improving service delivery in in government with lean six sigma

8/9/2019 Improving Service Delivery in in Government With Lean Six Sigma

1/48

Improving Service Deliveryin Government with Lean Six Sigma

S t r a

t e g y

a n

d T r a n s

f o r m a

t i o n

S e r i e s

John Maleyeff ProfessorLally School of Management & TechnologyRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteHartford Campus

PROVIDING CUTTING-EDGE

KNOWLEDGE TO

GOVERNMENT LEADERS


2/48

2 0 0 7

John Maleyeff ProfessorLally School of Management & Technology

Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteHartford Campus

Improving Service Deliveryin Government with Lean Six Sigma

STRATEGY AND TRANSFORMATION SE RIES


3/48


4/48

3

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Foreword ..............................................................................................4

Executive Summary ..............................................................................6

Understanding Lean Six Sigma .............................................................8What Is Lean Six Sigma?................................................................8Relationship to Performance Measurement..................................10

Lean Six Sigma in the Public Sector ...................................................12Success Factors and Examples .....................................................12Using Lean Six Sigma for Improvements......................................15Unique Organizational Characteristics ........................................16Unique Characteristics of Government Processes ........................17

Starting a Lean Six Sigma Program ....................................................18Infrastructure Considerations .......................................................18

Implementation Considerations ...................................................20Implementing a Lean Six Sigma Project .............................................24

Project Initiation..........................................................................24Project Execution.........................................................................26Project Communication...............................................................30

The Future of Lean Six Sigma in Government ....................................32

Acknowledgments ..............................................................................34

Appendix: Research Methodology ......................................................35

Endnotes ............................................................................................36

References .........................................................................................38About the Author ...............................................................................39

Key Contact Information ....................................................................40


5/48

IBM Center for The Business of Government4

F O R E W O R D

IMPROVING SERVICE DELIVERY IN GOVERNMENT WITH LEAN SIX SIGMA

Albert Morales

On behalf of the IBM Center for The Business of Government, we arepleased to present this report, “Improving Service Delivery in Govern-ment with Lean Six Sigma,” by John Maleyeff.

Since the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act of1993, there has been increased interest in the federal government onimproving service delivery and delivering results. The 2007 ProgramAssessment Rating Tool scores for 977 agencies indicate that a keyimprovement area in the federal government is the execution anddelivery of results. Dr. Maleyeff’s report is a comprehensive review ofhow public sector managers can use Lean Six Sigma to improve theexecution and delivery of results.

The hallmark of an effective report on a complex topic is that it is writ-ten in layman’s terms for practitioners at all levels, particularly thoseinterested in learning more about Lean Six Sigma. Dr. Maleyeff’s report

sets forth specific actions that public sector managers can take in start-ing and implementing Lean Six Sigma projects, and provides the readerwith a description of the Lean Six Sigma deployment process fromprogram development to project implementation.

The report highlights the need to translate the Lean Six Sigma methodsfrom applications in manufacturing to the service-oriented environmentof the public sector. Specifically, Lean Six Sigma needs to take intoaccount the cross-functional flow of process and information, increasedtask variability, numerous handoffs, hidden benefits and costs, and thedifferent terminologies that are characteristic of the service environment.The report cites several examples of successful implementation and appli-

cation of Lean Six Sigma projects in the public sector. It also enumerateskey success factors and potential pitfalls. In our research and past experi-ence, we have found that the number one success criterion in deployingLean Six Sigma is the adamant commitment of senior leadership.

Monica Painter


6/48

www.businessofgovernment.org5


As we head further into the 21st century, we hope that processimprovement trends in government transformation, supported by theinnovative application of Lean Six Sigma as described in this report,will lead to more efficient and effective use of citizen tax dollars bypublic sector managers in providing services that meet or exceed theneeds of the public.

Albert MoralesManaging PartnerIBM Center for The Business of [email protected]

Monica PainterAssociate PartnerIBM Global Business [email protected]


7/48



E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R YE X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

Lean Six Sigma provides a means to improve thedelivery of services using a disciplined, project-basedapproach. It brings numerous advantages if imple-mented properly, but it also risks being regarded as

another management fad. In this report, guidelinesare recommended for the application of Lean SixSigma in government. They are targeted to adminis-trators responsible for a wide range of public-sectorservices, including those provided to citizens andthose provided to internal customers.

As methodologies, both Six Sigma and Lean haveevolved from collections of techniques to compre-hensive management systems. Both strive to enhancecustomer service leading to sustained organizationalsuccess and both require a supporting organizational

culture. Their approaches differ somewhat, leadingsome to question their compatibility. But by under-standing their fundamental principles, the combinedLean Six Sigma can be a powerful means to enhancecustomer satisfaction while managing costs.

Managers of a service organization attempting toapply Lean Six Sigma often find their task compli-cated by two mitigating circumstances. First, muchof Lean Six Sigma terminology and many of its tech-niques were originally intended for manufacturing,and applying them to services has been challenging.

Second, services by their nature possess special char-acteristics, for example, the importance of informa-tion and the abundance of cross-functional processflows. However, an increasing number of serviceorganizations have applied Lean Six Sigma to theirorganizations, including public sector organizations.

Many of the potential barriers could exist in anyservice organization (public or private) but appear toexist in greater frequency in government, including

inconsistent leadership motivation, union rules andregulations, job security concerns, and a prevalenceof undocumented processes. Other characteristicsunique to the public sector pose an additionalchallenge, including skepticism about government,

legislative controls, competing special interests, theelection cycle, and term limits.

Some governmental entities have managed to sus-tain a comprehensive improvement program overmany years. These organizations possess somecommonality, including: (1) they initiated andcontinue to preach a constancy of purpose basedon a consistent underlying methodology; (2) theirkey leadership positions have been in place forlengthy periods of time; (3) they guarantee thatemployees will not lose their jobs as a consequenceof an improvement project; and (4) they measuredtheir time to success in years rather than weeksor months.

In this report, examples of successful processimprovement programs are highlighted at thelocal, state, and federal levels. A number ofimprovement projects illustrating the range ofLean Six Sigma’s influence are also described. TheLean Six Sigma guidelines are presented as two sets

Definition of Lean Six Sigma

Lean Six Sigma encompasses many commonfeatures of Lean and Six Sigma, such as an empha-sis on customer satisfaction, a culture of continuousimprovement, the search for root causes, and com-prehensive employee involvement. In each case, ahigh degree of training and education takes place,from upper management to the shop floor.


8/48



of recommendations. At the program level, recom-mendations for creating a supporting infrastructureand organizational culture are presented along witha number of specific action items. At the individualproject level, guidelines for structuring a Lean SixSigma project are detailed.

The creation of an infrastructure that supports theLean Six Sigma program requires that attentionbe given to four goals: (1) deploy a sound, consis-tent, and robust methodology; (2) build trust byremoving fear; (3) initiate long-term cultural change;and (4) communicate the vision to all stakeholders.Active commitment of leadership is a must, in bothwords and action.

To further set the stage for a Lean Six Sigma pro-gram, it is recommended that:

• A centralized focal point be created who isdedicated to firmly establishing the programwithin the organization

• Departmental involvement be sought to create aworking relationship and enhance credibility

• Training be focused on a simple toolboxcontaining basic Lean Six Sigma skills

• Skilled facilitators, who are critical to projectsuccess, be obtained externally and/or devel-

oped internallyWithin a Lean Six Sigma program, specific projectswill be initiated. It is recommended that each LeanSix Sigma improvement project consist of threedistinct stages. During the project initiation stage,the guidelines recommend focusing on a structuredmechanism for project selection and project teamcreation. A disciplined project management struc-ture is recommended for the project execution stagethat ensures focus on root causes of problems ratherthan their symptoms. The project communication

stage involves delivering project information earlyand often, using mechanisms that are accessibleto as many employees as possible.


9/48


10/48


11/48



of Jack Welch. While Six Sigma is most easily under-stood in a manufacturing context, it can and has beenapplied to healthcare and other services. But it is notclear that all of the Six Sigma tools, particularly thestatistically based methods, are necessary in servicesor that professional service employees would be ableto apply them as well as their more technically sophis-ticated counterparts in manufacturing.

Six Sigma projects are formalized and highly struc-tured, making use of scientific approaches in theselection and management of projects. Six Sigmaprojects use a DMAIC structure, considered bymany practitioners to be the primary reason for SixSigma’s success. DMAIC enforces a high degree ofdiscipline and commonality in project organization,problem-solving tools, software, and terminology.

Six Sigma implementation would begin with execu-tive education followed by extensive training through-out the organization. Typically, formalized levels oftraining would be established, with project and men-toring roles often defined by a “belt” level (for exam-ple, master black belt, black belt, green belt, and soon). The tools of Six Sigma include well-knownproblem-solving techniques and popular statisticalapproaches, and a common software platform wouldusually be integrated to achieve a consistent meansof internal communication. Six Sigma black beltcertification is becoming a standard by which many

quality practitioners are judged.

Lean Six SigmaDespite their disparate roots, it is clear that Lean andSix Sigma encompass many common features, suchas an emphasis on customer satisfaction, a culture ofcontinuous improvement, the search for root causes,and comprehensive employee involvement. In eachcase, a high degree of training and education takesplace, from upper management to the shop floor.

But it is equally clear that differences exist. Leanmanagers tend to be somewhat holistic, satisfiedwith removing wasteful activities that hinder theirability to serve customers. Six Sigma managers tendto be financially driven, focusing directly on costsavings or revenue increases as the criteria for success.The similarities and differences of Lean and Six Sigmaare listed in Table 1.

It is easy to envision several varieties of Lean SixSigma. A version offered here would be character-ized as follows. The Lean influence would causethe organization to: (1) maintain an understandingof both internal and external customers’ needsand desires; (2) seek to maximize the value-addedcontent of all processes; (3) constantly evaluateemployee incentives to ensure their alignment withsystemwide performance objectives; and (4) look

beyond strictly financially quantifiable cost savings.The Six Sigma influence would cause the organiza-tion to: (1) stress data-driven decisions that arebased on facts rather than opinions; (2) devoteresources to solving problems that present signifi-cant challenges to business success; and (3) imple-ment a consistent, highly structured project-basedimprovement regimen.

Relationship to PerformanceMeasurementConfusion often exists concerning how processimprovement relates to performance measurement,which many governmental entities have embracedas an important component of their managementsystem. Performance measurement can and possiblyshould play a key role in an effective processimprovement program. But process improvementsare not a natural consequence of effective perfor-mance measurement. That is, a process improve-ment mentality will not take root without additional

Key Definitions

Kaizen (pronounced k ı̄ ´-zen) literally means “change for the better.” It is typically used to denote a short term(one-to-five-day) focused process improvement effort during which a multi-stakeholder project team worksfull-time on the project, often led by a professional facilitator known as a “sensei.”

DMAIC is an acronym for “Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control” and refers to a systematic five-stepapproach to running a process improvement project; its origins would be found in early quality programs suchas the Plan-Do-Study-Act structure developed by Walter Shewhart in the 1930s.


12/48


13/48



Lean Six Sigma in the Public Sector

Today, many public sector managers are well awareof quality and process improvement methodologies.The government division of the American Societyfor Quality, for example, includes about 1,000members in the United States and Canada. 9

Many such managers across the nation are nowapplying various process improvement methodolo-gies within the public sector. Most have met withmixed success, in many cases applying provenmethods periodically but not systematically. Readersinterested in the research methodology, includinghow many of these individuals participated in theeffort, should refer to the Appendix of this report.

Success Factors and ExamplesOrganizations that have maintained a long-standingand comprehensive process improvement programsuch as Lean Six Sigma possess many common fea-tures. It is clear that these features enhance theirability to sustain the efforts over a period of time.

They have been inspired by influences emanat-ing outside of the public sector, usually a leaderwith business experience.

They have experienced little leadership turnover.

They paved the way for the program’s imple-

mentation by removing organizational barriersand modifying its culture.

They focus on certain underlying principlesand maintain a consistent conceptual frame-work, based on Lean and/or Six Sigma, or alter-natively Total Quality Management (TQM), 10 theMBNQA guidelines, or the family of standardsset by the International Organization forStandardization (ISO). 11

They began by employing a full-time administra-tor to oversee the program’s implementation, butthis position was often considered temporaryuntil the program was up and running so as notto create an unnecessary bureaucracy. However,a champion for the effort will continue to beneeded in the organization.

They offer a guarantee to employees that nolayoffs will result from a process improve-ment project.

They make conscious efforts to communicateprogram successes internally, such as postingproject results electronically or placing story-boards in prominent locations.

They face similar challenges, revealed byresponses to a question asking respondents toconsider a list of 20 potential organizational bar-riers, where most respondents chose the majorityof the list as at least somewhat troublesome.

They did not achieve success overnight, withmost taking several years to create a culture thatcharacterizes and sustains their program.

City of Fort WayneSince his election in 2000, Mayor Graham Richardof Fort Wayne, Indiana, has led a Lean Six Sigma

effort. The result is savings estimated to be about$11 million, with no tax increases and increasesin citizen satisfaction. The mayor attributes his16-percentage-point re-election in 2004 to enhancedcustomer service. While working in the private sector,Richard founded the TQM Network and had firsthandexperience with Six Sigma. He brought an entrepre-neurial spirit to the city and has devoted consider-able energy to the Lean Six Sigma efforts.


14/48



Lean Six Sigma in the Department of Defense

In the public sector, the Department of Defense (DoD) has been a leader in the implementation of Lean SixSigma. The summary below offers an overview of activities now in DoD.

In the Office of the Secretary of DefenseIn April 2007, the Office of the Secretary of Defense publicly articulated the need to institute a framework to sup-port the acceleration of transformation throughout the department. The initiative was called Continuous ProcessImprovement and Lean Six Sigma (CPI/LSS). Supporters of the transformation initiative include DoD senior lead-ers who have experience within the private sector and who have seen firsthand the success experienced with theuse of continuous process improvement and Lean Six Sigma.

The CPI/LSS initiative includes the CPI/LSS Senior Steering Committee, which will guide the development of anew CPI/LSS Program Management Office. The new Program Management Office (PMO) will lead DoD-wideCPI/LSS activities by tracking progress and results, as well as formulating an incentives program to encouragefurther use of CPI/LSS methods throughout DoD. The PMO is also planning to issue DoD-wide CPI/LSS goals,including using CPI/LSS in individual performance objectives.

Currently, efforts are under way to complete an initial set of CPI/LSS projects and refine priorities that establishan increased number of targets of opportunity within DoD.

In the United States ArmyThe challenge for the United States Army now is to broaden the number of adopters within the service. The Army isincreasing the number of CPI/LSS projects within the service. As a key first step in gaining wider acceptance of the useof the CPI/LSS tools, the Army recently issued a single large contract to support the deployment of Lean Six Sigma.

In the United States Air ForceThe United States Air Force has been involved with Lean since 1983. In the early 1980s, the Air Force establishedthe Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI), which had been fostered by industry leaders. The Air Force now has several“islands of excellence” in regard to CPI/LSS, particularly in the depot and maintenance areas. Lean Six Sigma hasnot yet been fully used in the Air Force’s administrative and transactional processes. With the successes of CPI/ LSS achieved at Tinker Air Force Base and Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center, there is now broader acceptanceof the approach. Air Force senior leadership strongly supports the use of the CPI/LSS approach and has com-municated the importance of the use of these tools throughout the Air Force in several memorandums from theSecretary of the Air Force.

In addition to their communications strategy, the Air Force also created the Air Force Smart Operations for the21st Century (AFSO21) initiative, which has given an overall organization focus and direction to further drive thedeployment of CPI/LSS methods across the entire Air Force. With several large contracts now in place to providefunding to receive advice and assistance, it is expected that the Air Force will quickly spread this approach acrossall areas within the service.

In the United States NavyThe United States Navy is further along than either the United States Army or the United States Air Force in theadoption and use of CPI/LSS tools. They now have built an extensive knowledge and experience base on the use

of CPI/LSS. There are currently major Lean Six Sigma deployments running in Space and Naval Warfare SystemsCommand (SPAWAR), Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), and the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR).

Deployment of CPI/LSS in NAVSEA and NAVAIR has demonstrated clear success in developing the internal capa-bility to train and execute projects within those commands. The Norfolk Naval Shipyard is now expanding its useof Lean Six Sigma.

— Monica Painter and Mark McDonaldIBM Global Business Services


15/48



The program includes a part-time program man-ager, in place since the program’s inception, whois certified as a Lean Six Sigma master black belt.Thirty employees are trained as black belts andabout 100 more are trained as green belts; theyall work on improvement projects along with hold-

ing full-time operational or managerial positions.Green belts are trained in the same tools as blackbelts, with the latter receiving more in-depth train-ing, particularly in statistical techniques.

The program manager works with the administrationto choose projects, target candidates for training,and mentor individuals during the training process.He has also developed and, until recently, deliveredthe green belt training program. Results of projectsand information on the program are available toemployees in their departments and available tothe public on the city’s website. 12

Florida Department of RevenueThe Florida Department of Revenue initiated “SixSigma Light” in 2003. “Light” refers to the depart-ment’s effort to customize the program by beginningwith basic Six Sigma and Lean tools. They also intro-duced the program gradually so it would not appearto be a heavy-fisted corporate mandate. The depart-ment emphasizes category 6 (process management)of the MBNQA criteria, which includes how an

organization maintains a sustainable system ofprocess design, management, and improvement.

A major emphasis involves benchmarking other public-and private-sector entities to find ideas, tools, tech-niques, and business practices that can be adaptedto the organization, focusing on a formal structureand the use of basic tools. Their internal newslettercontains information on improvement projects, andan internal web page communicates program initia-tives to employees. These communication mecha-nisms are designed to encourage learning and bestpractice sharing.

The department’s training program is designed tobe results-oriented, with education and applicationperformed concurrently. Each participant in the six-month training program attends classes one or twodays each month. Simultaneously, they each join ateam to define a real-world problem, collect datato validate the extent of the problem, analyze rootcauses, propose potential solutions, and present an

action plan to the department’s senior leaders.After the course, they work to complete the actionplan and report the results. For every dollar investedin the training program, the department is seeing a$23 benefit.

National Nuclear Security AdministrationAs a separately organized (semi-autonomous)agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, theNational Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)has accomplished its missions of nuclear weaponsstewardship, nuclear nonproliferation, and providingthe Navy with nuclear propulsion, using a group ofindependent private-sector contractors who provideboth managerial and operational services. Throughbenchmarking of these contractors and other publicand private organizations, the NNSA identifies best

practices in terms of not only what activities takeplace but also how internal processes are managed.In particular, NNSA has adapted the practice ofnurturing an environment that encourages processesto change over time through formal processimprovement mechanisms.

While NNSA and its predecessors have employedvarious business process methodologies over the lasttwo decades, their Lean Six Sigma initiative is rela-tively new and has been aggressively pursued, withabout four to six projects being performed at any

one time. Application areas include procurement,finance, hiring, complaint resolution, travel manage-ment, and processing security clearances. The focusof the projects tends to be reducing delays in servicedelivery while maintaining strict quality require-ments. Projects generally result in the developmentof standard operating procedures in ISO format thatinclude helpful mechanisms such as flowcharts,checklists, standard data entry sheets, and informa-tion handoff forms.

The organizational commitment is evident in theirsenior management performance standards thatinclude requirements for championing, implement-ing, and conducting process improvement projects.Lean Six Sigma and process improvement require-ments cascade through the management reviewprocess down to the line management level. Formalquarterly briefings monitor progress on each project,and semi-annual or annual briefings are held forfollow-up of completed projects.


16/48



Using Lean Six Sigma forImprovementsSimilar features were also noted in successful individ-ual projects, even in organizations that would not becharacterized as progressive. The projects tended to

employ a formalized project structure, similar toDMAIC, at times with minor modifications. The toolsused during the project were very basic techniquesthat are easy to apply by non-technical employees.These methods included many root cause analysistools and some very basic statistical tools.

Lean Six Sigma to Improve Tax CollectionThe city of Hartford, Connecticut, successfullyreduced the processing time for checks in their taxcollection office. Most checks are now processed

in less than one working day, resulting in signifi-cantly higher interest earned by the city. Aftercreating and studying a display of the workflow,project team members were able to remove redun-dant tasks along with tasks that currently have noreal value. More specific job responsibilities werealso assigned and the resulting work activitieswere standardized.

Administrators cite the generation of an “elevatorspeech” early in the project as an important communi-cation mechanism. This short and simple statement

summarized the project’s goals and benefits to the city.It was used by team members to communicate a con-sistent message to fellow employees, ensuring trans-parency and heading off potential misperceptions.

Lean Six Sigma to Improve ClassifiedInformation Review ProcessBased on feedback from customers and manage-ment that the review process for classified informa-tion was complete and accurate but not alwaystimely, a team of NNSA staff members requested

and received approval to initiate an improvementproject. Using the DMAIC methodology, the projectteam employed process mapping and an associatedanalysis of potential failures to describe the currentprocess and highlight causes of delays.

The team found that inconsistent use of a trackingdatabase, informal prioritization, inconsistent docu-mentation, inter-agency delays, and unclear follow-up activities hampered the process’s effectiveness.

After making process modifications, standard operat-ing procedures were developed and implemented.While doubling the information available to manage-ment for tracking customer requirements and forresource leveling work, the completeness of systemdata improved dramatically as did overall cycle time.

Lean Six Sigma to Improve Pothole RepairA significant number of pothole complaints received

Source: IBM Institute for Business Value, Driving OperationalInnovation Using Lean Six Sigma.


17/48



in Fort Wayne, Indiana, motivated a project in theStreet Department. The project team employed basictools, mainly the creation and analysis of processflow diagrams, along with a simple analysis of datausing dot plots and Pareto analyses. The team stud-ied the current process by identifying unnecessary

steps and generating ideas on how inefficientactivities could be done more effectively.

The data, organized by location, highlighted thatrepair time delays were weather-related and ran-domly spread across the city, rather than isolatedin particular areas. Changes were made to thecomplaint-receipt and repair-order distributionactivities, the workforce was redistributed torespond more quickly, and various other wasteswere removed from the process. Average repairtime was decreased from about four days to at mostthree hours using the same number of employees.

Lean Six Sigma to Improve Licensing ServicesThe Washington State Department of Licensing iden-tified those offices having excessive customer waittimes for obtaining or renewing a driver’s license.Starting at the office with the longest waits, projectteams were formed at each location. By focusing datacollection on finding process bottlenecks, solutionswere implemented that included changes to software,queue organization, and equipment layout.

Most offices achieved a 50 percent or more wait timereduction along with an increase in customer satis-faction. During the projects, many quality-of-work-life issues were identified and changes were made(for example, installing a new office refrigerator),

which increased employee satisfaction and motivatedmore employees to help with future projects.

Lean Six Sigma to Improve VehicleMaintenanceIn Oregon’s Lane County, a process improvementproject was initiated after a fatal accident that resultedin an inspection by the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration and subsequent citation for non-compli-ance with safety requirements. During early stages ofthe project, a systematic audit was performed to iden-tify gaps between the county’s safety procedures andthe corresponding regulatory requirements. Based onthis audit, it was discovered that no standards existedfor pre-trip vehicle inspection of heavy equipment.

The resulting improvement effort focused on improved

safety rather than achieving a more narrow compli-ance to regulatory guidelines. The project studied cur-rent practices, identified areas for improvement, andcreated standard procedures for pre-trip inspections.The project team included the county’s safety commit-tee along with operational personnel from multipledivisions, including landfill and roads maintenance.

Unique OrganizationalCharacteristicsImplementing Lean Six Sigma always requires care-ful consideration of the special organizational fac-tors that may work for or against its success (seeTable 2). Some of the potential barriers that couldoccur in the private sector are found with greaterfrequency in the public sector:

Table 2: List of Potential Challenges

Challenges Consistent with the Private Sector Challenges Unique to the Public Sector

Inconsistent leadership motivation

Management competency in processimprovement

Culture that considers time devoted toimprovement less valuable than timedevoted to “real work”

Union rules and relations

Technical skill of employees

Many undocumented processes

•

•

•

•

•

•

Unique human resource practices

The election cycle and term limitsAttitude of employees regarding stability and

job security

Legislative controls

Competing special interests

Revenue not directly linked to value provided

•

••

•

•

•


18/48



Inconsistent leadership motivation due tocompeting priorities, personal goals, or polit-ical realities.

Management ignorance of, or experience with,process improvement.

A culture that considers time devoted toimprovement much less important than timedevoted to normal work activities.

The existence of union rules and relations thathinder the modification of work assignments.

Service employees that are typically not trainedor experienced in applying sophisticated quanti-tative methods.

Many undocumented processes that preclude aconsistent, organization-wide understanding of

how a service should be provided.

Several additional challenges particularly unique tothe public sector include distinctive human resourcepractices; the election cycle and term limits; stabilityand job security concerns; legislative controls; andcompeting special interests. Additionally, revenue istypically not directly linked to value, since most ofthe funding of services derives from tax revenuepaid by citizens, who traditionally have low expec-tations, making them relatively apathetic and there-fore not likely to routinely complain or offer

suggestions for improvement.

Unique Characteristics ofGovernment ProcessesTo understand how Lean Six Sigma should beapplied in government, it is important to describea public-sector service process in conceptual terms.To this end, the results of a prior study are useful.This study by the author concluded that mostservice processes share a number of commonstructural characteristics and many of thesecharacteristics would not be found to the sameextent in manufacturing. 13 They are:

Importance of information. Either the serviceitself consists of information (e.g., tax advice)or the service includes important information(e.g., instructions on a utility bill), and thisinformation should be measurable, complete,and understandable.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Significant task variability. The duration of ser-vice tasks (e.g., repairing a pothole, renewing alicense) is usually variable, making the controlof workflow difficult.

Cross-functional process flows. Service pro-cesses typically flow across departments withinan organization where employees work undercompeting incentives and often suffer fromlong-standing rivalries or other conflicts thathinder their coordination.

Many handoffs of information. The importanceof information and a cross-functional process flowoften leads to mistakes or miscommunications,such as use of a term or phrase that has differentmeanings to workers in different departments.

Numerous management or technical reviews.

Due to the need to seek approval or to havetext or figures verified, many services include“inspections” by technical staff or management,which increases the cost of providing the ser-vice and delays service completion.

Hidden benefits and costs. While non-financialperformance metrics are common, quantifyingthe financial benefit of improved service deliv-ery that results in better customer satisfactionis difficult.

No explicit motivation for urgency. Employees

may unwittingly cause serious delays by beingunaware of the overall service process andtherefore not cognizant of task priority, or theymay simply be unmotivated to sacrifice theircomfort for the good of the organization.

Some of the pitfalls that could result from ignoringthese characteristics include: (1) focusing animprovement effort on speeding up documentflow, when the effort may be better focused onimproving the quality of the information containedon, or missing from, the documents; (2) creating aprocess improvement team without membershipfrom all departments involved in service delivery;(3) solving local problems that are impacted bycross-departmental miscommunication; (4) allow-ing employees to remain ignorant of overall processflow; (5) creating inspections in response to prob-lems, a discredited industrial practice, rather thanfinding ways to eliminate the need for these reviews;and (6) using financial justification alone to decideon resource allocation to improvement projects.

•

•

•

•

•

•


19/48


20/48


21/48



Transparency is critical so that employees understandthat Lean Six Sigma will provide a benefit rather thana threat. To this end, it is recommended that sugges-tions made during project meetings that affect quality

of work life be taken seriously. One example wasnoted where employees asked for and received a newoffice refrigerator, initiated by a suggestion made dur-ing a process improvement project, even though thisaction would not improve the service being analyzed.

Initiate long-term cultural change.Gradual but steady implementation is generallypreferred over a massive rollout that can give riseto a “this too shall pass” passive-aggressive reaction.During this time, management at all levels must

continuously reinforce a focus on “process” byavoiding the practice of assigning blame for prob-lems that occur. Supervisors must allow workers todevote attention to improving their work in additionto doing their work. And workers should see thattangible benefits can be derived from their participa-tion in improvement efforts.

When management and staff on a project teamare treated as equals, the line separating theirresponsibility blurs. Staff appreciate being ableto control how their work is done. Managers

appreciate having staff members that are moti-vated to provide excellent service to customers.Employees at all levels who are members of aprocess improvement team that makes improve-ment suggestions have a natural desire to seethat their ideas produce favorable results.

Maintaining momentum is critical since the cultureshould be allowed to evolve naturally. Mistakes are

likely, especially miscommunicating the program’sintentions. In one case when Lean was introducedinto an organization, a rumor began that Lean meant“Less Employees Are Needed.” In such cases, lead-ership needs to take quick and decisive action.

Communicate the vision to all stakeholders.Since stakeholder involvement is critical, all affectedconstituencies should be kept abreast of the program’sdevelopment early and often. This communicationshould also address the tangible benefits that shouldaccrue to each stakeholder, while avoiding promisesthat may not be realized. The phrase “under promiseand over deliver” is appropriate.

Early communication with employees is a must. Butmanagement should be aware that not all employees

have access to the same communications mechanismsas management. For example, certain employees maynot be assigned an e-mail account, and some employ-ees may not have been assigned a mailbox. Once thecommunication is begun, feedback from employeesshould be encouraged, since in many cases an imple-mentation detail is easily changed to accommodatethe needs of a constituency group.

The leadership team should be involved in aclear, convincing, and vocal way. Making site visits,spending time in each training wave, and droppingin on project meetings are examples of leadershipaction that signals their commitment. Monitoringprogress on a monthly basis through Lean Six Sigmastatus meetings may also be considered.

As projects commence, presenting the results inter-nally using posters or other visible media, placedprominently in a common work area, is worthwhile.Certain external customers, such as contractors,advocacy groups, and ordinary citizens, can helpspread the message if they can be convinced thatthe program is in their self-interest.

Implementation ConsiderationsThe implementation of Lean Six Sigma should beundertaken in ways consistent with the traditions ofthe organization and the personality of its leaders.Certain actions could be considered essential foreffective implementation:

Staying the Course

When a new leader is elected, it is incumbentupon remaining administrators to work early andaggressively to maintain the Lean Six Sigma effort,especially when the new leader lacks businessexperience or possesses a general skepticism ofgovernment’s effectiveness. One useful mechanismwould be the utilization of process maps, standardprocedures, and process data during briefing ses-sions so that their value, and in turn the value ofthe Lean Six Sigma program, becomes evident.


22/48



The Tortoise Wins

When establishing a Lean Six Sigma program,persistence is vital. Terms such as “diligence,”“resolve,” “discipline,” “tenacity,” and “patience”have been applied to a leader who will not let theprogram “die” even when the inevitable crises, orother changes and distractions, occur.

Create a centralized focal point.While the chief executive will be called upon toprovide visible leadership, he or she will beunable to manage detailed implementation activi-ties. Creating a steering committee or assigning ahigh-level executive to this task should be consid-ered, but it is important to avoid establishing anew bureaucracy.

The organization may wish to assign a programadministrator who would be dedicated to firmlyestablishing the program within the organization.This position would work closely with the chiefexecutive. He or she should be skilled and enthusi-astic. Excellent interpersonal and communicationskills are also critical. And the program administra-tor should be viewed across the organization as animpartial arbitrator.

Ideally, a full-time program administrator will main-tain the position for as long as it takes, since the ulti-mate goal is to infuse a process improvement culturethroughout the organization. Ultimately, Lean SixSigma efforts would be decentralized and become aroutine component of each department’s activities.Organizations that have decentralized from the starthave noticed that lack of a standard project structure,training program, and communication mechanismhas hindered cross-departmental communication.

Ensure departmental involvement.It is helpful to create a working relationship betweenthe program administrator and each department oroperating unit. For example, each department may wishto appoint a process improvement liaison, or “cham-pion.” The liaison will serve as a useful communicationlink so that information from the leadership team ispresented to employees via a trustworthy source.

A liaison can help present the program as valuableto the department rather than pushed onto thedepartment from headquarters. He or she can alsoact as mentor for employees just getting involvedin project improvement teams. And a liaison canbe very helpful in identifying projects that cansolve important problems while having a goodchance of success.

When departmental involvement is inconsistent,several risks are created. Some departments maysimply not take part in the improvement activities.

Or a department may include one or two supporterswho participate repeatedly in improvement proj-ects. When this occurs, two potential effects arelikely that decrease the chance of long-term viabil-ity. First, those few individuals will eventually findthat their workload increases or their merit ratingsuffers due to their participation in improvementprojects. Second, due to transfer or retirement, theseindividuals will eventually leave the departmentand their replacements will likely not be encour-aged to participate.

Focus on a basic toolbox.It would be rare for a governmental entity beginninga process improvement effort to require more thanthe basic tools of Lean Six Sigma. Further, keepingthe tools simple will enhance its acceptance amongboth managers and staff, creating a sense of mutualunderstanding and transparency. The training of proj-ect management and project communication skillsshould also be included. And the training shouldalways occur on a just-in-time basis to prevent theentropy that often accompanies training programs.

Table 4 on page 22 presents elements that could formthe basis of a training program for public-sectoremployees. Ideally, the training program will be spreadover a period of time and include an application proj-ect so that students apply the tools as they learn them.For example, the students could meet two consecutivedays, every second or third week, while working on aproject. This program could continue until six to eightfull days of training have been completed.

When employees experience firsthand the effect thetools can have on improving their work, motivationto take an active part in future projects increases.Other employees viewing project results will under-stand the tools being applied and become lessintimidated and often volunteer for membership onsubsequent project teams. An additional advantage is


23/48



that training costs are allocated over a larger numberof employees.

In some organizations, a few specialized internalor external experts can be developed or madeavailable when their need arises. For example, theFlorida Department of Revenue includes personnelwith expertise in statistical modeling in their variousoffices that do forecasting, measurement analysis,

customer satisfaction analysis, or revenue manage-ment. They are called upon to contribute toimprovement projects on an as-needed basis.

Obtain externally and/or develop internallyskilled project facilitators.The importance of skilled project facilitators cannotbe overemphasized. Their function includes teaching,coaching, and mentoring, while guiding the team at

Table 4: Elements of a Lean Six Sigma Training Program

Main Topic CoverageIntroduction toLean Six Sigma andDefinitions

Customers (constituency receiving value from a service process)Stakeholders (organizations that are involved with a service process)Value-added activity (task for which a customer is willing to pay)Waste (time spent in other than value-added ways)Green and black belts (classification of employees based on their level ofexpertise in Lean Six Sigma principles and tools)Project team roles (management, administrators, and staff)

•••••

•

DMAIC ProjectStructure

Define (create problem statement and customer value definition)Measure (map the process and collect associated data)Analyze (identify problems and significant waste)Improve (find ways to eliminate waste and/or add value)Control (develop implementation and follow-up plan)

•••••

Process Mapping Flowchart (basic display of service process flow)Spaghetti chart (display of facility layout with process flow)Time value map (timeline showing lead time and value-added time)Value stream map (display of a process with supporting data)Consumption map (map of customer interaction with a service)

•••••

Root CauseAnalysis Tools

Failure Modes & Effects Analysis (or FMEA, prioritizes causes of poorperformance)Five Whys (method that moves from symptoms to root cause)Affinity building (brainstorming activity to quickly organize details)Cause-and-effect diagram (display of potential problem causes)

•

•••

Data Analysis Tools Data collection basics (check sheets, surveys, data entry forms)Pareto analysis (ranking of problem importance)Run charts (simple plot of process data over time)Calculations (average, standard deviation, etc.)Scatter plot (display to determine if a relationship exists)

•••••

ImprovementTechniques

Five S (methods for organizing a workplace)Mistake proofing (mechanism to prevent problems and errors)Standard work (consistent structuring of a work task)Standardization (consistent operation of a service process)Visual workplace (highly visible communication mechanisms)

•••••


24/48


25/48



Implementing a Lean Six Sigma Project

Lean Six Sigma would be characterized by aconsistent and disciplined project methodology.Consistency is valuable because it creates:(1) constancy of purpose, (2) the perception ofcompetency, (3) an environment where similartools are applied in similar ways, (4) advanta-geous training conditions, and (5) effective com-munication across the organization. The projectmethodology detailed below incorporates the bestfacets of Lean and Six Sigma. But it is not meantto be complete in all details, allowing for somelocal customization to fit the needs of specificorganizations.

Each Lean Six Sigma project should include threestages—Project Initiation, Project Execution, and

Project Communication—detailed below andsummarized in Table 5.

Project Initiation“Preparation, preparation, and preparation” maybe thought of as the three things to remember wheninitiating a process improvement project. Key suc-cess factors include involving key stakeholders onthe project team, soliciting support from administra-tors, addressing political sensitivities, employing askilled facilitator, consulting with customers, and

ensuring that the problem warrants commitment ofthe organization’s resources. An improvement proj-ect should be initiated based on a structured projectselection procedure and begun with careful selec-tion of the project team.

Selection and JustificationA decision to devote resources to an improvementproject should be preceded by confirmation thatthe effort is consistent with the organization’s

strategic plan and that the anticipated benefitsoutweigh the associated costs. Personnel and othercosts to execute a project would typically beunderstood. But estimating the benefits of improve-ment is difficult since they include some that aretangible and some that are intangible. Given thedifficulty in quantifying intangible benefits, it isrecommended that project approval be a leader-ship decision, supported by an analysis that con-siders three sets of potential benefits:

1. Financially quantifiable benefits can be projected in monetary terms. Cost reductionssuch as labor, equipment, and material wouldtypically be included as well as revenueincreases such as taxes, interest, and fees.

For example, decreasing the lead time forprocessing checks will result in increasedinterest earned.

2. Non-financially quantifiable benefits cannotbe projected monetarily but can be quantifiedin other ways. This category is broad butwould include the projected number of cus-tomers (e.g., taxpayers, contractors) affectedin a positive way if the service were improved.For example, decreasing the wait time forlicense renewal will result in more driverswho are able to renew their license in anacceptable period of time.

3. Intangible benefits cannot be quantifiedprecisely, either financially or otherwise. Theyinclude higher customer or employee satisfac-tion, better chance of re-election, and moreparticipation from employees in future proj-ects. For example, among the benefits to con-sider may be the creation of a better employeework environment.


26/48



The establishment of performance targets is useful.These targets create a focus on either incremental orsubstantial performance improvements. But manyprojects should be considered successful even if thetarget improvement is not achieved. Therefore, caremust be taken to eliminate any sense of punishmentor disappointment if targets are not met. Otherwise,to avoid failure, the team may resort to artificialmanipulation of the numbers. In fact, administratorsshould be careful not to classify any project as afailure as long as the project team worked diligentlyon the improvement effort.

At times, projects may be initiated due to a periodic oran extraordinary event that itself creates justification.For example, a municipality may routinely initiate aproject when a retirement or transfer from a depart-ment occurs. In these cases, the goal would be toimprove the process so that the remaining employeescould provide the service without a decrease in perfor-mance. Or a city may initiate a project when poorperformance is noted in a very visible way, such as ina newspaper or television investigative study. Theseprojects often benefit by having a project team thatpossesses a common motivation.

Table 5: Lean Six Sigma Project Implementation

Project Initiation Selection and justification Financially quantifiableNon-financially quantifiableIntangible

•••

Team creation Trained facilitatorCross-functional representationAdministrator(s) and frontline staff Internal customersVarious experience with processVarious experience with DMAICSupport group representatives

•••••••

Project Execution Define Problem statementReview of stakeholdersIdentification of customersCustomer value definition

••••

Measure Complete and accurate process mapsMultiple process mapsData collection

•••

Analyze Waste identificationData analysisRoot cause analysis

•••

Improve Generation of ideasRating of ideasImprovement recommendations

•••

Control Implementation planPerformance tracking planOngoing feedback plan

•••

Project Communication Prior to and duringproject execution

Elevator speechStatus meetings

••

After project completion Final presentationVisible communication mechanisms

••


27/48



Team CreationEach member of the team should be trained in LeanSix Sigma methodology. The project team should belarge enough to encompass key stakeholders of theservice process but not so large as to hamper itseffectiveness. Among the group of about six to12 members, the project team should include:

1. An experienced facilitator

2. At least one representative from each depart-ment through which the service flows

3. Frontline employees who understand how theprocess currently operates

4. One or more administrators who understandthe context within which the service operates,including organizational, financial, legal, envi-ronmental, and political contexts

5. At least one customer, if customers are internal

Inviting at least one employee who is new to theservice helps to infuse fresh ideas. To help supportfuture projects, it is useful to include at least onenewly trained employee without experience withimprovement projects. Consideration could alsobe given to including a representative from eachdepartment that provides the service with informa-tion systems or other support.

External customers cannot participate fully in projectteam activities but should be asked to provide input.For example, when considering the improvement of

its Department of Licensing & Inspections, one cityconsulted with building contractors, restaurant staff,and food vendors. Customers will generally bethankful for the opportunity to participate and area source of enhanced public relations. After projectcompletion, it is imperative that participants be

informed of the project’s outcome. While it is tempt-ing to consider the creation of a standard group oftaxpayers to call upon for assistance, this practice isnot recommended since the services offered bygovernment will serve many different constituenciesand diverse ideas are useful.

Project ExecutionThe planned project timeline would be based onthe team’s availability and the problem scope. Theproject may follow a kaizen format, completed in

one to several days with the team devoted full-timeto the project. Or the project may be executed overweeks or months with the team devoted part-timeto the project. A third alternative that combines thefirst two options would consist of embedding akaizen activity within each phase of DMAIC. Thisalternative allows for the gathering of informationbetween sessions and can maximize the effective-ness of each project phase.

Many practitioners in both the public and privatesectors consider DMAIC to be the major strength ofSix Sigma. It is imperative that a project executionstructure similar to DMAIC be followed that makessense given conditions that exist in the public sector.

Define—Create Problem Statement andCustomer Value DefinitionAn improvement project should not proceed untila precise project definition or problem statementis developed. Here, the problem is defined and theproject objectives are delineated. The scope of theprocess under study is also specified at this time

(i.e., where it starts and ends). Using a standardformat, the problem statement would also includemajor constraints, key metrics, improvement targets,and the role of each team member. It is useful toreview the list of stakeholders and modify the team’scomposition if necessary to remove future barriers.

The team needs to develop a concise understand-ing of the so-called “voice of the customer.” Butcustomers will often consist of more than one

Counting What Hurts, Part I

A city’s safety department is responsible for tabulat-ing and reporting OSHA-recordable accidents andinjuries, as well as providing expertise to improvesafety. The reporting activity is likely to includetime wasted tracking down late or inaccurate data,dealing with a disorganized IT system, and creat-ing ad hoc reports for specific administrators. If thisactivity were improved, the tangible financial bene-fits would include lower OSHA fines and decreasedcosts paid to safety consultants. Tangible non-financial benefits would include more man-hoursdevoted to improving safety. Intangible benefitswould include a more challenging and interestingwork environment for skilled employees, leading tohigher satisfaction levels.


28/48


29/48



Analyze—Identify Problems, Value-AddedActivities, and Non-Value-Added ActivitiesThe process maps and associated data will oftenhighlight areas of concern without excessive analy-sis. But the project team should ensure objectivity

by systematically identifying the process steps thatadd direct value to customers and highlighting thosesteps that do not add value. The non-value-addedactivities would collectively be called waste. Whilesome Lean practitioners refer to seven traditionalcategories of waste, 16 an alternative list that appliesto services has been developed. 17 The seven serviceprocess waste categories are:

1. Delay: Time spent in a visible queue (e.g., paper-work in an in-box) or time spent waiting for infor-mation (e.g., a voice-mail message response)

2. Review: Inspection of completed or partiallycompleted work to check for errors or omissions(e.g., confirming conformance with standardaccounting procedures or checking work of anew employee)

3. Mistake: Redoing work because of errors oromissions identified internally (e.g., correctingdata entry errors) or noticed by external custom-ers (e.g., resending a bill originally mailed to anincorrect address)

4. Duplication: Activities that are done elsewherein the system or that can be done more easilyin another part of the system (e.g., writingdata onto a form prior to computer entryor making a hard copy of a form that issaved electronically)

5. Movement: Physical transport of information,personnel, or equipment (e.g., traveling to attenda meeting or mailing reports to a customer)

6. Processing inefficiency: Performing a task in anineffective manner (e.g., “reinventing the wheel”every time a report is generated or punchingholes in paper after copying)

7. Resource inefficiency: Ineffective managementof personnel, equipment, materials, or capital(e.g., idle workers or using workers for tasks notrequiring their skills)

Once a significant form of waste is identified, theproject team must be careful to address its cause ratherthan its symptoms. A method of identifying root cause,known as the Five Whys, is very helpful for “drillingdown” to root cause. As an example, consider the caseof excessive errors in documents sent to federal regula-tors. A response to a symptom would be having amanager check all documents prior to their submission

to the regulator. But this inspection will add cost andtime, and may not significantly improve quality.Consider the application of the Five Whys:

1. Why are there errors? Usually because thedocument is incomplete.

2. Why are documents incomplete? Usuallybecause writers forget to include all necessaryinformation.

3. Why do they forget? Because they are trained tofocus on accuracy, not completeness.

4. Why aren’t they trained to check for complete-ness? Because the regulators frequently makechanges to the reporting requirements after thetraining is completed.

Note that the number five in Five Ways is arbitrarysince the root cause may be found after any num-ber of iterations, in this case four. Based on thisroot cause, recommendations may include thecreation of a standard reporting template or theimplementation of a checklist, along with proce-

dures for updating the template or checklist asrequirements change.

Improve—Find Ways to Eliminate Waste and/or Add ValueTo ensure objectivity, each idea for improvementshould be geared toward removing a specific wasteor adding value where gaps in customer servicewere noted. A challenge often faced by the facilitatoris keeping each team member engaged and actively

Counting What Hurts, Part II

For a process that reports OSHA-recordable data,waste could include: late delivery of information(delay); management check of a report (review);reworking an incorrect data analysis (mistake);entering written data into a computer (duplication);employees walking to pick up forms (movement);generating ad hoc reports by hand (processing ineffi-ciency); and having technically experienced employ-ees perform mundane tasks (resource inefficiency).


30/48



participating, while at the same time focusing thediscussion on relevant ideas.

Narrowing down a large number of improvementideas requires evaluating or rating each idea basedon two sets of criteria. One set of criteria would

concern the projected benefits. The benefits of eachidea should be projected for all customers acrossevery dimension of value. The second set of criteriawould concern projected costs. The costs of eachidea would include implementation time, ease ofimplementation, risk of creating new problems,required resources, implementation cost, complexityof operation, required training, probability ofstakeholder acceptance, and required computersystem modifications.

It is tempting to consider improvement ideas thatinvolve the use of information technologies, suchas handheld devices, personal computers, or soft-ware modifications. But the project team must becareful to avoid the automation of waste. If auto-mation is considered, it is imperative that represen-tatives from departments that would be responsiblefor its creation and maintenance be consulted.Indirect costs such as training and maintenancemust be considered as well as the capability of theusers, including customers.

Often, improvement projects focus on streamliningpaperwork flow. In these cases, the project teamshould recognize that the purpose of the serviceis not to transmit paper but to transmit information.Problems can be mitigated by considering redesignof the paperwork to serve two purposes: reducewaste in the service process and provide bettervalue for customers. As an example, a real estatetax bill may be redesigned to make instructionssimpler and simultaneously provide taxpayerswith additional information such as their property’sappraised value.

Control—Develop Implementation and Follow-Up PlanThe control phase of DMAIC is often overlooked butextremely critical. It involves the development ofplans to track implementation progress, collect dataon subsequent performance, and identify the returnof previous problems or the creation of new unan-ticipated problems. A useful starting point is thedocumentation of a revised set of standard operating

procedures. Ideally, ideas suggested by the team toprevent problems, such as flowcharts to illustrateworkflow, checklists to ensure completeness, and

standard forms to guarantee accuracy, would beincluded in the procedures.

Data on performance may take as many as threeforms. First, metrics could be placed within thesystem to measure, internally and objectively, howwell the system performs. Second, customer surveyscould be developed and used to measure customerperspective on performance. And third, a feedbackmechanism could be initiated to highlight problemsas they arise.

The feedback mechanism for identifying problemsshould be quick, easy, and non-judgmental. Highlyvisual means are useful to communicate the exis-tence of problems to employees and managers, andto separate recurring problems from isolated events.For example, employees would write problems theysee onto a card or sticky note, which is then placedonto a centrally located display board. It is impor-tant that the note contain a problem, not a solutionand not an assignment of blame. Periodically, thenotes would be retrieved, the problems tabulated,and the staff would meet to discuss fixes as a form

of continuous improvement.

Actions taken during this phase help to sustain pro-cess improvement efforts by ensuring project closureand by guaranteeing that the project team’s effortshave produced change for the better. Two recom-mendations should be considered: (1) a follow-upsix-month or one-year project team meeting couldbe scheduled for each improvement project, whererecommendations would be revisited, their success

Picking the Fruit

For most government services, basic improve-ment techniques often provide great opportunityfor significant performance enhancement due tothe prevalence of “low hanging fruit.” Some of thepopular techniques include mistake proofing (i.e.,creating a mechanism to prevent a problem fromoccurring); Five S (i.e., organizing a workplace toreduce wasted time); standard work (i.e., findingthe best way to complete a task); and other formsof standardization (i.e., creating a standard set ofinternal processes).


31/48



analyzed, and modifications considered; or (2) acentrally located database or spreadsheet could be

maintained that contains important information foreach project, such as its goals, results, and imple-mentation timeframe.

When waste is removed from a service process, thelead time will almost always decrease and problemswill become more obvious than they were in thepast. For example, in a wasteful process, paperworkreturned to the sender for correction may not benoticed as obviously as it would be if the processwere streamlined. The analogy often employed isrelating the level of waste to a brook’s water depth

and relating problems to rocks beneath the water’ssurface. As process waste is removed, the lead time(water level) decreases and more problems arenoticeable (the rocks break the water’s surface).

Project CommunicationIt is recommended that sharing information abouteach project be done early (before the projectbegins), often (during the project execution), and

thoroughly (by including all key constituencygroups). At a minimum, the communication shouldbe targeted to the project team, to administratorsresponsible for the service process, to employeesaffected by the project, and to other administratorsindirectly affected by the project.

Prior to and During Project ExecutionEarly in the project, the creation of an “elevatorspeech” is recommended so that the project teamcommunicates a common theme to co-workers andothers. It would be a less formalized version of theproblem statement, but brief and written in conver-sational form. The elevator speech can help to servean internal public relations purpose by exposingemployees to ongoing projects and reinforcing theirusefulness and transparency.

Periodic status meetings are also recommended.Such meetings could serve as “tollgate” meetingsin which the project sponsors and champions assessprogress and provide guidance for the next phase.They should be targeted to key leaders and affectedadministrators who are not members of the projectteam. Keeping all decision makers informed iscritical. For example, it eliminates unfortunate“surprises” by identifying challenges with whichthe project team is unaware. The status meetingsalso help support cultural change within the

organization.

Minutes of team meetings need not be excessivelylong, but should include action items for the team.Experience has shown that unless each team mem-ber is given a specific task for which he or she isresponsible, it is likely that the task will not becompleted. Usually peer pressure and disappoint-ment with letting down the team will motivate teammembers to complete their “homework” assignment.

After Project CompletionThe final project results should be delivered tokey leaders and affected administrators. But it isalso helpful to expose as many employees aspossible to the project and its results. In addition,communication with taxpayers and other externalstakeholders may be considered to promote asense of progressive and competent government.For example, the city of Fort Wayne organizes anannual forum in September for the presentation

Counting What Hurts, Part III

When a project is initiated, the champion of theproject is likely to launch the project with remarkssuch as those below:

“The project’s goal is to increase the speedwith which the safety department collectsmonthly data on OSHA-recordable accidentsand injuries. Timely collection of these datawill enable the department to spend moretime working to improve safety for employ-ees. The city will also pay less in OSHA finesand would be able to save money by usingfewer outside consultants.

Members of the project team will be observ-ing the data collection process, listening toall those involved with data collection, andobjectively analyzing the workflow to see

where mistakes occur and delays in obtain-ing data are common. The team will reporttheir progress on a monthly basis to all levelsof management. Everyone will need to helpwith implementing the team’s recommenda-tions, so if anyone doubts the objectivity ofthe team or wishes to get involved in theproject, they should contact the team leader,Michael Smith.”


32/48



of their improvement projects. Businesses inand around the region are also invited to partici-pate. Several hundred presenters and other visi-tors attend.

The specific forms of communication should vary

depending on the targeted group or individual.Communication to the leadership team would typi-cally involve both an oral presentation and a writtenreport. It is also recommended that content of thefinal presentation be made more widely availablein a visible and convenient way. Options includephysical placement prominently in the facility,placement on the organization’s computer system,placement on a public Internet site, and inclusionin the organization’s internal newsletter. A largestoryboard, for example, could be displayed promi-nently in a cafeteria or another popular locationroutinely visited by employees.


33/48


34/48



support this concept, referred to as “changingthe rules,” due to its implementation structurecombined with its adaptability. But this supportneeds to originate and be fostered at the high-est levels. That is, the organization as a wholemust be committed to the infrastructural and

cultural transformations that are needed forLean Six Sigma to take hold.

While it is hard to predict the future, Lean Six Sigmais likely to be viewed as a valuable approach in theportfolio of management improvement programs thatcan be undertaken by government executives. Andthe citizenry may begin to believe that their tax dol-lars, at least relatively speaking, are well spent.


35/48



Many individuals helped with this project by com-pleting written questionnaires, participating in liveinterviews, or identifying useful contacts. The authoris grateful to the following individuals: MarkAbramson, Randy Allen, James Cavanaugh, BarryCrook, Lee Erdmann, Janice Gloster, Guy Gordon,Barbara Heller, Roger Hirt, Albert Ilg, Kirk Jaeger,Frank Kaminsky, Harry Kenworthy, Tony Kirby, LynnLachance, William Mee, Becky Meyers, HowardSchussler, Don Shaw, Joseph Smith, Dale Weeks,and Dave Yoest. The author also expresses his grati-tude to the Government Division of the AmericanSociety for Quality.

Acknowledgments


36/48



The activities employed to create the Lean Six Sigmaimplementation guidelines consisted of the follow-ing three activities:

1. An analysis of how public-sector services differfrom private-sector services was conducted. Thiswork was a natural extension of recent work onservice processes existing primarily in private-sector companies. 19 A key conclusion was thatunique characteristics found in services must betaken into account when considering their man-agement and improvement. These characteris-tics, however, may not be evident to an observergiven the myriad of diverse activities that takeplace when delivering a service. To understandthe uniqueness of public-sector services, a list of

services offered by governments was developedand analyzed. The list was derived from reviewsof budgets and other strategic and operationalplanning documents, as well as meetings withadministrators.

2. The development and analysis of open-endedwritten questionnaires was completed. Twenty-five questionnaires were completed by experi-enced public-sector administrators identifiedthrough professional organizations. Questionsrelated to where improvement efforts werefocused; how projects were chosen; projectteams’ average size, level of commitment, andoverall project durations; the project manage-ment structure; the main process improvementtechniques used during typical projects; and theimprovement projects that were the most suc-cessful and why. In addition, potential barrierswere listed and participants were asked to indi-cate which gave them the most challenge.Finally, each participant was asked to providespecific advice to a public administrator wishing

to initiate a comprehensive process improve-ment effort.

3. Extensive follow-up interviews with 15 public-sector administrators currently or previously

involved in process improvement efforts wereconducted. These audiotaped interviews lastedanywhere from 30 minutes to two hours, andallowed participants to elaborate on their expe-riences, specific projects, and the advice theychose to offer. Participants were also asked torespond to hypotheses offered by the authorpertaining to Lean Six Sigma guidelines underconsideration. These sessions helped to validatethe guidelines presented in this report.

Among the myriad of advice offered by question-naire participants and interviewees, no onesuggested that implementing a comprehensiveprogram for process improvement would be easy.On the other hand, no one suggested that aneffort not be made.

Appendix: Research Methodology


37/48



Endnotes

1. During 1949 to 1975, the Toyota ProductionSystem (TPS) gradually evolved into what is generally con-sidered the gold standard of manufacturing effectiveness.Consequently, it has been the focus of many academicstudies. During the 1980s, the phrase “just-in-time” (JIT)was used in the United States to denote manufacturingapproaches, based on the TPS, that minimized queue timeof parts waiting for each operation, thus speeding the flowof production. The phrase JIT was gradually replaced by theterm “Lean” to denote a more encompassing system thatfosters the removal of all wasteful activities and practices.

2. James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones, andDaniel Roos, The Machine That Changed The World ,HarperCollins Publishers, 1991. 3. The term “waste” is often used in the public sec-tor to define programs or services that do not contribute to

the overall well-being of society and therefore constitute awaste of taxpayer money. In Lean, waste is used to denotespecific non-value-added activities that take place duringthe delivery of a service, such as errors and delays.

4. James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, LeanThinking (2nd Edition), Free Press, 2003.

5. Bob L. Emiliani, Better Thinking, Better Results ,Center for Lean Management, 2003.

6. While in many ways the study of Lean has itsroots in academe and therefore possesses a relativelyconsistent definition, Six Sigma, with its roots firmly inindustry, includes a more diverse set of definitions and

viewpoints. Therefore, readers should consider this intro-duction to be the author’s informed opinion.

7. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award(MBNQA) is generally considered the most prestigiousaward for businesses, education, and healthcare orga-nizations. Companies apply for consideration based onseven sets of criteria. The award is judged by the U.S.Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST) and presented by the president ofthe United States.

8. The term “sigma” refers to a statistical measure ofvariation and the number “six” refers to the relationshipbetween process variation and product specifications.When used as a metric, six sigma quality is achievedwhen each potential defect would have a very smallchance of occurrence, usually expressed as 3.4 defectsper million opportunities.

9. http://www.asq.org/government/why-quality/ overview.html

10. TQM (Total Quality Management) was arguablythe first comprehensive quality management program thattook the responsibility of quality control from the qual-ity department and placed it into the hands of employeesthroughout the organization. It included a significantamount of training albeit in ways that were not alwaysconsistent across or within organizations.

11. The International Organization for Standardization(ISO) is an international body that produces standards forbusiness operation. In North America, many practitionersare familiar with the ISO 9000 family of standards thatconcern the management of quality.

12. http://www.cityoffortwayne.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1014&Itemid=1158

13. John Maleyeff, “Exploration of Internal ServiceSystems Using Lean Principles,” Management Decision44-5 (2006), pp. 679–682.

14. In most standard applications of DMAIC, pro-cess mapping takes place during the define phase. It is

presented here as the initial step in the measure phasesince, for many services, the process map acts as botha description of the process and a means for initiatingdata collection.

15. James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, LeanSolutions, Simon & Schuster, 2005.

16. At Toyota, Taiichi Ohno developed a classifica-tion system consisting of seven waste categories to ana-lyze manufacturing processes: defective material, excessemployee movement, material transport, processing


38/48



delays, processing inefficiency, overproduction to accountfor yield losses, and inventory beyond what is presentlyneeded. Some of these categories do not apply directly orobviously to service processes.

17. Maleyeff, pp. 683–684.18. Mark A. Abramson, Jonathan D. Breul, and

John M. Kamensky, “Six Trends Transforming Government,”IBM Center for The Business of Government, Washington,D.C., 2006.

19. Maleyeff, pp. 674–689.


39/48


40/48



A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

John Maleyeff is a professor in the Lally School of Management &Technology on the Hartford, Connecticut, campus of RensselaerPolytechnic Institute (RPI). Dr. Maleyeff teaches graduate courses toworking professionals in operations management and quantitativemethods. His research focuses on applying analytical and managementmethodologies, such as Lean and Six Sigma, to manufacturing, service,healthcare, and educational entities, including their internal businessprocesses. He also consults with a number of businesses, mostly in theareas of Lean management, operations planning and control, and statis-tical modeling.

Dr. Maleyeff has held professional positions at RCA’s David SarnoffResearch Center in New Jersey, LEGO Group A/S in Denmark, andthe U.S. Department of Defense. He was previously on the faculty ofindustrial and manufacturing engineering at Western New EnglandCollege, where he developed a reputation for leading-edge interdisciplinary curricula development in

conjunction with industrial interaction.

His publications have appeared in a diverse set of international journals, including Management Decision,Quality Engineering, International Journal of Educational Management, The TQM Magazine, Benchmarking: AnInternational Journal, Journal of Management in Engineering, and The Journal of Healthcare Risk Management .He is a member of the Decision Sciences Institute (DSI) and the American Society for Quality (ASQ).

Dr. Maleyeff received his Ph.D. in industrial engineering and operations research from the Universityof Massachusetts.


41/48


IMPROVING SERVICE DELIVERY IN GOVERNMENT WITH

improving service delivery in in government with lean six sigma

Documents