Proposal System Design Guide — From "No One Cares" to "Everyone Competes to Submit"

1. Why Do Most Proposal Systems Fail?

Let's look at three typical scenarios:

Scenario A: A manufacturing company established a "Rationalization Proposal Award," with quarterly evaluations. Employee A submitted a proposal to improve welding parameters, but after three months of review, they were told "the technical department is still assessing it." A year later, this employee never submitted another proposal.

Scenario B: An electronics factory stipulated that each employee must submit at least one proposal per month, which is included in performance evaluations. The result: the number of proposals surged, but most were about "suggesting more variety in the cafeteria" or "suggesting re-marking parking spaces" — completely unrelated to quality management.

Scenario C: A food company rewards proposal stars annually, but the evaluation process is monopolized by the quality department, often returning frontline employees' proposals with the reason "not aligned with the annual improvement focus." Employees jokingly refer to this system as a "decorative facade."

These three scenarios reveal common reasons for the failure of proposal systems:

Understanding these pitfalls is essential to designing a proposal system that can "survive."

2. Core Design Principles of a Proposal System

A good proposal system should follow five core principles:

Principle 1: Immediate Feedback — Commit to "A Response Within 7 Days"

After any proposal is submitted, the evaluation department must provide a clear conclusion within 7 working days: adopt, defer, or return, along with a brief rationale. This seemingly simple rule directly determines whether employees will submit another proposal. Committing to and strictly enforcing feedback time limits builds trust more effectively than offering multiple rewards.

Principle 2: Tiered Evaluation — Small Improvements for Immediate Rewards, Major Improvements for Project Management

Not all proposals deserve the same evaluation process. It is recommended to categorize improvements into three levels:

• S Level (Small Improvements/Micro Improvements): Improvements that can be implemented within the same workstation or team. Standardized forms are used, and proposals are directly approved by team leaders, implemented immediately, and rewarded instantly (e.g., small gifts or petty cash).
• M Level (Team Improvements): Improvements that span multiple processes or departments. A3 reports or simple analysis forms are required, and proposals are evaluated by department heads, with bonuses awarded upon project completion.
• L Level (Strategic Improvements): Proposals involving process redesign, process changes, new equipment investments, etc. These follow a formal project evaluation path and are integrated into policy management.

The essence of tiered evaluation is: not letting small improvements get stuck in the major review queue, and not letting major improvements be stifled by the small review framework.

Principle 3: Transparency — Show Everyone What Happens After a Proposal

Establish a simple proposal kanban (physical or digital), displaying the progress of each proposal from "submission → evaluation → implementation → standardization." Employees can see where their proposals are in the process and what changes others' proposals have brought. This peer demonstration effect is much stronger than the motivational power of written policies.

Principle 4: Closed-Loop Operation — From Proposal to Standardization

After a proposal is adopted and implemented, it must be standardized — updating work instructions, control plans, inspection standards, or training materials. If improvements are not documented, problems will recur within three months, and the proposal's effectiveness will be nullified.

Principle 5: Decentralized Management — Delegate Evaluation Authority to Those Closest to the Field

Headquarters/quality department should manage the rules and platform of the proposal system, but evaluation authority should be delegated to the department or production line level. Only frontline managers are best positioned to determine: whether an improvement is valuable, feasible, and free of side effects. Headquarters is responsible for setting standards, building platforms, conducting statistics, and annual commendations.

3. Incentive Mechanism Design — Money Is Not the Only Driver

When it comes to incentives, many people's first thought is "how much money?" However, research shows that for frontline employees, recognition and visibility are often more motivating than the rewards themselves.

Four Levels of Incentives

Key Design — Don't Let "Money" Drive Away "Heart"

A common pitfall: as reward amounts increase, employees start to focus on "how much is this proposal worth," rather than the improvement itself. Countermeasures:

1. Standardize reward levels, avoid negotiation. S Level: 30 RMB, M Level: 100～300 RMB, L Level: 500～3000 RMB. These levels should be publicized in advance and strictly followed.
2. Maintain the weight of "non-material incentives." Honor walls for annual improvement champions, CEO luncheons, and a hall of fame should not be quantified in monetary terms.
3. Prioritize team incentives over individual incentives. For M Level and above cross-departmental improvements, rewards should be given to the project team as a whole, encouraging collaboration rather than individual effort.

4. Implementation Roadmap

The following is a step-by-step implementation suggestion based on a timeline:

Week 1～2: System Design

• Determine the classification criteria, evaluation process, and feedback time limits for proposals.
• Design standardized forms (at least: proposal submission form, evaluation record form, implementation tracking form).
• Establish the framework for the incentive mechanism.

Week 3: System Setup

• Set up a proposal kanban (physical + digital tools, recommend digital first — no custom development needed, use existing OA or collaboration tools).
• Train evaluators (team leaders, department heads).

Week 4: Pilot Run (Select one workshop or department)

• First month goal: each team must submit at least one S Level proposal.
• The first "response case" must be generated on the first day — show employees that "someone is really paying attention."

Month 2～3: Full Rollout

• Review pilot data: submission rate, adoption rate, implementation rate, standardization rate.
• Optimize the evaluation and feedback rhythm.
• Launch the "Monthly Improvement Star" selection.

Month 4～6: Consolidation and Upgrade

• Data analysis: which types of proposals are most common? Which workstations have the highest adoption rates? Which issues are repeatedly raised (indicating systemic problems)?
• Integrate with QC group activities and policy management — upgrade high-quality proposals to QC topics or policy management priorities.
• Initiate the "Improvement Case Library" construction.

5. Common Issues and Countermeasures

Q1: Employees say "it doesn't matter if I submit," what can be done? A: This is the most difficult psychological inertia to reverse. The solution is to create the "first successful case." Even a minor improvement (such as adjusting the workstation lighting angle) should be evaluated, implemented, and publicized within 48 hours of submission. This "first shot" is more convincing than a hundred mobilization documents.

Q2: Too many proposals, how to handle the backlog? A: Return to the tiered mechanism — S Level proposals should be immediately approved by team leaders and do not require centralized evaluation. Only M Level and L Level proposals should go through the evaluation committee. If there are still too many S Level proposals, it indicates the need to increase the authorization of team leaders, not to reduce the proposal channels.

Q3: Employees always suggest "improving the canteen" and similar ideas, what should be done? A: Do not directly return these suggestions — this will make employees feel that "their opinions are rejected." The correct approach is to clearly inform them, "such suggestions should be submitted through the后勤管理部门 (后勤管理部门 can be translated as后勤 management department or后勤 department, but in this context, "logistics management department" is more appropriate) channel." Additionally, set up "improvement areas" categories in the proposal system, allowing employees to choose whether their proposal is for "quality improvement," "efficiency improvement," or "work environment improvement" at the source.

Q4: Proposals are implemented, but revert to the old state after three months? A: This indicates a lack of standardization. The system must enforce a hard constraint: when a proposal is accepted, a "list of updated documents" must be one of the deliverables. Without standardization, the improvement is incomplete.

Q5: How to measure the effectiveness of the proposal system? A: Look at three core metrics:

• Participation Rate (%): What percentage of employees have submitted at least one proposal in the past 6 months? (Target: >30%)
• Adoption Rate (%): The percentage of adopted proposals (Normal range: 40%~60%, too high indicates loose standards, too low indicates strict standards or process issues)
• Standardization Rate (%): The percentage of adopted proposals that have completed document/standard updates (Target: >90%)

6. From Proposal System to Improvement Culture — What's Next?

A proposal system is not the endpoint of an improvement culture. When the team has developed the habit of "spotting issues → proposing improvements → standardizing," consider the following steps:

1. Upgrade Excellent Proposals to QC Topics — use more structured methods (QC Seven Tools, A3, 8D) to address more complex problems.
2. Align Annual Improvement Focus Through Policy Management — break down the annual improvement focus through policy management to align proposal directions with organizational strategy.
3. Establish an Improvement Community — make proposers "improvement coaches" to encourage more participation.

Knowledge Number: 5.1.2

Version: v20260602

Author: Excellence Quality Think Tank