Process improvement is often treated as a specialist capability. It is associated with Operational Excellence teams, Lean practitioners, Six Sigma professionals, process engineers and transformation programmes. That association makes sense because these roles spend a significant amount of their time improving how organisations operate. However, it can also create the impression that process improvement belongs primarily to specialists.
An analysis of all 436 occupational unit groups in the International Labour Organization’s International Standard Classification of Occupations, or ISCO-08, suggests otherwise. The analysis found that process improvement is either an expected capability or can make a material difference in 434 of the 436 occupational groups examined. In 203 occupational groups, representing 46.6% of the total, continuously improving how work is performed was assessed as an expected part of performing the occupation well. In a further 231 groups, or 53.0%, process improvement capability could materially improve performance even where it may not be an explicit requirement of the occupation.
The implication is broader than the finding itself. Process improvement should not be treated only as a specialist technical discipline. In many occupations, it should be viewed as a general professional capability alongside communication, problem solving, decision making and the ability to work effectively with data.
Performing Work and Improving Work Are Different Capabilities
Most professional education and workplace training is designed primarily to help people perform their work. Accountants learn accounting, engineers learn engineering, nurses learn clinical practice, marketers learn marketing and managers learn how to manage people and resources. These capabilities are essential because people need to understand the work before they can perform it effectively.
However, knowing how to perform work is not the same as knowing how to improve the way that work is performed.
A person may become highly competent at completing an existing process without necessarily being able to identify why that process takes too long, where unnecessary activities exist, why errors repeatedly occur or how the work could be redesigned to produce a better result. Those questions require a different set of skills. They involve understanding the process as a whole, identifying causes rather than symptoms, examining performance objectively and changing the way work is organised.
This distinction becomes important because organisations do not operate in a fixed environment. Customer expectations change, technologies develop, costs increase, regulations evolve and new risks emerge. A process that worked well five years ago may no longer be appropriate today. Organisations therefore need people who can do more than perform established work correctly. They also need people who can recognise when the way the work is performed needs to change.
The People Closest to the Work See Problems First
There is another practical reason process improvement capability should be distributed much more widely across organisations. The people performing a process every day usually have access to information that a central improvement team does not.
They know which steps regularly cause delays, which systems create unnecessary effort, which customer requests produce repeated exceptions and which workarounds have become part of normal operations. They also see small problems before those problems become visible in formal performance reports.
This does not mean every employee should independently redesign important organisational processes. Significant changes may require specialist analysis, cross functional coordination, technology support or formal governance. However, people throughout the organisation should be able to recognise improvement opportunities, understand the causes of recurring problems and contribute effectively to improving the processes in which they work.
Without that capability, organisations become overly dependent on specialist improvement teams. A problem must first become visible, then be escalated, then compete with other priorities before someone with improvement expertise can examine it. This limits the amount of improvement an organisation can realistically undertake.
A stronger model is to combine specialist improvement expertise with widespread improvement capability. Specialists can lead larger or more complex initiatives, while employees and managers continuously improve the work within their own areas of responsibility.
Managers Have an Even Stronger Responsibility to Improve Processes
The ISCO analysis found that all 31 occupational groups classified under Managers were rated as occupations where process improvement is an expected capability. Among Professionals, 80 of 92 occupational groups received the same rating.
This is particularly significant because managers have substantial influence over how work is designed. They allocate resources, establish responsibilities, approve controls, set performance expectations and determine how decisions are made. When a process repeatedly underperforms, management therefore has a responsibility not only to address the immediate problem but also to understand whether the process itself needs to change.
In practice, organisations do not always manage problems this way. A missed target may lead to additional monitoring. A quality problem may lead to another approval. A delay may lead to more frequent status meetings. These responses can sometimes be necessary, but they can also add complexity without addressing the underlying cause.
A manager with process improvement capability is more likely to examine how the work is actually performed before adding another control. That means looking at the sequence of activities, responsibilities, handoffs, information, measures and constraints that collectively produce the result. The objective shifts from managing recurring problems to improving the system producing them.
For managers in particular, process improvement should therefore not be considered an optional specialist technique. It is part of managing operations effectively.
Process Improvement Is Not Limited to Manufacturing
One reason process improvement is still perceived as specialist knowledge may be its historical association with manufacturing, Lean and Six Sigma. These disciplines made major contributions to the development of modern process improvement methods, but the underlying principles are not specific to factories.
Every organisation performs work through processes.
A hospital admits and treats patients. A bank processes applications and transactions. A university recruits students, delivers teaching and manages research. A software company develops products and resolves customer issues. A government agency processes applications and delivers public services. Professional services firms develop proposals, deliver projects and invoice clients.
Each of these activities involves inputs, activities, decisions, responsibilities and outputs. Each can experience delays, errors, duplication, unnecessary effort, poor handoffs and inconsistent performance.
The ISCO results reflect this breadth. Process improvement was assessed as either mandatory or materially beneficial across managers, professionals, technicians, clerical workers, service and sales workers, skilled trades, machine operators and almost every other occupational group. Only two of the 436 groups were classified as areas where process improvement capability would be largely irrelevant.
The methods may vary depending on the type of work, but the underlying capability remains relevant: understand how the work is performed, identify what prevents better performance and improve the process accordingly.
Better Problem Solving Requires Better Process Thinking
Process improvement is also closely connected to problem solving. Organisations often describe problem solving as a desirable professional skill, but many workplace problems are process problems in practice.
If customers repeatedly receive incorrect information, the immediate problem may appear to be employee error. If projects consistently miss deadlines, the immediate problem may appear to be poor planning. If invoices contain frequent mistakes, the organisation may initially focus on individual performance.
Those explanations may sometimes be correct, but they may also overlook the process producing the problem. Employees may receive inconsistent information from different systems. Project dependencies may not be identified early enough. Invoice data may be entered manually several times before reaching the customer.
Without process thinking, organisations can repeatedly address symptoms while leaving the underlying cause unchanged.
Process improvement provides a structured way of examining these situations. It encourages people to understand what actually happens, distinguish individual incidents from recurring patterns and determine which part of the process needs to change. This makes problem solving more systematic and reduces the tendency to rely on assumptions or immediate fixes.
Employers Benefit When Improvement Capability Is Distributed
For organisations, the value of broader process improvement capability extends beyond individual projects. It changes the amount of improvement the organisation is capable of producing.
A small Operational Excellence team can only lead a limited number of initiatives at any one time. If every meaningful improvement depends on that team, the organisation effectively places a ceiling on its own improvement capacity.
The situation changes when people throughout the organisation understand basic improvement principles. Employees can identify problems more clearly, managers can lead smaller improvements themselves and specialist teams can focus their attention on the initiatives where their expertise adds the greatest value.
This also makes continuous improvement more realistic. Continuous improvement is difficult to achieve when improvement is treated primarily as a series of occasional projects led by specialists. It becomes much more achievable when the ability to improve work is embedded into normal professional and managerial responsibilities.
That does not remove the need for specialists. In the same way that organisations employ finance specialists while expecting managers to understand financial performance, they can maintain dedicated Operational Excellence expertise while expecting a much wider group of employees to understand process performance and improvement.
Process Improvement Can Also Increase Individual Professional Value
The same argument applies from the perspective of the individual professional.
Two people may be equally capable of performing the technical requirements of a role, but one may also be able to identify recurring problems, simplify work, reduce delays and improve the results produced by the wider team. That capability creates an additional source of value.
It is also highly transferable. Technical knowledge can be specific to an industry, system or occupation, while process improvement principles apply across many different environments. The details of a process change, but the questions remain similar: What is the desired outcome? How does the work currently flow? Where are the constraints? What creates errors or delay? Which activities add value? How should performance be measured? What should change?
This helps explain why the ISCO analysis found such broad applicability across occupational groups. Process improvement does not replace professional expertise. It strengthens what professionals can do with that expertise.
An engineer still needs engineering knowledge, a nurse still needs clinical knowledge and an accountant still needs accounting knowledge. Process improvement adds the ability to improve the system through which that professional knowledge is applied.
Organisations Should Treat It as a Core Capability
If process improvement can materially improve performance in almost every occupational category, organisations should reconsider where responsibility for it sits.
The traditional model places most formal improvement capability inside specialist functions or temporary transformation programmes. That expertise remains important, particularly for complex cross functional work. However, it should sit on top of a broader organisational capability rather than substitute for it.
Managers should understand how to analyse and improve the processes they are responsible for. Professionals should be able to identify weaknesses in how their work is organised and contribute to redesigning it. Employees should have a practical way to raise and investigate recurring operational problems. Improvement specialists should then provide deeper expertise, governance and support where the complexity or scale of the issue requires it.
Education and professional development should reflect the same principle. Teaching people only how to perform established work prepares them for the organisation as it exists today. Teaching them how to improve that work also prepares them to make the organisation better.
The analysis of the 436 ISCO occupational groups provides a useful indication of just how widely this capability applies. Process improvement is not relevant only to people with Lean, Six Sigma or Operational Excellence in their job title. In almost every profession, people work within processes, depend on processes and influence how well those processes perform.
For that reason, process improvement should increasingly be viewed for what it is: a core professional capability that enables people not only to perform their work, but to improve the way that work is performed.
Leave a Reply