Before finalizing the budget, you should decide which quality processes you need to improve

Identifying opportunities for improvement is usually relatively easy. In any plant, we can find records that are still kept on paper or in Excel, information scattered across different systems, audits that require days of preparation, or nonconformities whose follow-up depends more on emails and reminders than on a truly connected process.

However, when we start planning for next year, a different challenge arises: deciding what really deserves to be a priority.

Because there are probably many things that could work better, but that doesn’t mean they all need to be addressed at the same time. And that’s precisely why, before talking about tools, projects, or the budget, it’s a good idea to prioritize the problems.

Not everything that can be improved is equally important

One process may be cumbersome yet have little impact on the organization as a whole. In contrast, another may have become the norm over the years even though it consumes many hours, leads to errors, or hinders decision-making.

That’s why a good place to start is to identify where friction is most prevalent within a company. This friction can arise, for example, in traceability, when tracking what happens to each batch requires consulting multiple sources of information.

This might be evident not only in nonconformities—for example, when determining their status requires the involvement of different people—but also before an audit, when gathering documents and evidence becomes almost a small project in and of itself every time the audit date approaches.

The same is true for paper and Excel. The problem isn’t using them, but everything that happens around them: copying information, consolidating it, checking versions, or relying on someone who knows how a particular spreadsheet works.

When that effort is repeated week after week, it ceases to be a minor inefficiency and begins to emerge as a strong candidate for year-over-year improvement.

Sometimes the problem lies within the processes

It may also be the case that each process works reasonably well on its own, yet the system as a whole does not.

Quality can manage one set of information, Production another, Engineering a third, and Maintenance can work with its own tools. Each area has the data it needs to operate, but when it comes time to reconstruct an incident from start to finish, that’s when the searching, emailing, and manual connections begin.

This point is particularly relevant when considering priorities for the coming years. Perhaps the next step is not just to digitize more processes, but to better connect the ones that already exist.

Because having more tools does not guarantee more context. What matters is being able to link a deviation to the control that detected it, to the nonconformity it caused, to the actions taken afterward, and, when applicable, to the risk that should be reviewed.

This shift in perspective allows us to stop thinking solely in terms of isolated processes and start evaluating the functioning of the quality system as a whole.

Prioritizing means choosing where improvements will have the greatest impact

At this point, the question is no longer how many processes could be digitized or improved by 2027, but rather which ones truly deserve attention.

To establish a system, it may be helpful to consider four aspects:

1. How long does the process currently take? Not only the time spent on the main task, but also the time needed to search for information, verify data, follow up, or prepare documentation.
2. How often does it cause problems? A one-time difficulty does not carry the same weight as an issue that occurs every week or is part of routine operations.
3. What impact does it have when it fails? This includes issues such as product risk, delays, loss of traceability, rework, or difficulties in demonstrating compliance with a requirement.
4. How many people, departments, or processes are affected? A localized improvement may be necessary, but resolving a bottleneck that affects multiple areas can have a much greater impact.

These criteria make it possible to compare issues that, when viewed in isolation, may seem equally important.

In addition, it is worth noting another factor that is sometimes overlooked: the actual ability to implement the improvement.

A specific, well-defined project with measurable results may be a better starting point than trying to transform documentation, audits, controls, nonconformities, traceability, and risk management all at once.

Prioritizing, therefore, means accepting that some improvements will have to wait—not because they aren’t important, but because it is necessary to establish an order of priority and focus resources where they can make the most significant impact.

Before we talk about the budget

Once we know what problem we want to solve, how and when the conversation about a potential future investment changes significantly.

We are no longer simply asking how much it costs to digitize quality. We can explain which process we want to improve, why we chose it, and what should change after we do so.

We may find that we need technology. Perhaps part of the problem can be solved by modifying the process. And perhaps it makes sense to start linking elements that have been managed independently until now, such as FMEA, the Control Plan, production checks, nonconformities, and corrective actions. But that decision comes later.

Before finalizing the 2027 budget, perhaps the most useful question remains a much simpler one:

If we could improve only one quality process next year, which one would have a real impact on the way we work?

Having a clear answer to that question is probably a better starting point than beginning with a list of features or tools.

If you could improve just one process in 2027

Before finalizing the budget, it may be helpful to ask one last question:

If, in 2027, we could improve only one quality process, which one would have a real impact on the way we work?

Answering this question requires distinguishing between what could simply be done better and what is consuming time, increasing risk, or causing recurring friction.

And understanding that difference is probably a better starting point for preparing a budget than starting right away with a list of features, tools, or vendors.