Share

The Promise of Going 'Lean'

It's the latest, buzziest trend in government management. Just don't call it a fad.

In these incredibly tough budget times, you would think government agencies would be working extra hard to find ways of doing things more efficiently. Unfortunately, leaders across the country are grabbing the same old playbook — hiring freezes, travel restrictions, delaying maintenance and so on.

They're not examining the actual work being done — the operations are fundamentally the same. Instead, they're left with tired, overworked employees trying to do the same operations with fewer resources.

This approach creates an illusion of efficiency. Real efficiency is about looking at the systems — the way work itself is designed — and finding ways to streamline the work so that we do our important tasks very well in less time and with less hassle. Systems are where the costs are incurred. Systems are where the customers show up. Systems are where the value of the agency is created. And systems appear to be the last thing anyone is focusing on.

What exactly is Lean Government? It's a mindset and a discipline to increase our capacity to do more good. There are four key steps:

1. Be clear about your purpose and bottom line. What good are you trying to create?

2. Know what customers want and what they value.

3. Build great widgets. Permits, child abuse investigation reports, substance abuse counseling programs, tax audits and so on.

4. Find a way to make the widgets better, faster and cheaper. Notice the sequence. To paraphrase Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, it does no good to make more efficient that which should not make at all.

But there is one promising new fad on the horizon that may actually change this. Some of you may already be acquainted with it: It's called "Lean." Like most management fads, this one started in the manufacturing industry. In fact, it's often referred to as Lean Manufacturing. Based on the system Toyota used for producing high-quality low-cost vehicles, Lean focuses on reducing waste. In this case, that means any activity that does not add value to the customer.

Lean is the reason Toyota dominates the auto market. Lean is the reason an Iowa business can get an environmental permit up to 90 percent faster these days. Lean is the reason Missouri taxpayers get their refunds in two days — all with fewer resources. Quite simply, Lean is the best hope for actually helping government deal with the challenge of crushing demand and limited resources.

The Promise of Lean Thinking

So what make Lean so promising in government? Three things.

1. Lean actually focuses on operations. The whole point of Lean is to rethink the way we produce what we produce, to increase our capacity to provide value to those we serve. Lean recognizes that inefficiency resides in our systems and our operations — the way we have designed our work. Lean is not another planning model, measurement method or accountability system. Lean is not a pithy slogan or something you tell employees to do. Lean actually focuses on the work of the agency.

2. Lean has a measurable impact on time, capacity and customer satisfaction. That is, it actually works. Lean projects produce amazing results, and they're often completed in as few as five days. The typical results of the teams I have worked with include 80 percent faster processes, 50 percents drops in customer wait-times, doubling capacity, reducing phone calls and, of course, savings costs. Change agents in Iowa, Maine and Georgia are experiencing similarly impressive returns.

How is this possible? I touched on the key to this in a previous column, Extreme Government Makeover. On the show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," the team constructs a house in only seven days, as opposed to the nine to 12 months it typically takes to build a new home. How does the team do it? By focusing on all time-wasters and eliminating them. The team doesn't cut corners — the family still gets a roof. But the "Makeover" crew finds a way to work on the corners at the same time they are installing the plumbing.

That show is a perfect illustration of the opportunities in any process, government included. For almost any process, the actual labor accounts for less than 5 percent of the total time a process takes. So in a nine-month permitting process, there may be about two weeks of actual hard labor. A hiring process may involve three days of work stretched out over three to four months. Where does all that time go? Batching, bottlenecks, backlog, checking, re-checking and CYA. A Lean approach works to eradicate the lost time by eliminating these barriers. When the system runs faster, we can get more done with the same resources.

3. Lean involves employees. Specifically, the employees who work within the system being improved. We've tried employee involvement before, with suggestion programs, quality teams and so forth. While the intent of those programs was good, the focus was too small. Employees may be able to suggest ways to improve their own performance, or the piece of the process they're involved in. But systems cut across silos. Most employees can only see a part of the whole system. Therefore, what might help them personally be more productive could actually hinder the larger system. Lean projects, on the other hand, involve all the key players in a system (including the customers) to analyze the whole thing.

This fad has real promise. This fad has a chance to radically reshape government. And if I keep calling it a fad I'm going to greatly upset my friends in the Lean Government community. But that's exactly why I'm writing this column. The tenets of Lean are too important for this approach to be relegated to a mere fad. A fad is something we follow for a short time with exaggerated zeal — like the Macarena and CB radios. We desperately need "lean thinking" in government. But the way it's being introduced, it's destined for the bottom of the toy box with my pet rock, Furbee and "quality circles."

So how can we avoid this fate for Lean?

The Three Barriers to Lean's Success in Government

1. The industrial jargon is a turn-off. Having lived through TQM and reengineering in government, I saw first-hand how repulsed public-sector people get with private-sector terminology. Visions of "ISO-9000 certified factories producing just-in-time defect-free widgets" did not light a fire under government managers. The Lean terminology of waste, value stream, Toyota Production System, supply-chain, and 5S isn't helping either. All of these terms conjure up visions of cogs in a machine mass-producing undifferentiated widgets for happy customers. This is the exact opposite of how most people view their work in government.

For any of you who have read my book We Don't Make Widgets: Overcoming the Myths That Keep Government From Radically Improving, these arguments will sound familiar. And they are precisely what I wrote the book to address. The Lean concepts — increasing capacity, making processes flow more smoothly and understanding what customers value — all can have a huge impact on government performance. But only if people in government believe the concepts apply to them. The more we obfuscate helpful concepts with industrial-age terminology, the more barriers we put up to achieving change.

And while we're on the subject of jargon, you might want to revisit my column on buzzwords and why you should never give your shiny new change initiative a name.

2. Government executives generally don't care about operations. Most elected officials and government executives didn't join government to manage. Instead, they are driven by a deep desire to advance a cause, a policy issue or a political agenda. They get excited about bold new programs and solving big problems — not about making the widgets. But the key to results in government is a combination of innovative policy and improving the performance of operations. There has to be a balance between "bold new stuff" and improving the "stuff we already have." Right now, though, the balance is out of whack. We have too much emphasis on policies, programs, politics and people and not emphasis on our processes. So how do you get government executives and policy makers to care about operations? That brings us to barrier number three.

3. The emphasis of Lean is on the wrong thing. The current focus of Lean is on reducing waste. This is a noble intention, of course. But I fear that, unless the Lean practitioners rethink their message, they will meet the same fate as Total Quality Management. TQM struggled in government for two key reasons: first, the manufacturing jargon; and second, TQM was ultimately an elaborate solution to a problem we weren't having. The emphasis of TQM was to reduce defects. And it did an amazing job at it. The control charts, the histograms, the fish-bone diagrams all helped identify, measure and reduce defects. So why didn't government jump on the bandwagon? Why weren't there Pareto charts in every agency lobby? Because reducing defects was not the problem in government. Our biggest hurdle doesn't involve defects or mistakes. The number-one challenge facing government is capacity. Simply, we don't have enough resources to keep up with ever-expanding and ever-more complex workloads.

That's why I'm really excited about the promise of Lean for government. I have seen first-hand that this approach gets to the heart of improving government: It increases our capacity to do more good. And that's how we address barrier number two, how we get execs to start care about operations. When we improve the processes of government, we free up the capacity to take on the "bold new stuff." That's what Lean should be emphasizing — not the waste-reduction itself, but the ultimate effect that has, allowing managers to tackle the items on their wish lists.

There's a belief that when the current economic crisis lifts, we will all go back to life as normal. I'm not that optimistic. We in government have not met this crisis by fundamentally rethinking what we do and how we do it. We have met the fiscal challenges by cutting positions and freezing spending — we'll come out of the crisis with less capacity to accomplish government services than we had before.

That's why the aftermath of this budget crisis is the perfect time to use the principles of Lean to radically rethink what we do and how we do it. We should use this time to help policy makers understand the potential of improving the operations of government. Will it succeed? If we can overcome our limiting beliefs, get past the language barrier and tap into people's desire to make a difference, then we've got a real shot. In the meantime, I'm going to get my acid-washed jeans out of the dryer, put on my Snuggie and Twitter you about the progress.

Comments

Defining the Difference Between Downsizing and Lean

From: Lawrence Rosier Management consultant 573 364 8789
Government Reform Website: http://managementconsultant.blogsome.com

Ref: Reader Question 25. Define the Differences between Downsizing and Lean
Question: How do you define the differences between “downsizing” and the lean process?

Answer: This is an excellent question. The Lean process as it is currently used in government is mostly used to shorten turnaround times for documents. In Iowa and Minnesota this has been enormously successful. But in industry Lean also improves the efficiency of the operation leading to a reduction in personnel (downsizing).

The state Lean implementations for the most part do not emphasize cost savings and even avoid thinking that somewhere in the Lean process there maybe cost savings leading to reduced personnel. This is in character with bureaucratic government’s main hidden goal of making itself look good to the public by giving improved services and at the same time preventing anyone from questioning the efficiency of the organization.

My government reform General Model proposes to have Lean teams composed of the personnel who actually do the work, do Lean studies on all the processes within an organization. Once the best way to do each and every function has been documented a Budget Analyst is brought in to compare the old method with the new method and determine cost savings and staffing for the new method. This is a one time analysis for the function and need not to be done again unless an improved method can be found later wherein the process is repeated. By multiplying the number of occurrences for a function during the budgeted period by the costs determined by the analyst and by adding overhead and management costs you have a bottoms-up budget for the function.

Once the budgets are determined for all the functions performed by the organization, a comparison can be made between the current staffing level to the correct staffing level determined using the new Lean processes. Since most organizations not using Work Measurement are over staffed by 10% or more there should be a significant reduction in personnel. This leaves the option for state Fiscal Departments to immediately downsize by lay offs or reduce employees over time through attrition.

What do you do with all those Lean teams who have completed their assigned task of finding the best method to do their work? The answer is to use these teams to replace the current 19th century bureaucratic management with 21st century Team management. This reform is not going to be easy and legislative action may be required.

Lean vs. Systems Thinking

I believe we have much to do to change the political minds of how to improve the design and management of work here in the US. Lean has little chance to sustain itself as I party is ushered in and another one out . . . worse this then makes it labeled a fad. This is one of the reasons that I have found systems thinking in government to be more effective.

The thinking is the fundamental problem is government entities. Until we are able to make the base knowledge of Deming, Ohno and others readily accepted improve initiatives have little chance. The UK is having some success with a systems thinking approach to the point that all parties are looking at building foundations around it.

Have a look at www.thesystemsthinkingreview.co.uk

Regards, Tripp Babbitt
www.newsystemsthinking.com

Using Lean Team's Best Practices for Budgeting and Staffing

From: Lawrence Rosier Management Consultant Government Reform 573 364 8789
Government Reform website: http://managementconsultant.blogsome.com

This is an excellent article and I advocate the use of Lean by all Governments and I agree with the author’s objections to the Total Quality Managements approach to using quality tools for solving defects in widgets when this is not the problem in government.

In my own proposal for Lean Teams I emphasize the same analysis of processes that Lean uses to determine the best way to do a set of processes. Lean teams are actually management teams and working level teams. TQM has failed in many instances in bureaucratic government especially with a strong government employee union. Any recommendation either TQM or Lean that gets its efficiency from reduced personnel has little chance of being implemented. This why I advocate the major reform of government with the replacement of the bureaucratic form of organization with Management Steering teams and Functional teams. Both using Lean at the multi process high level and at the Functional team level in the work place.

The best people to do an analysis of processes is the employees who actually do the work whether this is a high level skilled team or employees just loading trucks it is up to the team to define the best practices for doing the job. I propose that this be done by the team on a large Process Flow Chart on a conference room wall. Once this is done a budget analyst can cost-out the savings between the old method and the new method and identify the staffing and other budget costs associated with the new method. Once this is done the budget including the staffing is established for this set of processes. I call this method Work Measurement where this not done i have found that over staffing can be as much as 10%.

Well Said

Ken - very well said. I do think the DOD is doing a reasonable job at applying lean but it tends to be more focused on simple cost reduction and not improved outcomes with fewer resources in less time. This means it is seen as a short term approach to meeting near term problems.

In the end most of the issues facing successful application of lean rests in two camps - leadership in government and the pundits who are promoting it outside of government.

Leadership - as you say - is not focused on the effective implementation and results of legislation (operations) but the ideology issues of the legislation itself. They see legislation as the means unto itself. Unfortunately effective policies and legislations are at the mercy of effective and efficient processes.

The pundits from outside the government tend to focus on dialogue that matches what resonates in commercial organizations. This is a quick turnoff.

Buy in will be slow but I am hopeful and optimistic we will see momentum continue to build for lean in government. Time will tell but there is no better time than now to get started.

Overcoming the hazards of going "lean"

I couldn't agree more with the basic point of this article. Going "Lean" is real, it offers tremendous potential, and it is needed now more than ever. The author's final point is particularly important: that the current emphasis of many Lean initiatives in directly targeting "waste"--one of its important outcomes--can cause problems. My research supports his contention that Lean substantially improves capacity--but it also helps overcome the challenges in dealing with the uncertainty and constant change that organizations of all types increasingly face today.

Lean operations

I also agree with this emphasis on retooling operations to best meet the needs of clients, staff, and reporting to governing bodies.

A word of caution, however, on how you go about studying and implementing the concept. We hired outside consultants who had some experience but not in our particular sector. We ended up with alot of time spent but not alot of return on the investment. In some ways, this caused even more division and low morale among workers. A positive is that we got feedback and input from staff that were feeling they had no control or stake in the method of operations before.

Our advice would be to spend the time on the front end of how to implement such a program and what would work best with your type of service and your particular staff members.