another name and on a fixed rhythm.
6. Variants and adaptations
Common forms:
- An improvement board in the team – a visible collection, joint prioritisation, visible progress. Simple and effective. - Short workshops – improvement events of a few days on one concrete procedure. - A suggestion scheme with awards – works as long as processing times are short and rejections are explained. - The retrospective – a fixed rhythm, at team level, without awards. The most widespread form in knowledge work. - Measure-driven KVP – improvements are measured against lead times or error rates. Effective, provided the measure does not itself become the target.
7. Advantages and challenges
Advantages
- Uses the knowledge of those doing the work, which otherwise goes unused
- Small steps are low-risk and easily reversed
- Improvements take effect immediately rather than after a project cycle
- The approach is sector-independent and transfers to administrative processes
- Visible implementation produces participation that no appeal achieves
Challenges
- Without visible implementation the flow of suggestions dries up quickly
- Long central assessment procedures are off-putting
- The approach reaches no leaps, only step-by-step improvement
- Award schemes can put individual interest above team benefit
- Without time to try things it stays at suggestions with no implementation
- Measure-driven forms create perverse incentives where the measure becomes the target
8. Best practices for implementation
Measure the implementation rate, not the number of suggestions
The number of suggestions says little. What matters is how many get implemented – and how quickly. That is the only measure that keeps the flow going.
Move the decision to where the work is
Small changes should be decidable within the team. Every approval stage lengthens the route and lowers participation.
Give reasons for rejections
A rejected suggestion with reasons does no harm. An unanswered one ends participation.
Plan time for trying things
Improvement does not happen on the side. Without time set aside it stays at declarations of intent.
Ask for the cause, not for the quick fix
Repeatedly asking why costs minutes and prevents the same problem returning in another form.
9. Tips for employers and employees
For employers
- **The implementation rate is the decisive measure** – not the number of suggestions
- **Keep decision routes short** – every approval stage lowers participation
- **Give reasons for rejections** – an unanswered suggestion ends the flow
- **Set aside time** – improvement does not happen on the side
For employees
- **Your knowledge of the procedure is otherwise missing** – nobody else knows the detours and workarounds
- **Small suggestions are valuable** – their sum works harder than the large project
- **Ask where it stands** – a suggestion with no response is not a process
- **Awards are subject to co-determination** – the works council is involved
10. Conclusion
The continuous improvement process relies on many small steps rather than rare large initiatives – and on an allocation that is decisive: suggestions come from those who do the work. Not for reasons of participation, but because that is where the knowledge of the real procedures sits, including the detours that appear in no process description.
The bottleneck is never the number of suggestions but the implementation. Where suggestions sit for months in an assessment committee and are rejected without reasons, submitting them stops – and that is why employee suggestion schemes so regularly fall asleep. The only measure that keeps the flow going is the implementation rate.
Two points are worth noting for a group introducing a suggestion scheme across countries. The German betriebliches Vorschlagswesen is an institution with its own award logic and is regularly equated with KVP although it works differently. And award schemes and changes to working procedures can be subject to co-determination under Section 87 BetrVG.
The approach comes from production but transfers well to administrative processes – including payroll, whose recurring procedures have the same property: someone who runs them monthly knows their weak points more precisely than any process analysis.
Sources
- Lean Enterprise Institute – continuous improvement (opens in a new tab)
- Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering – production management (English pages) (opens in a new tab)
- Section 87 BetrVG – Co-determination rights in social matters (official English version) (opens in a new tab)
Related terms
Our promise
Software supports. People take responsibility.
Let us talk about your payroll – no strings attached, specific, and with a dedicated contact from day one.