Continuous improvement

This subtopic provides an overview of continuous improvement methodologies and tools, and covers the following areas:

•
what is continuous improvement?
•
a five-step improving efficiency framework:
1. ◦
  step 1—identify and define the problem
2. ◦
  step 2—measure the problem
3. ◦
  step 3—analyse what’s causing the problem
4. ◦
  step 4—improve the process
5. ◦
  step 5—making changes across the department
•
managing change

What is continuous improvement?

The definition of continuous improvement is often overcomplicated and buried in jargon, but it means exactly what it says: continually looking for ways to improve processes, methods and procedures to remove blockages, make them as efficient as possible and therefore, save time and money.

Improvements do not have to be major changes; a number of small but effective changes soon add up.

Continuous improvement tools and methods can help fix processes that are no longer effective and allow a review of processes that currently appear to be working but could still be improved to deliver greater efficiencies and cost savings. In organisations where staffing levels have been cut, continuous improvement can also help identify how to perform

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

Foreign Affairs Committee calls for White Paper on UK-EU reset and publication of Dynamic Alignment Bill

The Foreign Affairs Committee has published its Third Report of Session 2024–26, From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future. The report examines the government’s approach and progress on reset of UK relations with the EU. The report is intended to inform parliamentary consideration of the next phase of UK-EU engagement while negotiations with the EU and internal government work continue. It concludes that while the May 2025 Lancaster House summit provided a foundation for renewed cooperation, the reset lacks overall direction, definition and sustained political drive, with several negotiating strands proceeding without clear timelines, milestones or published strategic objectives. Among its recommendations, the Committee calls for a White Paper on the future of the UK-EU relationship, to clarify the approach and inform objectives for the next UK-EU summit and beyond. It also seeks clarity on the extent and impact of proposed dynamic alignment between UK and EU law and the future role of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The report also calls for early publication of the Dynamic Alignment Bill for implementation of the relevant arrangements so that these may be scrutinised ahead of time.

SLSC 53rd Report of 2024–26: 1 SI reported

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) has reported the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026 on the ground that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House of Lords.

Public Law weekly highlights—5 March 2026

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes a hand-picked summary of news analysis, legal updates and case law from the world of Public Law. These highlights include the latest updates on Brexit, constitutional and administrative law, judicial review, equality and human rights, public procurement, subsidy control and state aid, information law and other Public Law news. This edition features the Foreign Affairs Committee’s call for a UK–EU reset White Paper and early publication of the proposed Dynamic Alignment Bill, the publication of a draft UK-EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar, case analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in R v ABJ; R v BDN upholding the compatibility of section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the stayed quashing order in the Palestine Action proscription challenge (pending appeal), plus the latest case updates and analysis.

Lord Advocate’s immunity in malicious prosecution incompatible with article 6 ECHR (Hirst v Police Service of Scotland)

Public Law analysis: This case follows a failed criminal prosecution of Mark Hirst. Following the collapse of the case Hirst brought a civil action against Police Scotland and the Crown Office (Scottish Criminal Prosecutors) for malicious prosecution. Despite dismissing Hirst’s case the court provides a useful analysis of the four part legal test needed to establish a malicious prosecution. This expanded on the reasoning first seen in Whitehouse v Lord Advocate [2019] CSIH 52. As a result of this reasoning the court made a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 against section 170 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. This section gives the Crown Office immunity from an action of damages in a civil action unless the pursuer has suffered imprisonment as a consequence. The court ruled this was incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. It is an unjustified restriction on the possibility of hearing a claim for malicious prosecution. Written by Dr Nick McKerrell, senior lecturer in Law at Glasgow Caledonian University.