Thousands of Proposals a Month, FPY Unmoved? — A Case Study of Dual-Track "Proposal + Project" Linkage in Electronics Manufacturing

1. A Bustling Proposal Wall Can't Save the Three "Big Numbers"

A certain electronics manufacturing company primarily produces power modules and has around 2,200 employees. The proposal system has been in place for three years and is now quite mature: the number of monthly proposals has increased from over 100 to more than 800, with an adoption rate consistently above 50%. The review, public display, rewards, and feedback processes are all well-established. The proposal wall in the workshop is always full, and the "Improvement Stars" at the annual commendation meeting are highly celebrated.

However, the quality director has been troubled by three major issues: the production line pass rate has been stuck at 92% for six months; the overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) has long hovered around 68%; and the nonconforming rate reported by clients has only been rising. Despite the increasing number of proposals, these three "big numbers" remain unchanged.

The management team conducted a review, reclassifying over 2,000 proposals from the past three months based on their "problem radius." The results were alarming: 93% of the proposals were single-point improvements—such as tool positioning, lighting brightness, material placement, and form filling at individual workstations. These improvements are quick to implement, easy to approve, and come with guaranteed rewards. Proposals involving internal department processes accounted for about 5%, and truly cross-departmental, cross-system proposals were only slightly over 2%. Even more disheartening, these 2% of proposals were almost entirely complaints: one proposal stated, "A single changeover takes 40 minutes, which is a waste of time." The review panel found that this issue involved planning, production scheduling, process parameters, and equipment debugging, making it difficult for any single department to approve. As a result, the proposal was put on hold for months and eventually forgotten.

The head of the proposal committee spoke frankly: "We reward the cleverness of 'moving things better' every month, but the truly critical issues can't be addressed with just a piece of proposal paper."

2. Three "Inherent Mismatches" in the Proposal System

The company's predicament is not unique. The proposal system's DNA is "voluntary individual participation + immediate small benefits," making it inherently suitable for low-risk, single-point, and local improvements. However, it has three structural mismatches with systemic issues that cannot be resolved by simply increasing rewards.

First, Power Radius Mismatch. The proposer is an individual, but systemic issues often span multiple departments. For example, long changeover times are rooted in production planning rhythms, inconsistent process standards, and varied equipment debugging methods. No single person's workstation radius can cover all these aspects. Employees can propose, but no one has the authority to implement changes.

Second, Resource Allocation Mismatch. Solving systemic issues requires project initiation, data collection, experimentation, and process document revisions, with a cycle measured in months and involving cross-departmental team time. Asking employees to tackle these tough nuts in their spare time through proposals is neither realistic nor fair.

Third, Benefit Attribution Mismatch. The benefits of small improvements are clear: my idea, my reward, my honor. However, the benefits of solving systemic issues are company-wide, and the proposer's name may not appear on the credit list. Moreover, solving these issues might involve challenging the interests of many people. Rational individuals will naturally vote with their feet—focusing on proposals that are easy to approve, quick to implement, and guaranteed to win rewards.

This creates a vicious cycle: the more mature the system and the more generous the rewards, the more "internal competition" there is for small improvements. Similar issues on the same production line are repeatedly proposed and addressed, while the systemic issues that truly determine the factory's competitiveness remain stuck in the "pending" section of the proposal wall. What the company lacks is not better proposals but a channel to "upgrade" proposals to projects and a table that gives everyone a place in major projects.

3. Dual-Track Integration: Fast Lane for Small Improvements, Slow Lane for Major Projects

Realizing this, the company did not abandon the proposal system but instead implemented a "dual-track integration" transformation: clearly dividing the improvement channels into two tracks and adding two integration points in between.

Step One: Layered Channels, Each on Its Own Track. Previously, all improvements were lumped into the "proposal" category. Now, they are clearly divided into two tracks. Track A is the proposal track, aimed at individuals and teams, focusing on single-point small improvements, with a requirement for a closed-loop response within two weeks. Track B is the project track, aimed at cross-departmental systemic issues, using methodologies such as A3, 8D, or Six Sigma DMAIC. Each project must have a designated project leader and a responsible manager as initiators. The two tracks have different resources, rhythms, and incentives, but they share a single "improvement panorama" to prevent any attempts to exploit the system.

Step Two: Install the "Referral Valve"—Mandatory Upgrade for Out-of-Scope Proposals. This is the most critical step. The proposal review meetings are now held twice a month, with an additional fixed agenda item: reviewing "out-of-scope proposals." Any proposal that involves multiple departments, requires project initiation, or is expected to yield annual benefits exceeding 100,000 yuan must not be handled internally within Track A but must be forcibly transferred to Track B for project review. The referral process is not just a formality: the original proposer automatically joins the project team, retains their name, and receives rewards based on their contribution, avoiding the situation where "ideas are taken but credit is not given." Additionally, two strict rules were set: the referral rate must be no less than 3%, and the project initiation assessment for referred proposals must be completed within 30 days, with a written response for any rejected proposals—thus, no proposal is left hanging indefinitely.

Step Three: Reverse Decomposition—Major Projects Involve Everyone. The tracks are bidirectional. When a Track B project is initiated, the project leader must break it down into three to five sub-tasks suitable for all employees, which are then issued back to Track A in the form of "rewarded proposals." For example, the data collection for the initial stages of a project, on-site observation of waste points, solicitation of poka-yoke ideas, and tracking the effectiveness of implemented improvements can all be turned into proposal tasks. A DMAIC project on changeover time reduction issued a "rewarded proposal" to collect wasteful actions during changeover, receiving over 60 responses in a week. Twelve of these were directly incorporated into the improvement list. Frontline employees used their most familiar "proposal language" to participate in major projects, maintaining a sense of involvement and achievement while providing the project team with on-site insights.

Step Four: One Table, Two Funnel Metrics. At the monthly operational improvement meetings, the general manager reviews both funnels: Track A focuses on the number of proposals, adoption rate, implementation rate, and average closed-loop days; Track B focuses on the number of ongoing projects, stage gate passage, and on-time closure rate. A specific section is dedicated to reviewing the two integration metrics—referral counts and reverse decomposition counts. This setup makes it immediately clear which funnel is empty or blocked, preventing the situation where proposals are lively but projects are stagnant.

4. Eighteen Months Later: The Big Numbers Moved, and Small Improvements Didn't Cool Down

The data 18 months after the transformation silenced the initial skeptics.

Track B has initiated 46 projects, including 13 cross-departmental DMAIC projects. The most typical changeover project reduced the changeover time from 40 minutes to 24 minutes, increased the pass rate from 92% to 96.5%, raised the OEE from 68% to 76%, and lowered the client-reported nonconforming rate to a historical low. The plant manager said at the annual meeting, "We used to think improvements were like sprinkling pepper, but now we finally taste the benefits of 'concentrated efforts.'"

More impressively, Track A did not cool down as a result. The average number of monthly proposals stabilized between 800 and 1,000, with no reduction in participation. The average closed-loop time for proposals shortened from 45 days to less than 10 days, and complaints about "proposals being ignored" have almost disappeared. Employee attitudes have also changed: previously, proposing a cross-departmental issue was like a stone sinking into the sea, but now they know that the review panel will take it seriously, transfer it to a project, and credit their name. The original "slow changeover" complaint proposal was later recognized as the "seed proposal" for the changeover project, and the proposer received a special award at the project completion ceremony, becoming a living advertisement for the company.

5. Want to Copy the Homework? Remember These Three Sentences

First, layered channels are a prerequisite. Without a graded channel system, the more proposals there are, the more they remain "fragmented improvements." The heavier the rewards, the deeper the internal competition. First, ensure that small improvements have a fast lane and major projects have a slow lane, then discuss integration.

Second, the referral process must have strict metrics. The integration points cannot rely on voluntary compliance. Referral rates, project initiation timelines, and written responses must be written into the rules for evaluation. Blocking the institutional exit for "sunk proposals" encourages employees to bring up real issues.

Third, don't let major projects become the domain of a few. Breaking down projects into rewarded proposals not only enhances frontline participation but also provides the project team with "on-site intelligence." The value of the dual-track system lies not in how fast each track runs but in how smoothly the transfer station operates.

The limit of the proposal system has never been the proposals themselves but whether it can reliably hand over unreachable issues to the right people.

Proposals are responsible for speeding up small improvements, and projects are responsible for thoroughly addressing major issues. The referral channel between them is the true backbone of the continuous improvement system.

Knowledge code: 5.1.2

Version: v20260903

Author: QTank QTank is dedicated to providing systematic professional knowledge, methodologies, and practical tools for quality management practitioners, helping companies continuously enhance their quality capabilities.