Available for Consultation offering A Unique Approach to Government and Industry Reform Using my General Reform Model based on Enterprise Lean Data.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Article 52. Establishment of a Government Wide United States Inspector Generals Office
This proposal establishes a US Inspector Generals office with all departmental Inspector Generals' Offices reporting to it. It would eliminate the biased control by Departmental bureaucrats and allow OIG's the freedom to investigate fraud and waste.
Proposed by Lawrence Rosier Reform Consultant
April 8, 2014.
Over the years US Government Bureaucracies have developed means for protecting themselves while appearing to be doing the right thing to the public. Currently all major Departments of the Federal Government have their own Inspector General offices to conduct audits and make reports and recommendations to their specific Department Heads. There are 73 federal offices of inspectors general, a significant increase since the statutory creation of the initial 12 offices by the Inspector General Act of 1978. The offices employ special agents (criminal investigators, often armed) and auditors. In addition, federal offices of inspectors general employ forensic auditors, or evaluators, inspectors, administrative investigators, and a variety of other specialists. Their activities include the detection and prevention of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement of the government programs and operations within their parent organizations. These are self investigating organizations the primary reason that waste leading to budget cuts seldom occur.
The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) was created in 1978 with the current acting Inspector General, Mary Kendall head of the Council. But with the thousands of instances of reported waste the US Government "Departmental Inspector General" approach appears to be flawed. For example in March 2013 the GAO released a 345 page study of US Government duplicated services.
A problem arises from conflict of interest between a Department's Inspector Generals office and the Department head it reports to, where waste of government funds are concerned and especially where reduced budgets are the result of the Inspector General's recommendations. There appears to be no single organization in the US Federal Government with a free hand for fixing government waste problems leading to reduced budgets and smaller government.
Therefore I am making the following recommendation for the establishment of a United States Inspectors General Office with all Departmental Inspectors Generals reporting directly to this office and not to their current Department offices. I further recommend that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) be the Home for this organization. The US Inspector General would report directly to the OMB. All Department Inspector Generals offices will remain in their current locations within each US Government Department. The enhanced powers of the OMB provides for a single organization with the express powers for finding and eliminating Government Waste.
The mandate for this organization is to empower all Inspector General offices to not only conduct audits and make recommendations within their respective Departments but to stop waste by disbanding and confiscation the budgets of wasteful government operations. This includes duplicated government services and services which are ineffective and can not meet an “Effectiveness Test” relative to their budgets, producing results that satisfies their customers. The burden of proof of effectiveness shall be the responsibility of the government service in question.
The newly appointed USOIG shall implement a special training operation to achieve uniform audit and procedural policies as well as bringing all Inspector General’s offices up to date in the following new and innovative technologies.
A. Lean Six Sigma
Lean Six Sigma, adapted to DOD operations by the Military is the number one tool of choice for streamlining high level hardware deployment systems. This tool can be applied to any high level system especially for systems that operate across organizational boundaries.
B. The General reform Model developed by Lawrence Rosier Reform Consultant
The “General Reform Model” is a step by step approach leading to the highest efficiency and effectiveness of subsystems which tie into the high level systems of the Lean Six Sigma studies. This model is meant to be applied agency by agency, first fixing the subsystems using Enterprise Lean followed by right-sizing the Agency with the proper staffing required with a transparent budget. The process ends by changing the bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization (Team Managed organizations have shown that they reduce fraud and corruption through peer pressure and protection of Whistle Blowers).
C. The Consolidation Model Developed by Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant
The “Consolidation Model” consolidates duplicated government services into a single streamlined organization. A tool which I have developed and used in the Consolidation Model is the “Effectiveness Test” which OIG Analysts can use to confront an organization’s services to determine if the services meet the requirements of its public customers. With failure to meet its customer requirements, relative to the size of its budget, the OIG is empowered by Congress (legislation needed) to disband the ineffective service and confiscate its budget. The use of these tools should be a part of the proposed legislation.
U S Inspector General Duties within the OMB
The establishment of the United States Office of the Inspector General shall be within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
1. Conduct and supervise audits consistent with generally accepted government auditing standards and investigations relating to all Departments of the US Government.
2. Provide solutions and supervise the elimination of government waste.
3. Provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies, to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the US Government.
4. Keep the President's staff fully informed concerning fraud and other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and operations of the US Government.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Article 51. Legislation for Elimination of Government Waste Leading to Major Reform of the Federal Government
Overview:
One of the major problems Fiscal Conservatives face is that we elect the best of those who agree with us to vote NO on new spending legislation. We need to do better than that. I suggest that we need to have a plan to guide us in the steps we need to take to get where we want to go. To do this we should look for common ground, the things we care about that others in government cannot disagree with. This is why I proposed Article 49. The “Wounded Warrior Government Waste Elimination Project” and Article 52. Establishment of a Government Wide United States Inspector Generals Office.
The Passing of Legislation enabling these projects could lead to massive reform of the Federal Government. See articles 48,49,50 and 52.
Who would vote against hiring and training Wounded Warriors to eliminate government waste? But it turns out that what the American public wants and what many elected representatives want are not the same. The elimination of waste should be our primary objective it leads to smaller government. Where as focusing on smaller government only arouses objection for those who think they are going to be unemployed. The creation of common ground rather than confrontation is necessary to get key legislation passed. I suggest that to get the legislation passed that the legislation target only waste in Washington DC and not within the States which many politicians think is desirable and exclude the Politicians themselves for fear of a backlash of investigations into junkets (unnecessary trips).
The logic of Legislation for eliminating waste in the US Government
1. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is the logical place for an independent reform organization. The OMB in the last few years has been tasked with only identifying the waste in government. Congress simply can not resolve the thousands of instances of government waste by enacting laws alone the problem is simply too big. The OMB will have the US Inspector General (a new office) Reporting to it and will have the entire governments OIG analysts at its disposal to implement major reforms.
2. In my proposal I recommended that the OMB be empowered to not only investigate waste but to proactively eliminate any waste that they encounter. Presently there is no single Agency in the US Government charged with eliminating waste this legislation would make the OMB that organization. The OMB will need training in new innovative tools which I provide in my proposal.
3. Hundreds of so called efficiency tools have been implemented in government over the years and then has been cast aside only to be replaced by the next big so called efficiency tool. None of these tools provide the success that is desired because they don’t focus on actual cost data. Many of these tools just add to the waste in government.
This search has now ended with the development of the following tools:
a. Lean Six Sigma
Lean Six Sigma, adapted to DOD operations by the Military is the number one tool of choice for streamlining high level hardware deployment systems.
b. My General reform Model
The “General Reform Model” is a step by step approach leading to the highest efficiency and effectiveness of subsystems which tie into the high level systems of the Lean Six Sigma studies. This model is meant to be applied agency by agency, first fixing the subsystems using Enterprise Lean followed by right-sizing the Agency with the proper staffing required with a transparent budget. The process ends by changing the bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization (Team Managed organizations have shown that they reduce fraud and corruption through peer pressure and protection of Whistle Blowers).
c. My Consolidation Model
The “Consolidation Model” consolidates duplicated government services into a single streamlined organization. A tool which I have developed and used in the Consolidation Model is the “Effectiveness Test” which OIG Analysts can use to confront an organization’s services to determine if the services meet the requirements of its public customers. With failure to meet its customer requirements, relative to the size of its budget, the OIG is empowered by Congress (legislation needed) to disband the ineffective services and confiscate its budget. The use of these tools should be a part of the proposed legislation.
4. With the Hiring and training of Wounded Warriors in the new innovative tools I expect that it will still take ten years to make a significant dent in government waste. Remember that the government has been wasting our tax dollars since it began and government employees almost never get laid off even for fraud.
Overview:
Nearly every person in the US knows that the Federal Government wastes $billions annually and it appears that nothing can be done about it. This Article refutes that kind of negative thinking by showing how the elimination of government waste can become a reality. Most Americans want a Balanced budget the best way to bring desperate parties together is to eliminate the waste in government as a starter making a balanced budget just that much closer. Across the board cuts to balance the budget is the worst form of budget management because it punishes efforts of efficient managers and encourages the over staffing that is rampant in government.
One of the major problems Fiscal Conservatives face is that we elect the best of those who agree with us to vote NO on new spending legislation. We need to do better than that. I suggest that we need to have a plan to guide us in the steps we need to take to get where we want to go. To do this we should look for common ground, the things we care about that others in government cannot disagree with. This is why I proposed Article 49. The “Wounded Warrior Government Waste Elimination Project” and Article 52. Establishment of a Government Wide United States Inspector Generals Office.
The Passing of Legislation enabling these projects could lead to massive reform of the Federal Government. See articles 48,49,50 and 52.
Who would vote against hiring and training Wounded Warriors to eliminate government waste? But it turns out that what the American public wants and what many elected representatives want are not the same. The elimination of waste should be our primary objective it leads to smaller government. Where as focusing on smaller government only arouses objection for those who think they are going to be unemployed. The creation of common ground rather than confrontation is necessary to get key legislation passed. I suggest that to get the legislation passed that the legislation target only waste in Washington DC and not within the States which many politicians think is desirable and exclude the Politicians themselves for fear of a backlash of investigations into junkets (unnecessary trips).
The logic of Legislation for eliminating waste in the US Government
1. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is the logical place for an independent reform organization. The OMB in the last few years has been tasked with only identifying the waste in government. Congress simply can not resolve the thousands of instances of government waste by enacting laws alone the problem is simply too big. The OMB will have the US Inspector General (a new office) Reporting to it and will have the entire governments OIG analysts at its disposal to implement major reforms.
2. In my proposal I recommended that the OMB be empowered to not only investigate waste but to proactively eliminate any waste that they encounter. Presently there is no single Agency in the US Government charged with eliminating waste this legislation would make the OMB that organization. The OMB will need training in new innovative tools which I provide in my proposal.
3. Hundreds of so called efficiency tools have been implemented in government over the years and then has been cast aside only to be replaced by the next big so called efficiency tool. None of these tools provide the success that is desired because they don’t focus on actual cost data. Many of these tools just add to the waste in government.
This search has now ended with the development of the following tools:
a. Lean Six Sigma
Lean Six Sigma, adapted to DOD operations by the Military is the number one tool of choice for streamlining high level hardware deployment systems.
b. My General reform Model
The “General Reform Model” is a step by step approach leading to the highest efficiency and effectiveness of subsystems which tie into the high level systems of the Lean Six Sigma studies. This model is meant to be applied agency by agency, first fixing the subsystems using Enterprise Lean followed by right-sizing the Agency with the proper staffing required with a transparent budget. The process ends by changing the bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization (Team Managed organizations have shown that they reduce fraud and corruption through peer pressure and protection of Whistle Blowers).
c. My Consolidation Model
The “Consolidation Model” consolidates duplicated government services into a single streamlined organization. A tool which I have developed and used in the Consolidation Model is the “Effectiveness Test” which OIG Analysts can use to confront an organization’s services to determine if the services meet the requirements of its public customers. With failure to meet its customer requirements, relative to the size of its budget, the OIG is empowered by Congress (legislation needed) to disband the ineffective services and confiscate its budget. The use of these tools should be a part of the proposed legislation.
4. With the Hiring and training of Wounded Warriors in the new innovative tools I expect that it will still take ten years to make a significant dent in government waste. Remember that the government has been wasting our tax dollars since it began and government employees almost never get laid off even for fraud.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Article 50. The Wounded Warrior Government Waste Elimination Project
This proposal was rejected by the GAO, reason not needed at this time. It would have trained Wounded Warriors using Lean Six Sigma and Reform Models to eliminate government waste. Possible Savings $100 Billion.
The Wounded Warrior Government Waste Elimination Project was developed by:
Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant-government reform
LawrenceRosier4@Gmail.com cell 573 578 4716
The Objective:
To eliminate the estimated more than $100 Billion in annual Government Waste (Newt Gingrich's Estimate) with specially trained Wounded Warriors using new innovative efficiency and effectiveness tools.
The Plan:
To develop and train Wounded Warriors as Analysts to be employed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the elimination of Federal Government waste.
A key element which must be overcome is the expansion of the GAO's mandate making it proactive in not only identifying government waste but in actively eliminating it. Congress should act to make the project a reality.
The project would begin modestly as a demonstration to fine tune the approach using reform models developed by Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant. The first model, the “Consolidation Model” is to be applied to the elimination of duplicated government services identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). This is followed by the demonstration of the “General Reform Model” to be applied to a selected Agency to get the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible.
Beginning with as few as ten Wounded Warriors trained as Lean Six Sigma Analysts upon reaching the Green Belt level of proficiency qualify to enter the project as government employees of the GAO. The next step is the assignment of the Analysts to Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant for class room training in the special skills needed in the successful application of the reform Models. This is followed by on-the-job training in the actual application of the reform models.
The successful demonstration of this approach will be followed by a second group of Wounded Warriors and the process of training repeated. This done until an optimum number of Wounded Warrior Analysts have been trained and are active in the elimination of government waste.
With thousands of instances of government waste to be fixed the Wounded Warrior Analysts will eventually be operating as internal government Consultants saving the US tax payers by some estimates $100 billion annually.
Training in Specific Technologies Provided by the Principal Consultant:
GAO Wounded Warrior Analysts will receive class room training as well as on the job training in the following Innovative Technologies:
1. Lean Six Sigma- by a certified Lean trainer (provided by the DoD) This is required to enter the Project.
2. Enterprise Lean- by the Principal Consultant
3. Variable Function Analysis- by the Principal consultant
4. Time studies, a necessary basic skill- by the Principal consultant
5. Statistical Sampling- by the Principal consultant
6. Right-Sizing (makes sure all employees have a full time job)- by the Principal consultant
7. Bottoms-up budgeting- by the Principal consultant
8. Staffing- by the Principal consultant
9. Workload Balancing (management of the work flow)- by the Principal consultant
10. Short Interval Scheduling- by the Principal consultant
11. Operation Sequence Charts- by the Principal consultant
12. Productivity Reporting Techniques- by the Principal consultant
13. Team Management- by the Principal consultant
14. Effectiveness Test- by the Principal consultant
The Consolidation Model:
The implementation of Lawrence Rosier’s "Consolidation Model" is a method of approach that is general enough to be applied to most situations in government requiring consolidation. Either current GAO Analysts or wounded Warrior Analysts can apply the Effectiveness Test to a duplicated government service. Duplicated services proven Effective by passing the Effectiveness Test are evaluated by Wounded Warrior Analysts for efficiency. The resulting most efficient Services are moved to new streamlined organization.
The General Reform Model:
The "General Reform Model" uses Enterprise Lean to Right-Size the organization getting the highest efficiency possible while improving the effectiveness of the organization. It uses the Lean study data for Work Measurement to determine the proper staffing and budgeting. The method trains the organization’s managers in Enterprise Lean forming teams to do high level studies. All Functional employees are trained in Lean forming Self-Managed Lean Teams to study each of their functions. After the Teams have gained in sufficient skill level the bureaucratic organization is replaced by a Team Management organization. The Method empowers employees to make continuous improvements to the Organization’s operations. The method reforms the Organization while improving employee morale.
Please Review the following Articles on my Educational website: lawrencerosierconsulting.blogspot.com
Article 1. The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 19. Lean Six Sigma Is in the Army Now, Improving Efficiency
Article 20. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government
Article 23. Proposal to GAO for Pilot implementation of General Reform Model
Article 34. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!
Article 48. Consolidation of Government Duplicated Services
Article 49. The Effectiveness Test, a Tool for Reforming Government
For more information on this project contact:
Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant
12143 Cedar Grove Rd. Rolla, Mo.65401 cell 573 578 4716
Email LawrenceRosier4@gmail.com
This proposal was rejected by the GAO, reason not needed at this time. It would have trained Wounded Warriors using Lean Six Sigma and Reform Models to eliminate government waste. Possible Savings $100 Billion.
The Wounded Warrior Government Waste Elimination Project was developed by:
Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant-government reform
LawrenceRosier4@Gmail.com cell 573 578 4716
The Objective:
To eliminate the estimated more than $100 Billion in annual Government Waste (Newt Gingrich's Estimate) with specially trained Wounded Warriors using new innovative efficiency and effectiveness tools.
The Plan:
To develop and train Wounded Warriors as Analysts to be employed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the elimination of Federal Government waste.
A key element which must be overcome is the expansion of the GAO's mandate making it proactive in not only identifying government waste but in actively eliminating it. Congress should act to make the project a reality.
The project would begin modestly as a demonstration to fine tune the approach using reform models developed by Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant. The first model, the “Consolidation Model” is to be applied to the elimination of duplicated government services identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). This is followed by the demonstration of the “General Reform Model” to be applied to a selected Agency to get the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible.
Beginning with as few as ten Wounded Warriors trained as Lean Six Sigma Analysts upon reaching the Green Belt level of proficiency qualify to enter the project as government employees of the GAO. The next step is the assignment of the Analysts to Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant for class room training in the special skills needed in the successful application of the reform Models. This is followed by on-the-job training in the actual application of the reform models.
The successful demonstration of this approach will be followed by a second group of Wounded Warriors and the process of training repeated. This done until an optimum number of Wounded Warrior Analysts have been trained and are active in the elimination of government waste.
With thousands of instances of government waste to be fixed the Wounded Warrior Analysts will eventually be operating as internal government Consultants saving the US tax payers by some estimates $100 billion annually.
Training in Specific Technologies Provided by the Principal Consultant:
GAO Wounded Warrior Analysts will receive class room training as well as on the job training in the following Innovative Technologies:
1. Lean Six Sigma- by a certified Lean trainer (provided by the DoD) This is required to enter the Project.
2. Enterprise Lean- by the Principal Consultant
3. Variable Function Analysis- by the Principal consultant
4. Time studies, a necessary basic skill- by the Principal consultant
5. Statistical Sampling- by the Principal consultant
6. Right-Sizing (makes sure all employees have a full time job)- by the Principal consultant
7. Bottoms-up budgeting- by the Principal consultant
8. Staffing- by the Principal consultant
9. Workload Balancing (management of the work flow)- by the Principal consultant
10. Short Interval Scheduling- by the Principal consultant
11. Operation Sequence Charts- by the Principal consultant
12. Productivity Reporting Techniques- by the Principal consultant
13. Team Management- by the Principal consultant
14. Effectiveness Test- by the Principal consultant
The Consolidation Model:
The implementation of Lawrence Rosier’s "Consolidation Model" is a method of approach that is general enough to be applied to most situations in government requiring consolidation. Either current GAO Analysts or wounded Warrior Analysts can apply the Effectiveness Test to a duplicated government service. Duplicated services proven Effective by passing the Effectiveness Test are evaluated by Wounded Warrior Analysts for efficiency. The resulting most efficient Services are moved to new streamlined organization.
The General Reform Model:
The "General Reform Model" uses Enterprise Lean to Right-Size the organization getting the highest efficiency possible while improving the effectiveness of the organization. It uses the Lean study data for Work Measurement to determine the proper staffing and budgeting. The method trains the organization’s managers in Enterprise Lean forming teams to do high level studies. All Functional employees are trained in Lean forming Self-Managed Lean Teams to study each of their functions. After the Teams have gained in sufficient skill level the bureaucratic organization is replaced by a Team Management organization. The Method empowers employees to make continuous improvements to the Organization’s operations. The method reforms the Organization while improving employee morale.
Please Review the following Articles on my Educational website: lawrencerosierconsulting.blogspot.com
Article 1. The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 19. Lean Six Sigma Is in the Army Now, Improving Efficiency
Article 20. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government
Article 23. Proposal to GAO for Pilot implementation of General Reform Model
Article 34. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!
Article 48. Consolidation of Government Duplicated Services
Article 49. The Effectiveness Test, a Tool for Reforming Government
For more information on this project contact:
Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant
12143 Cedar Grove Rd. Rolla, Mo.65401 cell 573 578 4716
Email LawrenceRosier4@gmail.com
Monday, March 3, 2014
Article 49. The Effectiveness Test, a Tool for Reforming Government
The Effectiveness Test is a formalized tool to be applied by the US Office of Inspector General (Newly appointed USOIG) for determining the value added benefits of a government service or product supplied by an Agency of the Government in meeting its budgeted obligations. Failure to meet the Effectiveness Test authorizes the OIG to pursue a number of solutions to rectify the effectiveness failures of an Agency. Proof of effectiveness compliance is the responsibility of the budgeted Agency.
Solutions for Rectifying Effectiveness Deficiencies
If no effectiveness proof can be found and the OIG Analysts determine that the suspect service or product does not meet acceptable quality and value with results warranting its budget expenditure, the OIG may pursue the following options:
1. Determine if the service or product is actually needed if not then the entire operation including the removal of the budget is pursued resulting in the immediate reassignment or layoff of personnel who provided the service or product.
2. If the service or product is found to be needed the OIG may enforce changes in the way the service is provided on the existing Agency or move the suspect service or product to another Agency with effectiveness and efficiency obligations fully enforced by the OIG.
Application of the Effectiveness Test
All that is required is for the OIG to have evidence that the suspect agency is not meeting its effectiveness obligations for the OIG to go into a proactive mode to investigate further not requiring a bill before congress to authorize the investigation. The intent is to authorize the OIG to investigate and fix the thousands of ineffective activities found in the Federal government without waiting for the high profile requirement for Congress to enact into law the OIG’s activities.
An Example: The investigation and solution of Duplicated government Services
The Consolidation Model by Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant
The Consolidation Model empowers the OIG to efficiently investigate and fix government duplicated services. The beneficial efficiencies comes from the early elimination of ineffective duplicated services by the application of the Effectiveness Test. Only if the duplicated service passes the Effectiveness Test can the service be considered for further analysis of the efficiency of its operations.
Activities of the OIG Consolidation Committee:
Step 1. Proposed Formation of a OIG Consolidation Committee
The proposed Consolidation Committee will have broad powers to lead and implement consolidation of duplicated government services. This is necessary for legitimacy and to make sure that the consolidation of duplicated services are evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency. The Principal Consultant will report to the Consolidation Committee and will train and lead OIG Lean Teams in the documentation of duplicated services and the efficiency of the final Agency.
Step 2. The Consolidation Committee will request the name of a management representative for duplicated services in each Agency where duplication occurs. The representative will provide: the budget for the duplicated service, the customer names of those receiving the service and a flow chart of the activities for doing the service and other documentation as deemed necessary.
Step 3. A OIG Effectiveness Evaluation Team will review the data submitted by the duplicating service Agency for the Effectiveness of the service to the Agency's customers. If its customers are not satisfied with the services provided by the duplicating Agency it fails to pass the Effectiveness Test. If the Effectiveness test is inconclusive the OIG Effectiveness Evaluation Teams may visit the Agency providing the duplicated services for further evaluation. Agencies who fail the Effectiveness Test will have their budgets cut for this service and employees reassigned or laid off.
Step 4. OIG Lean Team documentation of Efficiency
When a duplicating service Agency passes the Effectiveness Test a OIG Lean Team lead by the Principal Consultant is dispatched to the Agency to Document the current process of the duplicated service and the efficient Lean process. The object is to verify actual cost data to enable the process of deciding what to do with the function. The most efficient duplicated necessary functions shall be moved to a new agency or a revamped agency.
Step 5. Comparison of Duplicated Services
The OIG Lean Team is used to evaluate the efficiency of the duplicated Function and its associated cost data. Outcomes are to be compared with all the other duplicated Functions from all the organizations depicted in a matrix chart where duplicated Functions are to be compared. Those duplicated services rejected for low efficiency will be declared as redundant and their budgets cut followed by reassignment or layoff of employees.
Those agencies with the highest efficiency will have their budgets moved to the new organization and the employees will be given the opportunity to move to the final Agency providing the services.
Step 6. Resolution of Agency Failures in meeting the Effectiveness Test.
If an entire Agency with Duplicated services fails to pass the Effectiveness Test regardless of how efficient they are they will be declared to be redundant. With its budget removed and employees laid off. Some management will remain until the Agency can be shut down.
The Effectiveness Test is a formalized tool to be applied by the US Office of Inspector General (Newly appointed USOIG) for determining the value added benefits of a government service or product supplied by an Agency of the Government in meeting its budgeted obligations. Failure to meet the Effectiveness Test authorizes the OIG to pursue a number of solutions to rectify the effectiveness failures of an Agency. Proof of effectiveness compliance is the responsibility of the budgeted Agency.
Solutions for Rectifying Effectiveness Deficiencies
If no effectiveness proof can be found and the OIG Analysts determine that the suspect service or product does not meet acceptable quality and value with results warranting its budget expenditure, the OIG may pursue the following options:
1. Determine if the service or product is actually needed if not then the entire operation including the removal of the budget is pursued resulting in the immediate reassignment or layoff of personnel who provided the service or product.
2. If the service or product is found to be needed the OIG may enforce changes in the way the service is provided on the existing Agency or move the suspect service or product to another Agency with effectiveness and efficiency obligations fully enforced by the OIG.
Application of the Effectiveness Test
All that is required is for the OIG to have evidence that the suspect agency is not meeting its effectiveness obligations for the OIG to go into a proactive mode to investigate further not requiring a bill before congress to authorize the investigation. The intent is to authorize the OIG to investigate and fix the thousands of ineffective activities found in the Federal government without waiting for the high profile requirement for Congress to enact into law the OIG’s activities.
An Example: The investigation and solution of Duplicated government Services
The Consolidation Model by Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant
The Consolidation Model empowers the OIG to efficiently investigate and fix government duplicated services. The beneficial efficiencies comes from the early elimination of ineffective duplicated services by the application of the Effectiveness Test. Only if the duplicated service passes the Effectiveness Test can the service be considered for further analysis of the efficiency of its operations.
Activities of the OIG Consolidation Committee:
Step 1. Proposed Formation of a OIG Consolidation Committee
The proposed Consolidation Committee will have broad powers to lead and implement consolidation of duplicated government services. This is necessary for legitimacy and to make sure that the consolidation of duplicated services are evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency. The Principal Consultant will report to the Consolidation Committee and will train and lead OIG Lean Teams in the documentation of duplicated services and the efficiency of the final Agency.
Step 2. The Consolidation Committee will request the name of a management representative for duplicated services in each Agency where duplication occurs. The representative will provide: the budget for the duplicated service, the customer names of those receiving the service and a flow chart of the activities for doing the service and other documentation as deemed necessary.
Step 3. A OIG Effectiveness Evaluation Team will review the data submitted by the duplicating service Agency for the Effectiveness of the service to the Agency's customers. If its customers are not satisfied with the services provided by the duplicating Agency it fails to pass the Effectiveness Test. If the Effectiveness test is inconclusive the OIG Effectiveness Evaluation Teams may visit the Agency providing the duplicated services for further evaluation. Agencies who fail the Effectiveness Test will have their budgets cut for this service and employees reassigned or laid off.
Step 4. OIG Lean Team documentation of Efficiency
When a duplicating service Agency passes the Effectiveness Test a OIG Lean Team lead by the Principal Consultant is dispatched to the Agency to Document the current process of the duplicated service and the efficient Lean process. The object is to verify actual cost data to enable the process of deciding what to do with the function. The most efficient duplicated necessary functions shall be moved to a new agency or a revamped agency.
Step 5. Comparison of Duplicated Services
The OIG Lean Team is used to evaluate the efficiency of the duplicated Function and its associated cost data. Outcomes are to be compared with all the other duplicated Functions from all the organizations depicted in a matrix chart where duplicated Functions are to be compared. Those duplicated services rejected for low efficiency will be declared as redundant and their budgets cut followed by reassignment or layoff of employees.
Those agencies with the highest efficiency will have their budgets moved to the new organization and the employees will be given the opportunity to move to the final Agency providing the services.
Step 6. Resolution of Agency Failures in meeting the Effectiveness Test.
If an entire Agency with Duplicated services fails to pass the Effectiveness Test regardless of how efficient they are they will be declared to be redundant. With its budget removed and employees laid off. Some management will remain until the Agency can be shut down.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Article 48. Consolidation of Government Duplicated Services
This proposal for the implementation of my Consolidation Model to eliminate duplicated Government programs and services was rejected by the GAO. Estimated savings $100 billion.
March 1 2013, (Bloomberg) -- Janet St. Laurent of the U.S. Government Accountability Office talks about the agency's report on redundancies. The GAO released a 345-page report today combing the federal catalog of government programs to uncover what it said was evidence of waste and duplication that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year. St. Laurent speaks with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart."
Janet St. Laurent's key takeaway is that the GAO has not developed a good method for acquiring the accurate data needed to make decisions on who should be doing these services.
See: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/67199974-gao-s-st-laurent-discusses-redundant-u-s-programs.html
Examples of Federal Government Duplicated Services:
The GAO found that there were 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality, 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation, 47 for job training and employment, and 56 to help people understand finances. Another prime example is the 15 different agencies that oversee food-safety laws, with no specific agency solely dedicated to the issue of food safety.
The GAO is the only independent government organization that has the expertise and the capability for reforming the Federal Government and solving the duplicated government services problem. Congress does not have a solution for fixing these problems and most Agencies do not implement changes that lead to reduced staff and budgets.
Consolidation of Government Duplicated Services:
I have developed a "Consolidation Model" just for this purpose it generates the accurate data for making decisions on who should be providing government services. Then identifies the most likely candidate agency for providing the service and moves the service to the new Agency or revamped final Agency. The process meets all of the GAO's criteria for being: efficient, effective, ethical, equitable and representative.
Goals:
The main goal is to consolidate and eliminate duplicated Federal Agency services by streamlining the desired government services.
A secondary goal of the implementation is to strengthen the Legislative Budgeting process by providing transparency of the cost of service activities of the new organization to the legislative budget leaders enabling them to control budgets through the knowledge of the correct service staffing and its budget.
The Consolidation Model by Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant
Activities of the Consolidation Committee:
Step 1. Proposed Formation of a GAO Consolidation Committee
The proposed Consolidation Committee will have broad powers to lead and implement consolidation of duplicated government services. This is necessary for legitimacy and to make sure that the consolidation of duplicated services are evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency. The Principal Consultant will report to the Consolidation Committee and will train and lead GAO Lean Teams in the documentation of duplicated services and the efficiency of the final Agency.
Step 2. The Consolidation Committee will Prioritize the selection of the Services that are being duplicated for the most return on investment for GAO expenditure. It will request the name of a management representative for duplicated services in each Agency where duplication occurs. The representative will provide: the budgeted amount for the duplicated service, the customer names of those receiving the service and a flow chart of the activities for doing the service and other documentation as deemed necessary.
Step 3. A GAO Effectiveness Evaluation Team will review the data submitted by the duplicating service Agency for the "Effectiveness" of the service to the Agency's customers. If its customers are not satisfied with the services provided by the duplicating Agency it fails to pass the Effectiveness Test. If the Effectiveness test is inconclusive the GAO Effectiveness Evaluation Teams may visit the Agency providing the duplicated services for further evaluation. Agencies who fail the Effectiveness Test will have their budgets cut for this service and employees reassigned or laid off.
Step 4. GAO Lean Team documentation of Efficiency
When a duplicating service Agency passes the Effectiveness Test a GAO Lean Team lead by the Principal Consultant is dispatched to the Agency to Document the current process of the duplicated service and the efficient Lean process. The objective is to verify actual cost data to enable the process of deciding what to do with the service. The most efficient duplicated necessary services after comparison with other duplicated services shall be moved to a new Agency or a revamped final Agency.
Step 5. Comparison of Duplicated Services
The GAO Lean Team is used to evaluate the efficiency of the duplicated service and its associated cost data. Outcomes are to be compared with all the other duplicated services from all the organizations depicted in a matrix chart where duplicated services are to be compared. Those duplicated services rejected for low efficiency will be declared as redundant and their budgets cut followed by reassignment or layoff of employees.
Those agencies with the highest efficiency will have their budgets moved to the new organization and the employees will be given the opportunity to move to the final Agency providing the services.
Step 6. Resolution of an Entire Agency
If an entire Agency with Duplicated services fails to pass the Effectiveness Test regardless of how efficient they are they will be declared to be redundant. With its budget removed and employees laid off. Some management will remain until the Agency can be shut down.
Consulting Services Supplied by the Principal Consultant:
Beginning in step 4. The Principal Consultant will build, train and supervise GAO Lean Teams of Budget Analysts supplied by the GAO for the implementation of the Consolidation Reform Model. The Principal Consultant will confer closely with the proposed GAO Consolidation Committee in the selection of the GAO Lean Team members. The purpose is to develop and train Lean Teams on an on going basis. After the first Lean Teams have had sufficient training to work on their own they will be followed by more Lean Teams until an optimum number has been attained. It is expected that the Lean Teams will be able to make an Agency evaluation in a single visit. They will document the Lean data using tablet computers (provided by the GAO) in a spreadsheet (provided by the Principal Consultant). The tablet computers will have a Google APP installed that will allow spreadsheets to be instantly available for evaluation by the Principal Consultant.
Training Provided by the Principal Consultant:
GAO Lean Teams will receive training in Lean by a certified Lean trainer (provided by the GAO). The Principal Consultant will provide the following training: time studies, right-sizing (makes sure all employees have a full time job), budgeting, staffing, and workload balancing (management of the work flow). These activities are necessary to the making of the most efficient final Agency.
Contact Information:
Lawrence Rosier Consulting 12143 Cedar Grove Rd. Rolla Missouri 65401 (573) 364 8789 cell (573) 578 4716 Website: http://lawrencerosierconsulting.blogspot.com
Email: lawrencerosier4@gmail.com
This proposal for the implementation of my Consolidation Model to eliminate duplicated Government programs and services was rejected by the GAO. Estimated savings $100 billion.
March 1 2013, (Bloomberg) -- Janet St. Laurent of the U.S. Government Accountability Office talks about the agency's report on redundancies. The GAO released a 345-page report today combing the federal catalog of government programs to uncover what it said was evidence of waste and duplication that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year. St. Laurent speaks with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart."
Janet St. Laurent's key takeaway is that the GAO has not developed a good method for acquiring the accurate data needed to make decisions on who should be doing these services.
See: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/67199974-gao-s-st-laurent-discusses-redundant-u-s-programs.html
Examples of Federal Government Duplicated Services:
The GAO found that there were 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality, 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation, 47 for job training and employment, and 56 to help people understand finances. Another prime example is the 15 different agencies that oversee food-safety laws, with no specific agency solely dedicated to the issue of food safety.
The GAO is the only independent government organization that has the expertise and the capability for reforming the Federal Government and solving the duplicated government services problem. Congress does not have a solution for fixing these problems and most Agencies do not implement changes that lead to reduced staff and budgets.
Consolidation of Government Duplicated Services:
I have developed a "Consolidation Model" just for this purpose it generates the accurate data for making decisions on who should be providing government services. Then identifies the most likely candidate agency for providing the service and moves the service to the new Agency or revamped final Agency. The process meets all of the GAO's criteria for being: efficient, effective, ethical, equitable and representative.
Goals:
The main goal is to consolidate and eliminate duplicated Federal Agency services by streamlining the desired government services.
A secondary goal of the implementation is to strengthen the Legislative Budgeting process by providing transparency of the cost of service activities of the new organization to the legislative budget leaders enabling them to control budgets through the knowledge of the correct service staffing and its budget.
The Consolidation Model by Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant
Activities of the Consolidation Committee:
Step 1. Proposed Formation of a GAO Consolidation Committee
The proposed Consolidation Committee will have broad powers to lead and implement consolidation of duplicated government services. This is necessary for legitimacy and to make sure that the consolidation of duplicated services are evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency. The Principal Consultant will report to the Consolidation Committee and will train and lead GAO Lean Teams in the documentation of duplicated services and the efficiency of the final Agency.
Step 2. The Consolidation Committee will Prioritize the selection of the Services that are being duplicated for the most return on investment for GAO expenditure. It will request the name of a management representative for duplicated services in each Agency where duplication occurs. The representative will provide: the budgeted amount for the duplicated service, the customer names of those receiving the service and a flow chart of the activities for doing the service and other documentation as deemed necessary.
Step 3. A GAO Effectiveness Evaluation Team will review the data submitted by the duplicating service Agency for the "Effectiveness" of the service to the Agency's customers. If its customers are not satisfied with the services provided by the duplicating Agency it fails to pass the Effectiveness Test. If the Effectiveness test is inconclusive the GAO Effectiveness Evaluation Teams may visit the Agency providing the duplicated services for further evaluation. Agencies who fail the Effectiveness Test will have their budgets cut for this service and employees reassigned or laid off.
Step 4. GAO Lean Team documentation of Efficiency
When a duplicating service Agency passes the Effectiveness Test a GAO Lean Team lead by the Principal Consultant is dispatched to the Agency to Document the current process of the duplicated service and the efficient Lean process. The objective is to verify actual cost data to enable the process of deciding what to do with the service. The most efficient duplicated necessary services after comparison with other duplicated services shall be moved to a new Agency or a revamped final Agency.
Step 5. Comparison of Duplicated Services
The GAO Lean Team is used to evaluate the efficiency of the duplicated service and its associated cost data. Outcomes are to be compared with all the other duplicated services from all the organizations depicted in a matrix chart where duplicated services are to be compared. Those duplicated services rejected for low efficiency will be declared as redundant and their budgets cut followed by reassignment or layoff of employees.
Those agencies with the highest efficiency will have their budgets moved to the new organization and the employees will be given the opportunity to move to the final Agency providing the services.
Step 6. Resolution of an Entire Agency
If an entire Agency with Duplicated services fails to pass the Effectiveness Test regardless of how efficient they are they will be declared to be redundant. With its budget removed and employees laid off. Some management will remain until the Agency can be shut down.
Consulting Services Supplied by the Principal Consultant:
Beginning in step 4. The Principal Consultant will build, train and supervise GAO Lean Teams of Budget Analysts supplied by the GAO for the implementation of the Consolidation Reform Model. The Principal Consultant will confer closely with the proposed GAO Consolidation Committee in the selection of the GAO Lean Team members. The purpose is to develop and train Lean Teams on an on going basis. After the first Lean Teams have had sufficient training to work on their own they will be followed by more Lean Teams until an optimum number has been attained. It is expected that the Lean Teams will be able to make an Agency evaluation in a single visit. They will document the Lean data using tablet computers (provided by the GAO) in a spreadsheet (provided by the Principal Consultant). The tablet computers will have a Google APP installed that will allow spreadsheets to be instantly available for evaluation by the Principal Consultant.
Training Provided by the Principal Consultant:
GAO Lean Teams will receive training in Lean by a certified Lean trainer (provided by the GAO). The Principal Consultant will provide the following training: time studies, right-sizing (makes sure all employees have a full time job), budgeting, staffing, and workload balancing (management of the work flow). These activities are necessary to the making of the most efficient final Agency.
Contact Information:
Lawrence Rosier Consulting 12143 Cedar Grove Rd. Rolla Missouri 65401 (573) 364 8789 cell (573) 578 4716 Website: http://lawrencerosierconsulting.blogspot.com
Email: lawrencerosier4@gmail.com
Monday, December 16, 2013
Article 47. Technical Guide to State Government Reform
By Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant December 2, 2013
Understanding Efficiency and Effectiveness
I seldom refer to efficiency without adding effectiveness, a system can be efficient and still not be effective in doing a job right. The approach of using Lean Six Sigma on high level systems and Enterprise Lean on subsystems will make both high level systems and subsystems effective. But to actually get the highest efficiency possible you must use the data developed by the Enterprise Lean Teams to Right-Size the supporting Agencies making sure all personnel have a full time job. The Lean Team data should also be used to develop bottoms-up budgets which identify the actual costs of a systems functions. This is also the data needed to manage an Agency’s work by balancing its work load.
I recommend that all State Governments put together a Lean Six Sigma team of trained managers to study and fix their high level systems. This is to be followed by the implementation of my General Reform Model which builds on the data developed by the implementation of Enterprise Lean in the first part of the Model. The result gets the highest efficiency with the most effective state government possible.
Implementation of the General Reform Model
Phase 1. Establish a State Enterprise Lean Commission
I recommend that a “State Enterprise Lean Commission” Be established in the State Auditor’s Office to have oversight of the implementation of Enterprise Lean and other reforms. The State Auditor will need to provide Budget Analysts on loan to the State Enterprise Lean Commission reporting to and trained by the Principal Consultant to implement Enterprise Lean and other reforms. The Budget Analysts will support Enterprise Lean until it has been implemented in its entirety throughout the State Government. When the implementation has been completed the Budget Analysts will maintain the new Bottoms-up Budget databases. Prior to this proposal the State Auditor was charged with only the auditing of funds now a new responsibility will be to monitor state activities for lost man hours. This is made possible through the development of the Lean data and the new Bottoms-up Budget databases.
States that have already implemented Enterprise Lean will need to assess the current management’s success and its polices in relation to staffing. Many state Enterprise Lean implementations are administered by the state’s bureaucracies and have policies of not reducing staff even to achieve greater efficiency.
Phase 2. The Training and Organization of Enterprise Lean Teams
The first act of the State Enterprise Lean Commission is to implement Enterprise Lean throughout the state government. Planning for Lean Training should done by the Commission meeting with the counsel of the Principal Consultant. I recommend that a Enterprise Lean Training specialist be brought in from a local University to Kick off the implementation with training seminars. Planning issues related to Lean training, Facilitators, Budget Analysts will need to be resolved. Lean training should begin immediately by the state’s training staff. I suggest that the normal training curriculum be suspended and an all out effort be made for Enterprise Lean Training. Training should be made first for staff members followed by management, Lean Facilitators and general employees.
Lean Facilitators organize and train each employee functional Lean Team work group which meets for one hour on a weekly basis. I suggest that the best Facilitators may be borrowed from HR staff but I have also had success with secretaries and even copy machine operators.
Management Lean Six Sigma Teams
There are two major Lean Team groups, high level Management Lean Teams and at-the-work-place Functional Lean Teams. Management Lean Teams are organized and lead by members of management who have attended Lean Six Sigma Classes at a local University. They are tasked to study individual high level systems within the Agency and those that interact with other Agencies mostly document flows. They may also be tasked to support the Consolidating Boards and Commissions Model. A third possible task is in the Consolidation of State Government Services Model. A key element of the High level Lean Teams is their role in management when converting from the bureaucratic organization to the Team Managed organization.
Implementation of the reforms can be done at minimum cost to the state using an Enterprise Lean professional trainer from a local University in a train-the-trainer project and a Principal Consultant familiar with the General Reform Model. All other implementation staff are borrowed and trained from the states existing personnel using the state’s own resources. This has significant advantages with trained personnel remaining in key jobs with the state when compared with implementations involving a high number of expensive Consultants who leave when the implementation is completed taking critical knowledge with them.
Phase 3. Review of Lean Team Results and Collection of Lean Data
After a period of about three months most Functional Lean Teams, those that were organized and trained by Facilitators, should have their Value Stream Analyses completed. I have had success with doing the flow of the current method on long white butcher or brown wrapping paper taped around a conference room on the walls. The steps of the current method is completed first followed by the proposed improved method done directly under it. This is done to highlight the differences between the two methods. I suggest that some Functional Lean Teams with significant savings present their improved method to management. After the presentation the rolled document is given to a Budget Analyst to document the savings from the proposal in a spreadsheet. Budget Analysts are trained by the Principal Consultant and are part of the implementation staff.
Phase 4. Activities of the Principal Consultant
The Principal Consultant will play a key role in being sure that the Lean teams are properly trained and in the selection and approach of the high level Lean Teams. The Principal Consultant will insure that the activities of Budget Analysts can determine the correct staffing level through Work Measurement and any expenses needed during the process. Some Budget Analysts may find the proper staffing for variable processes difficult to determine, the Principal Consultant will make this determination when necessary. This data combined with the number of occurrences of the function over time, obtained from a daily log kept by each Lean Team, provides the basis for an accurate functional budget. The data from the rolled document will be kept on a spreadsheet by the Budget Analysts and summarized in a database where all of the states functional data is stored. The activities of Budget Analysts are important and will be followed closely by the Principal Consultant.
The Technical Reform Process
The technical reform process begins after the decision to implement Enterprise Lean and after the functional Lean teams have completed their Value Stream Mapping studies. The important data that is necessary for reform is the functional cost data developed by the Functional Lean Teams from their individual functions.
The data will be collected in electronic tablets including or Google Chromebooks using a spreadsheet program specifically designed for this process. All tablet spread sheets will be continuously updated using a special Google App (application). The Principal Management consultant will provide on the job training of Budget Analysts in the collection of this data and all subsequent reform steps.
Lean Team Data that is collected and allowed to accumulate
The following steps show how the Lean Team Data is collected and allowed to accumulate in the spreadsheet program and how the summarized data is used.
1. The VSM for each function will be documented in the spreadsheet.
2. All labor and expense cost data will be documented and allowed to accumulate as functions are added to the spreadsheet until all functions have been accounted for.
3. The names of the employees working on the function will be documented with any special expertise they are using in performing the function. Each employee’s labor hours expended in doing the function will be documented and allowed to accumulate. This data will be used during the Right-Sizing process.
4. Where there is interaction between several employees during the performance of the function as a part of the VSM a work load balancing chart will be a part of the documentation. This work load chart can be used later to balance the function’s work load.
5. When all of an Agencies Functions have been logged into the spread sheet the final labor hours and expense numbers will have been automatically tallied in the spread sheet along with the total hours worked by each employee in the particular function.
6. A key question asked of employees is the estimate for the number of times that the function is done per week and recorded in the spread sheet. This number is authenticated by history and other knowledgeable personnel including the enumeration of purchased goods consumed by the function.
7. The total annual accumulated functional hours is at 100% productivity and must be converted to provide a realistic number at 75% productivity. To make this conversion you will add 25% more time to the total or multiply the total time by 125%. This becomes the labor hours for staffing and budgeting and is what is referred to as a Gross Load among consultants. When all of the Agency’s functional labor hours have been accumulated at 125% and we add in the total annual expenses we have what I call a Bottoms-up Functional Budget.
8. Next we want to compare the Bottoms-up Budget with the current Top-Down Agency Budget. To do this we remove all management and overhead expenditures from the Agency’s Top-Down Budget to obtain an equal expenditure. Then we compare the Bottoms-up Budget with the Top-Down Budget. The Bottoms-up Budget should be 20% or more less than the Top-Down Budget. If this is not the case then we have introduced an error more than likely in the number of times that a Function is being performed annually. This should be resolved by reviewing the Lean data in the Agency’s spreadsheet.
9. We can now do Right-Sizing using the employee accumulated Lean data from the spreadsheet. As a rule of thumb the employee accumulated hours is separated between those who have accumulated more than 20 hours per week average and those who have accumulated less than 20 hours per week. Those who have accumulated less than 20 hours per week are considered to be redundant and slated for layoff. Their accumulated hours are spread among those with more than 20 hours per week increasing their hours to at least 37 hours per week. This involves reviewing each function and reassigning tasks to employees according to their capability and availability.
10. We now need to review the spreadsheet for those jobs noted as occurring on a random basis. These special jobs need to be separated form those jobs that occur on a continuing basis. An individual employee is specially trained to do the job of Work Planning, forecasting scheduling these jobs on a weekly basis.
11. The spreadsheets are stored on thumb drives for each Agency and protected. The labor data for each function is stored in a Database at 100% to be used for calculating productivity where required. The Database also includes the staffing and bottoms-up budgeting data. I recommend that the data be protected by an independent organization such as the State Auditor. This allows availability of the data for all who want to review the actual labor and expense cost of an Agency function including the Agency’s Bottoms-up Budget.
Phase 5. Organization Reform
In the final step of the General Reform Model the Principal Consultant will begin the process of organizational reform by replacing the Bureaucratic organization with a Team Management organization with top management managing the state’s activities through Group Teams with each managing several Functional Teams. The Lean Teams at the Functional level will become self managed Functional Teams with each of their elected leaders reporting directly to a Group Managed team. Group Managed Teams will assume their management role from the pre-organized high level Lean Six Sigma Teams. There is some flexibility in how this process actually occurs but it is necessary in order to eliminate the problems caused by the Bureaucratic organization. The important advantage in changing from a Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization is that the savings continues annually for years. But if the bureaucracy is allowed to stay in place after only a few years of mismanagement the level of staffing could grow to where it originally was. This is also the period of time for the reduction of redundant state government staff. Once it is known where staffing can be reduced layoffs or temporary reassignments should be completed within a month.
Understanding Efficiency and Effectiveness
I seldom refer to efficiency without adding effectiveness, a system can be efficient and still not be effective in doing a job right. The approach of using Lean Six Sigma on high level systems and Enterprise Lean on subsystems will make both high level systems and subsystems effective. But to actually get the highest efficiency possible you must use the data developed by the Enterprise Lean Teams to Right-Size the supporting Agencies making sure all personnel have a full time job. The Lean Team data should also be used to develop bottoms-up budgets which identify the actual costs of a systems functions. This is also the data needed to manage an Agency’s work by balancing its work load.
I recommend that all State Governments put together a Lean Six Sigma team of trained managers to study and fix their high level systems. This is to be followed by the implementation of my General Reform Model which builds on the data developed by the implementation of Enterprise Lean in the first part of the Model. The result gets the highest efficiency with the most effective state government possible.
Implementation of the General Reform Model
Phase 1. Establish a State Enterprise Lean Commission
I recommend that a “State Enterprise Lean Commission” Be established in the State Auditor’s Office to have oversight of the implementation of Enterprise Lean and other reforms. The State Auditor will need to provide Budget Analysts on loan to the State Enterprise Lean Commission reporting to and trained by the Principal Consultant to implement Enterprise Lean and other reforms. The Budget Analysts will support Enterprise Lean until it has been implemented in its entirety throughout the State Government. When the implementation has been completed the Budget Analysts will maintain the new Bottoms-up Budget databases. Prior to this proposal the State Auditor was charged with only the auditing of funds now a new responsibility will be to monitor state activities for lost man hours. This is made possible through the development of the Lean data and the new Bottoms-up Budget databases.
States that have already implemented Enterprise Lean will need to assess the current management’s success and its polices in relation to staffing. Many state Enterprise Lean implementations are administered by the state’s bureaucracies and have policies of not reducing staff even to achieve greater efficiency.
Phase 2. The Training and Organization of Enterprise Lean Teams
The first act of the State Enterprise Lean Commission is to implement Enterprise Lean throughout the state government. Planning for Lean Training should done by the Commission meeting with the counsel of the Principal Consultant. I recommend that a Enterprise Lean Training specialist be brought in from a local University to Kick off the implementation with training seminars. Planning issues related to Lean training, Facilitators, Budget Analysts will need to be resolved. Lean training should begin immediately by the state’s training staff. I suggest that the normal training curriculum be suspended and an all out effort be made for Enterprise Lean Training. Training should be made first for staff members followed by management, Lean Facilitators and general employees.
Lean Facilitators organize and train each employee functional Lean Team work group which meets for one hour on a weekly basis. I suggest that the best Facilitators may be borrowed from HR staff but I have also had success with secretaries and even copy machine operators.
Management Lean Six Sigma Teams
There are two major Lean Team groups, high level Management Lean Teams and at-the-work-place Functional Lean Teams. Management Lean Teams are organized and lead by members of management who have attended Lean Six Sigma Classes at a local University. They are tasked to study individual high level systems within the Agency and those that interact with other Agencies mostly document flows. They may also be tasked to support the Consolidating Boards and Commissions Model. A third possible task is in the Consolidation of State Government Services Model. A key element of the High level Lean Teams is their role in management when converting from the bureaucratic organization to the Team Managed organization.
Implementation of the reforms can be done at minimum cost to the state using an Enterprise Lean professional trainer from a local University in a train-the-trainer project and a Principal Consultant familiar with the General Reform Model. All other implementation staff are borrowed and trained from the states existing personnel using the state’s own resources. This has significant advantages with trained personnel remaining in key jobs with the state when compared with implementations involving a high number of expensive Consultants who leave when the implementation is completed taking critical knowledge with them.
Phase 3. Review of Lean Team Results and Collection of Lean Data
After a period of about three months most Functional Lean Teams, those that were organized and trained by Facilitators, should have their Value Stream Analyses completed. I have had success with doing the flow of the current method on long white butcher or brown wrapping paper taped around a conference room on the walls. The steps of the current method is completed first followed by the proposed improved method done directly under it. This is done to highlight the differences between the two methods. I suggest that some Functional Lean Teams with significant savings present their improved method to management. After the presentation the rolled document is given to a Budget Analyst to document the savings from the proposal in a spreadsheet. Budget Analysts are trained by the Principal Consultant and are part of the implementation staff.
Phase 4. Activities of the Principal Consultant
The Principal Consultant will play a key role in being sure that the Lean teams are properly trained and in the selection and approach of the high level Lean Teams. The Principal Consultant will insure that the activities of Budget Analysts can determine the correct staffing level through Work Measurement and any expenses needed during the process. Some Budget Analysts may find the proper staffing for variable processes difficult to determine, the Principal Consultant will make this determination when necessary. This data combined with the number of occurrences of the function over time, obtained from a daily log kept by each Lean Team, provides the basis for an accurate functional budget. The data from the rolled document will be kept on a spreadsheet by the Budget Analysts and summarized in a database where all of the states functional data is stored. The activities of Budget Analysts are important and will be followed closely by the Principal Consultant.
The Technical Reform Process
The technical reform process begins after the decision to implement Enterprise Lean and after the functional Lean teams have completed their Value Stream Mapping studies. The important data that is necessary for reform is the functional cost data developed by the Functional Lean Teams from their individual functions.
The data will be collected in electronic tablets including or Google Chromebooks using a spreadsheet program specifically designed for this process. All tablet spread sheets will be continuously updated using a special Google App (application). The Principal Management consultant will provide on the job training of Budget Analysts in the collection of this data and all subsequent reform steps.
Lean Team Data that is collected and allowed to accumulate
The following steps show how the Lean Team Data is collected and allowed to accumulate in the spreadsheet program and how the summarized data is used.
1. The VSM for each function will be documented in the spreadsheet.
2. All labor and expense cost data will be documented and allowed to accumulate as functions are added to the spreadsheet until all functions have been accounted for.
3. The names of the employees working on the function will be documented with any special expertise they are using in performing the function. Each employee’s labor hours expended in doing the function will be documented and allowed to accumulate. This data will be used during the Right-Sizing process.
4. Where there is interaction between several employees during the performance of the function as a part of the VSM a work load balancing chart will be a part of the documentation. This work load chart can be used later to balance the function’s work load.
5. When all of an Agencies Functions have been logged into the spread sheet the final labor hours and expense numbers will have been automatically tallied in the spread sheet along with the total hours worked by each employee in the particular function.
6. A key question asked of employees is the estimate for the number of times that the function is done per week and recorded in the spread sheet. This number is authenticated by history and other knowledgeable personnel including the enumeration of purchased goods consumed by the function.
7. The total annual accumulated functional hours is at 100% productivity and must be converted to provide a realistic number at 75% productivity. To make this conversion you will add 25% more time to the total or multiply the total time by 125%. This becomes the labor hours for staffing and budgeting and is what is referred to as a Gross Load among consultants. When all of the Agency’s functional labor hours have been accumulated at 125% and we add in the total annual expenses we have what I call a Bottoms-up Functional Budget.
8. Next we want to compare the Bottoms-up Budget with the current Top-Down Agency Budget. To do this we remove all management and overhead expenditures from the Agency’s Top-Down Budget to obtain an equal expenditure. Then we compare the Bottoms-up Budget with the Top-Down Budget. The Bottoms-up Budget should be 20% or more less than the Top-Down Budget. If this is not the case then we have introduced an error more than likely in the number of times that a Function is being performed annually. This should be resolved by reviewing the Lean data in the Agency’s spreadsheet.
9. We can now do Right-Sizing using the employee accumulated Lean data from the spreadsheet. As a rule of thumb the employee accumulated hours is separated between those who have accumulated more than 20 hours per week average and those who have accumulated less than 20 hours per week. Those who have accumulated less than 20 hours per week are considered to be redundant and slated for layoff. Their accumulated hours are spread among those with more than 20 hours per week increasing their hours to at least 37 hours per week. This involves reviewing each function and reassigning tasks to employees according to their capability and availability.
10. We now need to review the spreadsheet for those jobs noted as occurring on a random basis. These special jobs need to be separated form those jobs that occur on a continuing basis. An individual employee is specially trained to do the job of Work Planning, forecasting scheduling these jobs on a weekly basis.
11. The spreadsheets are stored on thumb drives for each Agency and protected. The labor data for each function is stored in a Database at 100% to be used for calculating productivity where required. The Database also includes the staffing and bottoms-up budgeting data. I recommend that the data be protected by an independent organization such as the State Auditor. This allows availability of the data for all who want to review the actual labor and expense cost of an Agency function including the Agency’s Bottoms-up Budget.
Phase 5. Organization Reform
In the final step of the General Reform Model the Principal Consultant will begin the process of organizational reform by replacing the Bureaucratic organization with a Team Management organization with top management managing the state’s activities through Group Teams with each managing several Functional Teams. The Lean Teams at the Functional level will become self managed Functional Teams with each of their elected leaders reporting directly to a Group Managed team. Group Managed Teams will assume their management role from the pre-organized high level Lean Six Sigma Teams. There is some flexibility in how this process actually occurs but it is necessary in order to eliminate the problems caused by the Bureaucratic organization. The important advantage in changing from a Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization is that the savings continues annually for years. But if the bureaucracy is allowed to stay in place after only a few years of mismanagement the level of staffing could grow to where it originally was. This is also the period of time for the reduction of redundant state government staff. Once it is known where staffing can be reduced layoffs or temporary reassignments should be completed within a month.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Article 46. Reinventing Texas Government to Operate Like a Private Business
By Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant December 16, 2013
This proposal was ignored by Texas State Bureaucrats. Possible saving to the State of Texas $1 Billion.
Over the years the Texas state government has successfully privatized many operations of the government. Indeed the Texas public would like to see the entire state government privatized. Reinventing a state government is thought to be nearly impossible but now we have an approach using the author’s General Reform Model that addresses the problems that prevent the state from operating like a private business. The process uses simplified steps making a smooth conversion of the entire state government to a Team Managed organization.
The biggest obstacle to reforming the Texas state government is the government itself. To start with the elected state legislature and Governor Perry must champion the reforms by implementing a State Reform Commission to oversee the implementation of the reforms. I would start the reforms with the Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) and when this is completed expand the reforms throughout the state government. The reason for doing the LBB first is that it is the powerful bureaucracy that runs the state government. The State Reform Commission transfers some of this power back to the elected officials allowing them to make reform decisions.
Another major problem is the state’s ineffective Budgeting method. State governments use a top-down budgeting system which is based on past expenditures in a Cash Accounting system. This obsolete budgeting system does not reflect what the actual cost of what any state function should be, only what was expended on the function in past years. In private businesses most costs are accumulated from the bottom-up enabling the accounting department to know what a function actually costs. The state’s top-down budget no doubt contains all the inefficiencies that one can think of. Top-down budgets are virtually worthless when trying to ascertain true costs for measuring in performance Management. This is the primary cause of inefficient government and it is used in nearly all state governments. The most costly assumption made by state governments is that the current top-down budgeting system makes bureaucratic agencies efficient. This budgeting problem is the primary reason for the state’s in ability to manage its functions like a private business.
A third problem is the state’s Bureaucratic organization structure itself. Bureaucracies tend to manage their public image more than the peoples business. Most are wasteful and are as much as 20% overstaffed creating a top heavy and sometimes toxic bureaucracy with many disgruntled employees. In the author’s General Reform Model the Functional Lean Teams become self managed and migrate smoothly to a new Team Managed organization.
The approach begins by examining all of the LBB’s processes simplifying them and making them efficient. This would be far too costly to be done by outside consulting firms. But not for an implementation of Enterprise Lean aka Toyota’s TPS (Toyota’s Production System) which trains all state employees to implement the changes to their jobs using a tool called Value Stream Mapping.
A fourth problem is the state’s obsolete IT Systems which need to be replaced with a modern Relational Database Management System. This recommendation is not a part of the proposal but its need will become obvious when the state government is reformed with its IT system also needing to be brought up to date. I suggest a new facility be built hardened against tornadoes for a Cloud IT System following the Washington State Example.
The following Proposal will Reinvent the Texas State Government and Make it operate even better than most private businesses.
Proposal for Texas State Government Reform
By Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant
Lawrence Rosier & Associates
Revised Proposal January 24, 2013
This proposal is for the reform of Texas’s state government with the implementation of the General Reform Model developed by Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant. I recommend that the implementation begin with the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) followed by the rest of the state government.
The General Reform Model implements Enterprise Lean throughout the state government. The Enterprise Lean concept was developed by Toyota to improve the culture of the company’s work force increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. Lean empowers employees to innovate and make continuous improvement to their jobs. The benefits to the state are from efficient operations but also the change in culture the way government employees view their jobs. In the second step of the General Reform Model; data developed by the Lean Teams is used for Work Measurement and from that staffing and budgeting is determined. The final step is the conversion of the Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization.
The main goal is to get the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible in state government while maintaining desired state services. The General Reform Model recommends that a “State Reform Commission” be authorized to have oversight of the implementation of the reforms with the Principal Management Consultant reporting to them while in charge of the day to day activities of the implementation of the reforms. The reason for having the Commission with oversight over the implementation of reforms is that state bureaucracies do not reform themselves.
A second goal is to add transparency to the actual costs associated with each state function with a new bottoms-up budget allowing the people’s elected representatives insight in to the budgetary process. The General Reform Model is designed to accomplish these goals through: changing the culture of government employees, determining the actual staffing required, the development a new bottoms-up budget and moving from a bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization.
Implementation of the reforms can be done at minimum cost to the state using a Lean professional trainer from a local University in a train-the-trainer project and a Management Consultant familiar with the General Reform Model. All other implementation staff are borrowed and trained from the states existing personnel using the state’s own resources. This has significant advantages with trained personnel remaining in key jobs with the state when compared with implementations involving a high number of outside Consultants who leave when the implementation is completed taking critical knowledge with them.
The Proposal for the Implementation of the General Reform Model
by Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant
I suggest meetings to allow Texas government leaders and staff members to become fully familiar with the primary method I am proposing using my General Reform Model. My other Reform Models should also be reviewed in this meeting as options for getting even greater efficiency in government. All Reform Models are based to some extent on the concept of employee involvement in Lean Teams.
The first step is the formation of a “Texas State Reform Commission” with broad powers to lead and implement state reforms. I suggest that the governor appoint the members of this commission with legislative approval. This is necessary for legitimacy and to make sure that data developed through Work Measurement is maintained and controlled in data bases by the elected Legislative Budget Committee and not by the individual agencies.
The first act of the State Reform Commission should be to implement Enterprise Lean
In the LBB and later throughout the state government. Planning for Lean Training should done by the Reform Commission meeting with the council of the Management Consultant. The purpose is to resolve issues related to Lean training, Facilitators, Budget Analysts and specifically what the Lean Teams must do to meet the requirements for determining staffing and budgets. Each Functional Lean Team is required to maintain a daily log kept by the Team leader. Lean training should begin immediately by the state’s training staff. I would suggest that the normal training curriculum be suspended and an all out effort be made for Lean Training. Training should be made for staff members first followed by management and then Lean Facilitators. Lean facilitators organize and train each employee functional Lean Team work group which meets for one hour on a weekly basis. I suggest that the best Facilitators may be borrowed from HR staff but I have had success with secretaries and even copy machine operators. I do not bring any of my own staff to the job but chose to use and train current state employees to fill key implementation jobs.
There are two major Lean Team groups, high level and at-the-work-place Functional Lean Teams. High level Lean Teams use Management staff and are tasked to study inter-department and agency document flows. They may also be tasked is in the Consolidating Boards and Commissions Model. A third possible task is in the Consolidation of State Government Services Model. A key element of the High level Lean Teams is their role in management when converting from the bureaucratic organization to the Team Managed organization.
After a period of about six months most Functional Lean Teams, those that were organized and trained by Facilitators, should have their Value Stream Analyses completed. I have had success with doing the flow of the current method on long white butcher or brown wrapping paper taped around a conference room on the walls. The steps of the current method is completed first followed by the proposed improved method done directly under it. This is done to highlight the differences between the methods. I suggest that some Functional Lean Teams with significant savings present their improved method to management. After the presentation the rolled document is given to a Budget Analyst to determine the savings from the proposal. Budget Analysts are trained by the Management Consultant and are part of the implementation staff.
Activities of the Management Consultant
The management consultant will play a key role in being sure that the Lean teams are properly trained and the in selection and approach of the high level Lean teams. The Management consultant will insure that the activities of Budget Analysts currently employed by the state can determine the correct staffing level through Work Measurement and any expenses needed during the process. Some Budget Analysts may find the proper staffing for variable processes difficult to determine. If so the Analyst should wait for the Management Consultant to make this determination. This data combined with the number of occurrences of the function over time, obtained from a daily log kept by each Lean Team, provides the basis for an accurate functional budget. The data from the rolled document should be kept on a spread sheet by the Budget Analysts and summarized in a database where all of the states functional data is stored. The activities of Budget Analysts are important and will be followed closely by the Management consultant.
The Management Consultant will make a final review for the actual staffing required. Note that in most cases this is not a simple calculation due to variations in the times required to do even the same processes. Consolidation is required meaning most employees who currently do not have an activity that takes up their full time will have to be trained to also do a second activity while other employees will become redundant. The main skill required is in balancing the work load to give the remaining employees a full time job. This may be further complicated by activities which continually change and will require the training of a Work Planner to balance the work load assignments for those employees on a weekly basis.
In the final step the Management Consultant will begin the process of organizational reform by replacing the Bureaucratic organization with a Team Management organization with top management managing the state’s activities through Group Teams with each managing several Functional Teams. The Lean Teams at the Functional level will become self managed Functional teams with each of their elected leaders reporting directly to a Group Managed team. Group Managed Teams will assume their management role from the pre-organized high level Lean Teams. There is some flexibility in how this process actually occurs but it is necessary in order to eliminate the problems caused by the bureaucratic organization. The important advantage in changing from a Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization is that the savings continues annually for years. But if the bureaucracy is allowed to stay in place after only a few years the level of staffing could grow to where it originally was. This is also the period of time for the reduction of redundant state government staff. Once it is known where staffing can be reduced layoffs or temporary reassignments should be completed within a month.
I have provided the following options to ease the trauma of layoffs.
1. Review State obligations to the public for new programs creating new jobs for personnel.
2. Over the years Texas has privatized part of its government I recommend that these parts of the state government be brought back and staffed with redundant government personnel. Because the new state reforms will make all of government more efficient than its privatized parts. These privatized parts of government will not be able to compete with government employees and still make a profit.
3. Explore the option of using Lean trained personnel in assisting City and County governments in the implementation of the General Reform Model at the local level.
4. Explore the option of the Four Day Workweek. A 36 hour workweek instantly increases productivity by 10%. The state of Utah has done this successfully.
5. Keep most redundant personnel in temporary jobs allowing attrition through continuous improvement.
Current knowledge about staffing has shown that nearly all bureaucracies are overstaffed by at least 10% and most are overstaffed by as much as 20%. But I have also found over staffing up to 30% and higher. Savings for the state of Texas from staff reductions (salaries and benefits) I estimate to be from $900 million to $1 billion from census data. For this estimate I have assumed up to 20% over staffing from regular employees and management. The actual savings to the state of Texas will most likely be larger than this estimate.
Lawrence Rosier & Associates 12143 Cedar Grove Rd. Rolla Missouri 65401
573 364 8789 Cell 573 578 4716
Email: lawrencerosier4@gmail.com
Website: http://lawrencerosierconsulting.blogspot.com
This proposal was ignored by Texas State Bureaucrats. Possible saving to the State of Texas $1 Billion.
Over the years the Texas state government has successfully privatized many operations of the government. Indeed the Texas public would like to see the entire state government privatized. Reinventing a state government is thought to be nearly impossible but now we have an approach using the author’s General Reform Model that addresses the problems that prevent the state from operating like a private business. The process uses simplified steps making a smooth conversion of the entire state government to a Team Managed organization.
The biggest obstacle to reforming the Texas state government is the government itself. To start with the elected state legislature and Governor Perry must champion the reforms by implementing a State Reform Commission to oversee the implementation of the reforms. I would start the reforms with the Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) and when this is completed expand the reforms throughout the state government. The reason for doing the LBB first is that it is the powerful bureaucracy that runs the state government. The State Reform Commission transfers some of this power back to the elected officials allowing them to make reform decisions.
Another major problem is the state’s ineffective Budgeting method. State governments use a top-down budgeting system which is based on past expenditures in a Cash Accounting system. This obsolete budgeting system does not reflect what the actual cost of what any state function should be, only what was expended on the function in past years. In private businesses most costs are accumulated from the bottom-up enabling the accounting department to know what a function actually costs. The state’s top-down budget no doubt contains all the inefficiencies that one can think of. Top-down budgets are virtually worthless when trying to ascertain true costs for measuring in performance Management. This is the primary cause of inefficient government and it is used in nearly all state governments. The most costly assumption made by state governments is that the current top-down budgeting system makes bureaucratic agencies efficient. This budgeting problem is the primary reason for the state’s in ability to manage its functions like a private business.
A third problem is the state’s Bureaucratic organization structure itself. Bureaucracies tend to manage their public image more than the peoples business. Most are wasteful and are as much as 20% overstaffed creating a top heavy and sometimes toxic bureaucracy with many disgruntled employees. In the author’s General Reform Model the Functional Lean Teams become self managed and migrate smoothly to a new Team Managed organization.
The approach begins by examining all of the LBB’s processes simplifying them and making them efficient. This would be far too costly to be done by outside consulting firms. But not for an implementation of Enterprise Lean aka Toyota’s TPS (Toyota’s Production System) which trains all state employees to implement the changes to their jobs using a tool called Value Stream Mapping.
A fourth problem is the state’s obsolete IT Systems which need to be replaced with a modern Relational Database Management System. This recommendation is not a part of the proposal but its need will become obvious when the state government is reformed with its IT system also needing to be brought up to date. I suggest a new facility be built hardened against tornadoes for a Cloud IT System following the Washington State Example.
The following Proposal will Reinvent the Texas State Government and Make it operate even better than most private businesses.
Proposal for Texas State Government Reform
By Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant
Lawrence Rosier & Associates
Revised Proposal January 24, 2013
This proposal is for the reform of Texas’s state government with the implementation of the General Reform Model developed by Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant. I recommend that the implementation begin with the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) followed by the rest of the state government.
The General Reform Model implements Enterprise Lean throughout the state government. The Enterprise Lean concept was developed by Toyota to improve the culture of the company’s work force increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. Lean empowers employees to innovate and make continuous improvement to their jobs. The benefits to the state are from efficient operations but also the change in culture the way government employees view their jobs. In the second step of the General Reform Model; data developed by the Lean Teams is used for Work Measurement and from that staffing and budgeting is determined. The final step is the conversion of the Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization.
The main goal is to get the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible in state government while maintaining desired state services. The General Reform Model recommends that a “State Reform Commission” be authorized to have oversight of the implementation of the reforms with the Principal Management Consultant reporting to them while in charge of the day to day activities of the implementation of the reforms. The reason for having the Commission with oversight over the implementation of reforms is that state bureaucracies do not reform themselves.
A second goal is to add transparency to the actual costs associated with each state function with a new bottoms-up budget allowing the people’s elected representatives insight in to the budgetary process. The General Reform Model is designed to accomplish these goals through: changing the culture of government employees, determining the actual staffing required, the development a new bottoms-up budget and moving from a bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization.
Implementation of the reforms can be done at minimum cost to the state using a Lean professional trainer from a local University in a train-the-trainer project and a Management Consultant familiar with the General Reform Model. All other implementation staff are borrowed and trained from the states existing personnel using the state’s own resources. This has significant advantages with trained personnel remaining in key jobs with the state when compared with implementations involving a high number of outside Consultants who leave when the implementation is completed taking critical knowledge with them.
The Proposal for the Implementation of the General Reform Model
by Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant
I suggest meetings to allow Texas government leaders and staff members to become fully familiar with the primary method I am proposing using my General Reform Model. My other Reform Models should also be reviewed in this meeting as options for getting even greater efficiency in government. All Reform Models are based to some extent on the concept of employee involvement in Lean Teams.
The first step is the formation of a “Texas State Reform Commission” with broad powers to lead and implement state reforms. I suggest that the governor appoint the members of this commission with legislative approval. This is necessary for legitimacy and to make sure that data developed through Work Measurement is maintained and controlled in data bases by the elected Legislative Budget Committee and not by the individual agencies.
The first act of the State Reform Commission should be to implement Enterprise Lean
In the LBB and later throughout the state government. Planning for Lean Training should done by the Reform Commission meeting with the council of the Management Consultant. The purpose is to resolve issues related to Lean training, Facilitators, Budget Analysts and specifically what the Lean Teams must do to meet the requirements for determining staffing and budgets. Each Functional Lean Team is required to maintain a daily log kept by the Team leader. Lean training should begin immediately by the state’s training staff. I would suggest that the normal training curriculum be suspended and an all out effort be made for Lean Training. Training should be made for staff members first followed by management and then Lean Facilitators. Lean facilitators organize and train each employee functional Lean Team work group which meets for one hour on a weekly basis. I suggest that the best Facilitators may be borrowed from HR staff but I have had success with secretaries and even copy machine operators. I do not bring any of my own staff to the job but chose to use and train current state employees to fill key implementation jobs.
There are two major Lean Team groups, high level and at-the-work-place Functional Lean Teams. High level Lean Teams use Management staff and are tasked to study inter-department and agency document flows. They may also be tasked is in the Consolidating Boards and Commissions Model. A third possible task is in the Consolidation of State Government Services Model. A key element of the High level Lean Teams is their role in management when converting from the bureaucratic organization to the Team Managed organization.
After a period of about six months most Functional Lean Teams, those that were organized and trained by Facilitators, should have their Value Stream Analyses completed. I have had success with doing the flow of the current method on long white butcher or brown wrapping paper taped around a conference room on the walls. The steps of the current method is completed first followed by the proposed improved method done directly under it. This is done to highlight the differences between the methods. I suggest that some Functional Lean Teams with significant savings present their improved method to management. After the presentation the rolled document is given to a Budget Analyst to determine the savings from the proposal. Budget Analysts are trained by the Management Consultant and are part of the implementation staff.
Activities of the Management Consultant
The management consultant will play a key role in being sure that the Lean teams are properly trained and the in selection and approach of the high level Lean teams. The Management consultant will insure that the activities of Budget Analysts currently employed by the state can determine the correct staffing level through Work Measurement and any expenses needed during the process. Some Budget Analysts may find the proper staffing for variable processes difficult to determine. If so the Analyst should wait for the Management Consultant to make this determination. This data combined with the number of occurrences of the function over time, obtained from a daily log kept by each Lean Team, provides the basis for an accurate functional budget. The data from the rolled document should be kept on a spread sheet by the Budget Analysts and summarized in a database where all of the states functional data is stored. The activities of Budget Analysts are important and will be followed closely by the Management consultant.
The Management Consultant will make a final review for the actual staffing required. Note that in most cases this is not a simple calculation due to variations in the times required to do even the same processes. Consolidation is required meaning most employees who currently do not have an activity that takes up their full time will have to be trained to also do a second activity while other employees will become redundant. The main skill required is in balancing the work load to give the remaining employees a full time job. This may be further complicated by activities which continually change and will require the training of a Work Planner to balance the work load assignments for those employees on a weekly basis.
In the final step the Management Consultant will begin the process of organizational reform by replacing the Bureaucratic organization with a Team Management organization with top management managing the state’s activities through Group Teams with each managing several Functional Teams. The Lean Teams at the Functional level will become self managed Functional teams with each of their elected leaders reporting directly to a Group Managed team. Group Managed Teams will assume their management role from the pre-organized high level Lean Teams. There is some flexibility in how this process actually occurs but it is necessary in order to eliminate the problems caused by the bureaucratic organization. The important advantage in changing from a Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization is that the savings continues annually for years. But if the bureaucracy is allowed to stay in place after only a few years the level of staffing could grow to where it originally was. This is also the period of time for the reduction of redundant state government staff. Once it is known where staffing can be reduced layoffs or temporary reassignments should be completed within a month.
I have provided the following options to ease the trauma of layoffs.
1. Review State obligations to the public for new programs creating new jobs for personnel.
2. Over the years Texas has privatized part of its government I recommend that these parts of the state government be brought back and staffed with redundant government personnel. Because the new state reforms will make all of government more efficient than its privatized parts. These privatized parts of government will not be able to compete with government employees and still make a profit.
3. Explore the option of using Lean trained personnel in assisting City and County governments in the implementation of the General Reform Model at the local level.
4. Explore the option of the Four Day Workweek. A 36 hour workweek instantly increases productivity by 10%. The state of Utah has done this successfully.
5. Keep most redundant personnel in temporary jobs allowing attrition through continuous improvement.
Current knowledge about staffing has shown that nearly all bureaucracies are overstaffed by at least 10% and most are overstaffed by as much as 20%. But I have also found over staffing up to 30% and higher. Savings for the state of Texas from staff reductions (salaries and benefits) I estimate to be from $900 million to $1 billion from census data. For this estimate I have assumed up to 20% over staffing from regular employees and management. The actual savings to the state of Texas will most likely be larger than this estimate.
Lawrence Rosier & Associates 12143 Cedar Grove Rd. Rolla Missouri 65401
573 364 8789 Cell 573 578 4716
Email: lawrencerosier4@gmail.com
Website: http://lawrencerosierconsulting.blogspot.com
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Article 45. A Unified Approach to Government Change in Missouri
The
following Missouri State Committees are related to Government Reform
yet each is seen as a separate initiative. Only when State Government
reform is viewed as unified approach which identifies and solves state
problems can any real progress be made. The surest way to avoid change
is to approach change as unrelated fragmented initiatives.
1. APPROPRIATIONS - GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, Standing
2. APPROPRIATIONS - REVENUE, TRANSPORTATION, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Standing
3. BUDGET, Standing
4. DOWNSIZING STATE GOVERNMENT, Standing
5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Standing
6. FISCAL REVIEW, Standing
7. GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY, Standing
8. INTERIM BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE ON STATE DEPARTMENT WORKPLACE ABUSE, Interim
9. INTERIM COMMITTEE ON IMPROVING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY, Interim
10. INTERIM COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROCESS, Interim
11. JOINT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, Statutory
12. JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE ON REDUCING THE SIZE OF STATE GOVERNMENT, Interim
My approach to Reforming Missouri’s State government Starts with the identification and correction of government Problems through the use of Enterprise Lean the first step of my General Reform Model.
See Article 36. False Assumptions by government Leaders.
Government Management problems:
The key to management as identified in private business is that you must have "on record" the actual cost of all government processes. This does not exist in Missouri’s state government which uses a Top-Down budget that is updated to cover increased expenses each year. Without the knowledge of actual costs there can be no real management taking place in Missouri’s government.
We can Change Missouri’s government by implementing Enterprise Lean which corrects fundamental problems in Missouri’s government using my General Reform Model.
1. Empowers government Employees to innovate and make continuous improvements to their jobs.
2. Finds and corrects inefficiencies in all government processes and systems.
3. Determines the actual costs of all government processes allowing real management to occur.
4. The Lean data can be used for Right-Sizing (makes sure all government employees have a full time Job) and staffing of government functions.
5. The Lean data can be also be used to create a Bottoms-up budget of actual costs of all government functions.
6. The lean data can be used to manage government by measuring the efficiency of government functions.
Lawrence Rosier's State Reform Models were designed to correct state government problems.
1. The General Reform Model
2. Streamlining state government Boards and Commissions Reform Model
3. Consolidation Reform Model
4. State Information Technology Cloud Data Center
For the details see Article 12. Lawrence Rosier's State Reform Models.
Excluding #4. The State Information Technology Data Center which will be done by others. The annual savings for this implementation is between $200 and $300 million. The Return on Investment could be more than $500 for each dollar invested.
1. APPROPRIATIONS - GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, Standing
2. APPROPRIATIONS - REVENUE, TRANSPORTATION, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Standing
3. BUDGET, Standing
4. DOWNSIZING STATE GOVERNMENT, Standing
5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Standing
6. FISCAL REVIEW, Standing
7. GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY, Standing
8. INTERIM BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE ON STATE DEPARTMENT WORKPLACE ABUSE, Interim
9. INTERIM COMMITTEE ON IMPROVING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY, Interim
10. INTERIM COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROCESS, Interim
11. JOINT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, Statutory
12. JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE ON REDUCING THE SIZE OF STATE GOVERNMENT, Interim
My approach to Reforming Missouri’s State government Starts with the identification and correction of government Problems through the use of Enterprise Lean the first step of my General Reform Model.
See Article 36. False Assumptions by government Leaders.
Government Management problems:
The key to management as identified in private business is that you must have "on record" the actual cost of all government processes. This does not exist in Missouri’s state government which uses a Top-Down budget that is updated to cover increased expenses each year. Without the knowledge of actual costs there can be no real management taking place in Missouri’s government.
We can Change Missouri’s government by implementing Enterprise Lean which corrects fundamental problems in Missouri’s government using my General Reform Model.
1. Empowers government Employees to innovate and make continuous improvements to their jobs.
2. Finds and corrects inefficiencies in all government processes and systems.
3. Determines the actual costs of all government processes allowing real management to occur.
4. The Lean data can be used for Right-Sizing (makes sure all government employees have a full time Job) and staffing of government functions.
5. The Lean data can be also be used to create a Bottoms-up budget of actual costs of all government functions.
6. The lean data can be used to manage government by measuring the efficiency of government functions.
Lawrence Rosier's State Reform Models were designed to correct state government problems.
1. The General Reform Model
2. Streamlining state government Boards and Commissions Reform Model
3. Consolidation Reform Model
4. State Information Technology Cloud Data Center
For the details see Article 12. Lawrence Rosier's State Reform Models.
Excluding #4. The State Information Technology Data Center which will be done by others. The annual savings for this implementation is between $200 and $300 million. The Return on Investment could be more than $500 for each dollar invested.
Article 44. Why Enterprise Lean Should be Implemented in Missouri
Enterprise
Lean aka Toyota’s TPS(Toyota’s Production System) is implemented in
nearly the entire state government. It empowers state employees to find
the “best method” for doing a job and to make continuous improvements to
their jobs. It has been successfully implemented in more than a dozen
states most notably: Minnesota, Iowa, Washington State, Maryland,
Michigan and others. Most of the success stories are about document
turnaround times. In fact Missouri was one of the first states to use
Lean to reduce the turnaround time of State Income Tax refunds from
months to just days.
Reference:
1. Minnesota's Enterprise Lean: http://www.lean.state.mn.us/
2. State of Iowa Office of Lean Enterprise: http://lean.iowa.gov/
3. Washington State: "Lean Transformation Report 2012 and Beyond": http://www.results.wa.gov/ whatWeDo/applyLean/documents/ 2012LeanReport.pdf
See the following articles for more examples of Enterprise Lean success stories:
Article 6. What is Enterprise Lean and other Manufacturing Efficiency Methods?
Article 8. Twenty Five Case Studies Using Lean in Government
Article 9. False Assumptions and Beliefs Made by Government Leaders
Article 38. City and County Consolidation in Ohio and Missouri
Article 40. Election Reform Yields Savings in Missouri
Reference:
1. Minnesota's Enterprise Lean: http://www.lean.state.mn.us/
2. State of Iowa Office of Lean Enterprise: http://lean.iowa.gov/
3. Washington State: "Lean Transformation Report 2012 and Beyond": http://www.results.wa.gov/
See the following articles for more examples of Enterprise Lean success stories:
Article 6. What is Enterprise Lean and other Manufacturing Efficiency Methods?
Article 8. Twenty Five Case Studies Using Lean in Government
Article 9. False Assumptions and Beliefs Made by Government Leaders
Article 38. City and County Consolidation in Ohio and Missouri
Article 40. Election Reform Yields Savings in Missouri
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Article 43. Lean Government's Promise of Going 'Lean'
Comment by Lawrence Rosier
This is an excellent article on the growing use of Lean in government in 2009. But today (2013) I recommend:
1. the application of Lean Six Sigma for high level systems and systems that cross organizational barriers.
2. Followed by the implementation of Enterprise Lean throughout the organization to make all subsystems efficient and effective. 3. Followed by the use of the Lean data developed from Enterprise Lean to reform government getting the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible.
Lean Government's Promise of Going 'Lean'
It's the latest, busiest trend in government management. Just don't call it a fad. by Ken Miller
|
May 21, 2009 Governing Magazine
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.
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.
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. |
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)