Summary

Both QI and PI use a systems approach and are data-based. They also share some tools and techniques. Because proponents of each approach who work in the international arena may not be well versed in both, they don't always recognize how much they have in common. However, each has developed unique approaches, along with deep knowledge in specialty areas that the other, in the spirit of continuous improvement, would do well to embrace.

For example, PI practitioners could draw on QI's use of faster approaches and expand its use of interventions to include already developed methodologies such as QD, etc. QI could benefit from formalizing the stakeholder process and placing a greater importance on human performance support systems such as capacity and selection, individual job descriptions, motivation, and incentives.

As CAs better define the commonalities and improve our understanding of these two approaches to achieving improvements, we will be better equipped to draw on the strengths of both. USAID has made a significant contribution by bringing both of these approaches to the table, and the clients are the ultimate beneficiaries.

 

Many thanks to the individuals who graciously agreed to review and give comments on this article: Jim Heiby, Diana Silimperi, Jolee Reinke, Joanne Ashton, Lynne Miller Franco, Rick Sullivan, and Jim Griffin, and especially our editor, Beth Goodrich. I thank you for your useful suggestions; any errors are solely my own.