And yes, that’s exactly what goes on in a lot of companies and shop floors. Fires get put out just enough to stop the flames, but still smolder underneath when the fire fighters run off to put out a different fire somewhere else.

I understand the overall point the author is trying to make but this is a perfect example of a sophomoric approach made overly complicated through the use of non-standard definitions. If we accept that a problem is simply the gap between current state and desired future state, then solving the problem (when does correctly) can and does create improvement; the definition of Kaizen (Kai= Change, Zen= for good; i.e positive change).

While I agree that there is a breakdown in many organizations with their approach to make lasting improvements, I would argue that, like this article, it is because they do not properly understand or define their problems.

A while ago I watched a documentary about a phosgene shed accident at a DuPont plant where a worker was killed when a hose connected to a tank ruptured. Those hoses had a very limited service life and were known to erode due to chemical interactions.
A proposal was floated to build a chemical proof enclosure to the tune of millions of dollars. Another proposal was to simply replace all of those hoses every single month regardless of condition. After the accident investigation was done, they found that the failed hose was in place for a full seven months before failure.

In my opinion, the second approach was a perfectly reasonable solution. In retrospect, the audit process to positively ensure none of the hoses were over a month old didn’t exist or was badly broken.

True problem-solving is an Intercal part of continuous improvement. The engagement of people in the problem-solving process is how you improve and move the organization forward narrowing variation and improving quality and efficiency. Companies fail with improvement And with six sigma another methodologies because they fail to do good root cause analysis.