Why standing still is the fastest way backward

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

May 19, 2026 | 12:00am

There’s a question raised by a reader: “Is continuous improvement compulsory?” My answer? A big no. Objectively speaking, there are products that still remain unchanged after several decades. Two classic examples are BIC ballpens and LEGO bricks. BIC has been my constant companion since high school. It writes smoothly, avoids leaks, stays inexpensive and lasts longer than some political promises.

I used it a lot when I wrote letters to my teenage pen-pals.

BIC’s reliability is hard to beat. Its simplicity is difficult to improve. It has very few failure points. While I love the original design of BIC, I have to resort to a clickable version to avoid losing time looking for the cap. Fortunately, BIC has it.

LEGO bricks, on the other hand, still snap together perfectly well since 1958. A child from that year and a child from 2026 can still connect the same LEGO bricks — a rare triumph of disciplined restraint in a world addicted to constant upgrades.

Their original geometry was so close to perfection that even engineers probably looked at it and said, “Let’s not touch this unless we invite rioting.” Imagine changing its size or locking mechanism.

Result? Overnight, old sets would become useless, customers would panic and parents would discover new ways to step on expensive disappointment. That’s why stability itself becomes part of the value proposition.

Easier, better, cheaper, faster

Indeed, continuous improvement (CI) like Kaizen, Lean or Six Sigma is not compulsory. This supports the idea of American legendary engineer W. Edwards Deming (1990-1993) who said: “It is not necessary to change. Survival is not compulsory.”

Most of time, however, improvement is essential for survival. Other times, changing a successful product is the fastest way to ruin it. Look at the New Coke in 1985. The challenge is knowing the difference between improving the core product and improving everything around it.

So, how are you going to survive without CI? If the cash flow has dried up, standing still isn’t “stability”— it’s just a slow way to oblivion.

Even loyal customers eventually lose patience with outdated products or services.

Today, customers expect products that are faster to deliver, safer to use, lighter, smarter and more affordable. But there’s a science to that: “Easier, Better, Faster and Cheaper” – in that order of priority.       

That’s according to Shigeo Shingo (1909–1990), a world-renowned Japanese industrial engineer who is widely considered one of the most influential figures in modern manufacturing. His name lives on through the Shingo Prize for Operational Excellence, established in 1988, which is often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Manufacturing.”

Sequence logic

Shingo emphasized that the order of priority – easier, better, faster and cheaper is non-negotiable. When managers make the mistake of reversing the list—starting with, say “cheaper”— it often results in overworked staff, harassed suppliers, disappointed customers and other stakeholders. Let’s examine his logic:

First priority – easier. Eliminate the physical and mental strain to all stakeholders. If a task is difficult, unsafe, unhealthy or ergonomically difficult to do, it becomes inherently wasteful and prone to errors.

Second priority – better. Once the task is easy to perform, you focus on quality. This is where Shingo’s concepts of Poka-yoke (mistake-proofing) can come into play to ensure defects, even accidents are impossible to create. One example is the microwave.

Third priority – faster. If a product is easy to use and the quality is high, increase delivery speed and reduce lead times. Quality and ease of use get you in the game; velocity keeps you ahead of it.

Last priority – cheaper. Shingo believed that if you successfully achieve the first three, the product will become naturally cheaper to produce as long as you do continuous waste elimination.  

Ignoring this sequence is like trying to lose weight by buying smaller pants first. It’s technically “cheaper” and definitely “faster,” but until you handle the “easier” part like dieting and “better” exercise, you’re just one deep breath away from a high-velocity injury.

If you heed this order of priority, profits take care of themselves. If you are only looking at the profit, any wrong priority takes care of your resignation letter.

Rey Elbo is a quality and productivity activist. Send your comment, question or story to [email protected] or DM him on Facebook, LinkedIn, X or via https://reyelbo.com