<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Six Sigma Blogs at the iSixSigma Blogosphere</title>
		<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/RSS2.asp?action=full</link>
		<description>Six Sigma Blogs at the iSixSigma Blogosphere</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2004-2009 iSixSigma</copyright>
		<managingEditor>blogosphere@isixsigma.com</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>blogosphere@isixsigma.com</webMaster>
		<generator>iSixSigma Blog 1.0.5</generator>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:36:46 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    	<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: State of Maine – CI-P's Visit Lonza.]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/state_of_maine__ci_ps_visit_lonza.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On Monday June 1, 2009 Continuous Improvement Practitioners (CI-P), from the State of Maine "Bend the Curve” initiative, led by Walter Lowell, conducted a study mission at Lonza in Rockland Maine. To quote from the Lonza web site, “Lonza is one of the world’s leading suppliers to the pharmaceutical, healthcare and life science industries. Its products and services span its customers’ needs from research to final product manufacture.”
Lonza recently began some Six Sigma initiatives including Value Stream mapping and specific Kaizen and Kanban analysis that have reduced waste, lowered required inventory, automated some processes, increased productivity and saved money in most every area reviewed. Jon Kirsh, formerly with MEP Maine has new VSM planned for a number of other areas and is hoping for the same results. 
The most impressive changes according to Jon included a 5S review of the research and develop workshop and the incorporation of KANBAN signs in various production areas to alert staff of lowed inventory or need for other resource ordering. Six Sigma tools have made a significant difference in the work that LONZA does. I enjoyed seeing the practical and economical process changes these tools have effected at LONZA.
]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:23:44 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Management by Brutality is MUDA]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/management_by_brutality_is_muda.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I can not help but wonder if there is a Six Sigma tool for managers to use before they decide to administer discipline or impose a behavior intervention to a poorly performing employee.  Management style is one of the key factors affecting high employee morale, optimum functioning and low turnover.  When high morale is present, process improvement initiatives are embraced by employees and capacity increases.  Seems some managers still have not learned this universal truth. 
In the private sector the owner of a company does not have to be nice or effective, he or she owns the company.  Long term it is possible for ineffective management to survive if there are mitigating influences among other senior managers.   If you read Henry Ford you see very clearly that he believed that if the owner cares about his employees capacity will increase and be sustained.   
More difficult to accept are managers in the public sector who think the department they manage belongs to them.  They think they can step on, yell at and or berate employees without consequence.  They were appointed by the elected governing body and some believe they are immune to disciplinary actions for poor management decisions or unethical confrontation/intervention with employees.  If a direct service employee publically or even privately criticizes a manager, some time in the near future that employee may receive a  poor performance evaluation and the case to terminate will be opened. This will teach a lesson to the free speech expression in the workplace and further confine direct service employees to keep their opinions to them selves.  In the public civil service environment this seems counter productive. Muda in six sigma speak, if managers are spending their time “going after” employees who is managing the department?  
So what can be done when it is clear that a department manager is ineffective or disrespectful of employees?  Political reality poses that some governing authorities protect its appointees without regard to the truth of their mismanagement or ineffective management style.   It is the job of the governing authorities to confront this manager? No or maybe, that decision is up to the elected authority and how public opinion influences their decisions. But, in the interest of continuous improvement, a much better response is to set a clear professional expectation that self examination, at all times with all work related behavior, is part of the agency management philosophy.  Then managers catch them selves on unethical or questionable actions, hopefully before the action takes place, and ultimately employee morale stays positive or improves and capacity increases with the other process improvement initiatives. If they never look in the proverbial mirror, well… I would like to think most do and really work hard to treat subordinate employees with respect.
That, in an ideal world of work, would be wonderful.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:55:49 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Johnny the Bagger]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/johnny_the_bagger.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This was sent to me by a friend and I thought about how important it is that we view Continuous Improvement as so much more than measurement
http://www.stservicemovie.com/
ON Ward!
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:38:54 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Federal Contract Process]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_federal_contract_process.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Saw an article this week in the Federal Computer Week emagazine about our new President making federal contracting more efficient.  This is great news and about time.  http://fcw.com/articles/2009/03/04/obama-reforms-contracting.aspx?s=fcwdaily_050309
This looks very promising for the Lean Government Champions. Sounds like a job for a Continuous Improvement Practitioner.  Are there any CI-P's in the federal government yet?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Government]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:07:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Continuous Improvement is More Than Measurement]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/continuous_improvement_is_more_than_measurement.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Andrew’s recent reflections about the relevance of continuous improvement practitioners in these times mirror my thoughts with an added perspective.  If lean thinking and continuous improvement were only about measuring production and process I would wholly agree.  However, continuous improvement, in my mind, is more about positive change and moving toward perfection than it is specifically about process measurement.  Measurement of tasks completed and widgets made is one of many ways to determine if you are improving.  
Measurement of production tells you if you are meeting your goals.  It is a way of keeping score.  What about measuring the quality of life, attitude, self assessment, compassion, selflessness as it relates to employees and their families?  Certainly change and improvement is needed is this arena, a least for some corporate leaders. (peanuts and publically funded retention awards immediately come to mind).  
The tools of our trade cannot only include strategies to improve the measurement and thus quality of a process but must include teaching other less finite but still important concepts and work strategies related to maintaining a positive attitude in light of hard times.  If you re-read Henry Ford and see some of thepotentially overwhelming challenges he faced while developing his product and process, you will see this added tool of continuous improvement  being used. 
We are more than our measuring tools. We are human beings working towards perfecting work processes and in some cases the people that control those processes.  If we focus only on the process, we run the risk of making the people obsolete.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:20:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Christmas Lights - A Lean Challenge]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/christmas_lights_a_lean_challenge.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I got this from a friend and decided to share it with my friends at Six Sigma.  I thought this might represent the process many use when they don’t plan.  Just get the job done. Don’t worry about process or structure or planning.  Just do it. Hm.... You think a value stream map would help?
My wife has been on my case to get the lights up and I did it. Now I can’t figure out why she isn’t talking to me!
 
  
Happy Holidays
Stephen]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:06:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Banking]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_banking.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I can’t help but wonder if banking and finance has an administrative concept equal or similar to lean process strategic planning. 
As accounting goes I suspect that efficiency, correct mathematical computation and balanced accounts all are considered important and of value to the banking customer.  But what is the value added to high or irresponsible risk? 
Certainly the possible return is always measured against the potential risk, but if all investment were guaranteed by some umbrella organization then we all would be in the banking business. 
Seems very clear that lean thinking, customer value and reduction of waste is missing in the deliberations of some companies in the finance industry. Maybe they could learn something from the manufacturing industry? 
Just a thought.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:46:34 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Creativity and Lean Process Analysis]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/creativity_and_lean_process_analysis.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This morning as I read Sue Kozlowski’s blog about her husband and the “common sense” factor of lean six-sigma process analysis, I decided to apply this thinking to a recent experience at work. Are there work environments where process analysis should not be applied? Where common sense is the standard? Here is my thought process. 
I recently participated in a collective bargaining negotiation in a public sector organization. I was on the team representing a class of employees who were requesting a reclassification of their pay scale. The process moved from opening statements by each side, directly into negotiation when management made a request to discuss a settlement compromise. Since the arbitrator is hired by both sides to resolve the conflict with a decision based on the evidence presented or some other resolution, he facilitated this mediation process. This certainly was lean thinking at first. If an agreement could be reached we would reduce the time muda that hours of testimony would take up. However, the result was quite the opposite. The management team left the room and the arbitrator volleyed back and forth between the conference rooms we each occupied carrying offers and counter offers. After six hours, where testimony might have taken only three or four, we had a agreement that could be presented to membership for a vote. Now the vote will take a few weeks and if rejected we are back at the hearing with no result and lots of time wasted, but if it is accepted time is saved.  Common sense might have motivated the arbitrator to still take testimony, but how much time might that have taken? The final outcome in any deliberation can not be easily predicted or measured as is possible with finite quantifiable processes.
I wondered… what other work environments is the human interpretation element an integral part of the work? Congress, medicine, education? Can lean thinking be applied to the legal or other professional systems of work? Can careful deliberation be quantified, time limited or standardized? Can the professional judgments made by judges, lawyers, doctors, counselors or teachers be standardized? My prima facie conclusion is no. Certainly much of the administrative process can be standardized, but analyzing data from human interpersonal behavior and related biological or psychological function is subject to multiple factors and may not be easily quantified or standardized. As trained professionals gain experience their decisions come quicker as various familiar senarios appear. That timely critical analysis skill is an important factor in assessing professional competance and value. How do you measure that experience? 
That being said… I have some measurable chores to do at home today and the deliberation required to write this column is using that precious time. Hm… choice, creative activity or necessary survival tasks? Balance is the key. Have a great Saturday. 
]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:24:58 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Leadership: Right tools, Centered source]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/leadership_right_tools_centered_source.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Tools are wonderful. Have you ever tried to unscrew a Phillips head screw with a wrench?  Of course not.  The right tool is critical to the job.  Six Sigma tools are a wonderful technological advance that can transform an organization when used in the correct context.  This is undisputable. Resistance is futile.  But the ability to choose and implement the best change tool or process is not the only factor we must look for in leaders.  Certainly their analysis and skill in choosing the best tool for the situation is critical, but again this is not the end of the story.   There is another factor that in most cases will assure success of the goal.  
C. Otto Scharmer discusses this factor in an article called Uncovering the Blind Spot of Leadership.  He asks readers to question the source of the leader.  He suggests 4 kinds of listening which describe how leaders and others listen to team members when group problem solving is occurring.  Generative listening is the most effective of the four kinds because, “This level of listening requires us to access our open will—our capacity to connect to the highest future possibility that can emerge.” 
When the leader and group members are listening from this place transformation and new visions are created from the group which can then be planned and implemented for the good of the organization.  
I encourage all  Six Sigma practitioners and leaders to check this article out.  I plan to read his book on Theory U which outlines more in depth the author’s thinking on organizational development.  I think it will give leaders and others who want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem some excellent perspective.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:07:26 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Do the Public Policy Guru's get it?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/do_the_public_policy_gurus_get_it.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lean government is making public sector inroads through out the US.  It is exciting to see this.  But I am worried.  Some managers seem to see it as a weapon, rather than a tool.   “The legislature is making us more accountable so we have to do something or else”.   “Do more with less”.  “Cut staff so we can lower the budget”.  These attitudes have nothing to do with lean government and everything to do with poor public policy. 
It is important for Lean process analysis to gain some better more understandable public recognition.  This needs to be done by not only the Champions, and Managers but more importantly practitioners who understand public policy language.  The facts show that lean process analysis and implementation can make a difference between a well run efficient and value laden government service and a wasteful bureaucratic mess. 
Are any candidates listening?
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 05:09:53 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: More Henry Ford]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/more_henry_ford.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My Lean Thinking colleagues in Maine State Government have also been looking for quotes in Henry Fords writing that would speak to our movement toward more efficient and productive work as individuals, companies and communities.  The one that was chosen for their monthly news letter speaks to the people side of lean. It speaks of the major cause of resistance and poor function in human beings participating in the transformational change that lean process analysis can bring.  When I read this month news letter there it was staring at me.
 

 
“ I pity the poor fellow who is so soft and flabby that he must always have "an atmosphere of good feeling" around him before he can do his work. There are such men. And in the end, unless they obtain enough mental and moral hardiness to lift them out of their soft reliance on "feeling," they are failures”. [i]  
 
 

Whew. Sounds a little strong for todays human resource function. But when you can get past the fatherly toughness you can see that Henry is absolutely right.  Like most self respecting professional continuous improvement professionals, before I looked at all the “other” flabby people in my work environment (clients and professional colleagues) I took a glance at myself.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not into self destruction, but I was raised with the belief that you should look for the log in your own eye before seeking the splinter in another’s eye.  How flabby am I either physically or emotionally?  Honest self assessment?  That is a very difficult thing for many of us to do.  We get very good at measuring process, cycle time, machine tool tolerances and others performance.  But how good are we at looking at self?  I have discovered when I am able to self assess my own production flaws I am much more able to objectively review others. 

 
So I when I worked out last night I worked extra hard and vowed to move towards strength and away from flabby.  Strengthing body and mind through exercise and related activities is one strategy to improve this function.  

 
Another strategy is to examine the response we have when our feelings arise as we are trying to compete our daily tasks. There is a great list of short sayings called  Constructive Living Maxims [ii] which can help each of us get past our feeling and back to what needs being done.  Keep these handy when you start to feel like not working, they may be the thought that puts you back on task.

 
A third strategy for overcoming the power of feelings is good planning. If you do not have a map or plan, feelings can easily become the driving source of decisions.  Then you are in big trouble. When you do not have a plan, you are planning to fail.  What planning tool to you use? There are some six sigma planning tools that can be used.  I know of another.  I recently began working with some old process friends who have developed a planning tool for students and communities.  We used it almost 10 years ago when I chaired our community’s comprehensive plan committee.  The tool is called Running Start .  I am working with them to adapt this tool for disabled adults participating in the voc rehab process and returning veterans who are integrating back into the community. This personal planning process facilitates the development of a plan, gives quantitative feedback regarding the progress being made and keeps you on track so feelings do not dominate decisions and you work the plan which has been developed. It might be a good process to use to reach the decision that you need a Value Stream Map to identify your prime contraint or waste and other process innefficiencies, although the tool alone will help identify those things as well.
 


How does all this relate to Six Sigma?  Seems flabby is much like muda and causes significant reduction in our physical and emotional efficiency. How big is your log? Mine is shrinking, I hope.
 

Bye the way, Michael thanks for the new BB LSS certification process you mentioned in your recent column on April 4, 2008. I now have a certificate on my wall too!  Just like the strawman in the Wizard of Oz. How transformational!




[i] Ford, Henry – My Life and Work, The Project Gutenberg: Release Date: January, 2005-EBook #7213, Produced by Marvin Hodges, Tom Allen, Eric Eldred, Charles Franks and the DP Team
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7213
 

[ii]  Reynolds, David – Constructive Living Maxims – For more about David Reynolds see http://boat.zero.ad.jp/~zbe85163/
. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:52:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Revisiting Henry Ford]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/revisiting_henry_ford.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been re-reading Henry Fords book “My Life and Work”. I got the idea to re-read this from Walter Lowell, the Lean Initiative Director at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. It is available as an e-book from The Project Gutenberg.(see below)
In this wonderful book Ford talks about how he developed the horseless carriage. In terms of efficiency and lean use of energy, this was one of the first innovative engineering ideas that contributed to the industrialization of America. We all know the story and how it developed including Henry’s idea of interchangeable parts and, I would argue, one of the first Value Stream Mapping demonstrations of the lean use of people using the manufacturing production line. This led me to thinking about our current manufacturing dilemma in America and how my professional training in job analysis and vocational rehabilitation could begin to create some solutions for our manufacturing industry in America. More importantly my client base everyday is growing with 50 something men and women who only know how to use their hands to make stuff.  They find themselves unemployed or underemployed and worn out from $8.00 dollar an hour service jobs and in dire need of some real work and a livable wage. They have worked in construction and manufacturing and now can’t find anything reasonable to do. 
All political rhetoric aside it is a real problem for many American citizens both disabled and able bodied. How can lean thinking utilized by our government and manufacturing sector begin to solve this problem. What would Henry do?
As I read Henry’s book I looked for inspiration to combine all this evolving knowledge I have recently gained with the problem of our shrinking industrial base and my charge to help individuals with disabilities and related barriers find and maintain gainful employment in an integrated and competitive employment environment. This was the first quote I decided to build upon.
“The Government is a servant and never should be anything but a servant. The moment the people become adjuncts to government, then the law of retribution begins to work, for such a relation is unnatural, and inhuman”. 
I guess that means that if the government is creating useless jobs that do not grow the economy then in the end an unproductive dependency is created. But workforce development programs going back to the Conservation Corp have contributed to our economic development in this country including the development of the interstate system and many other infrastructure projects that support and sustain businesses in our country. 
Lean government proponents would do well to combine value stream mapping and other LSS tools with workforce development programming and provide a boost to our manufacturing sector. What an idea… use Henry’s Fords evolved manufacturing ideas combined with job analysis and employability development models and put our citizens back to work making stuff. What stuff? Stuff that comes from natural resources found in America. This is not entitlement but rather building on our historical strengths. 
Lean thinking is a transformational concept that must remain part of our entrepreneurial and public sector strategic planning. Where’s the muda?
Reference. Ford, Henry – My Life and Work, The Project Gutenberg: Release Date: January, 2005 [EBook #7213] Produced by Marvin Hodges, Tom Allen, Tonya Allen, Eric Eldred, Charles Franks, and the DP Team The Gutenberg Project]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:05:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Voice of the Customer in Government]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/voice_of_the_customer_in_government.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Voice of the Customer (VOC) is a driving value that determines the amount of waste and what adjustments need to be made to the service or manufacturing process to achieve more efficiency and thus more value to the customer. To the extent that a service satisfies the customer the service is valued. A satisfied customer is a happy customer.  
In Government VOC is not easily identified.  The pluralistic environment in our democratic society and government brings many masters all of which might be identified as the customer.  Which perspective is the true voice of the customer?  Is there one?  Certainly tax payers are a customer however, one could argue that the tax payer is not the customer at all.  Do we pay taxes to get services? No. We pay taxes to have the privilege of living in a safe free land.  Are the vendors the customers?  The vast number of small and large businesses that provide the various products and services to government could be customers since they may depend on government contracts for their business.  Citizens who receive services such as drivers using highways, motor vehicle owners getting licensing and registration documentation, students and parents who participate in local education, Medicare recipients, social security recipients, and other social service.  Are they the customer?  If they paid for the service they would clearly be the customer, since they do not they should not be the only party government wishes to satisfy.
Who is the voice of the customer in the lean operations of government?
This is not a simple answer.  The key is that when a Value Stream is mapped that the customer for that particular process be identified.  A value stream conducted for vendors of government as customer might be vastly different from a value stream for students in a school.  The customer must clearly be identified in the charter, by the VSM manager, prior to facilitating the process analysis.   The sponsor should be the main source for defining who the customer is and the champion must support and help define the customer in terms that are clear.  The metric results will then be very useful in determining value, reducing waste and making the process more efficient.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:59:12 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Professional Value Stream?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/professional_value_stream.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have recently been transferred back to a professional service position as a Rehabilitation Counselor in the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services.  This is a long standing federal program that helps individuals with severe disabilities train for, maintain and obtain gainful employment within their functional capacities.  The program was initially started for injured military personnel early in the 19 century and now includes civilians with severe disabilities.  Historically, for every dollar invested in Vocational Rehabilitation 7-10 dollars are returned to government tax revenue, so it is an excellent program from an investment standpoint.    My Lean Government training has made me cognizant of value added tasks in relation to wasted tasks and this alone has increased my professional efficiency tremendously.  Besides the 5S process, which has worked great for me, I have developed an idea to measure or analyze my own Professional Task Value Stream or PTVS. I am suggesting this is as a voluntary process that professionals can complete by themselves on themselves.   This is sort of a hybrid time management process but in the world of social services may be the key to cutting waste and providing professional direct care providers with a tool to assure a majority of their tasks are value added from the customer’s point of view or VOC (voice of the customer).   Where is the VOC for government operations? Taxpayers, contractors, legislators, citizens who receive services? That is a topic for another blog.
Back to my original thought.  I wondered as I developed this idea.  Is there a Six Sigma tool for professionals to measure their value added task effectiveness? If so, I certainly do not want to reinvent the wheel.  Someone please let me know.   If not here are some suggested steps for how such a tool might be developed:
Step 1: Divide daily professional tasks into 5 or 6 major task categories. 
Suggested Categories (These could be developed in a professional team meeting so results could be standardized).

Travel to client meetings (this includes driving time and walking to meetings in the building)
Case work documentation, paperwork and phone work (this includes case notes, letters, data entry, and related case documentation, case related e-mail)
Case work review (reading of medical and other case evaluations, research regarding accommodations required, labor market research specific to the case etc)
Other behavior – (Talking with other staff for relief, avoidance behavior,  checking the internet, reading general e-mail,  coffee breaks et) Clearly much of this activity is waste but some of it is necessary.   I clearly recognize that the social aspect of social services  is a very important component for maintaining staff morale and reducing burn out.  But how much “social” is too much?  A tool like this would generate some controversy but would also increase awareness of the possible significance of “muda” in the world of direct client care.
Administrative Meetings required by management
Professional Development, training, reading journals, case study discussions with other staff individually or in a group.
Step 2: Log daily tasks for a week or a month or at least a few days.   
Step 3:  Assign each task % of daily work hours.  
Step 4: Decide how much of this is non value added and then develop a plan to reduce the non value added tasks. This is the key to this working.  Some consensus would need to occur as to how much “other behavior” is waste and how much is necessary to high level professional function   Ideally the most important value added task is number 2 (casework), but this is the conversation that professionals in the organizational system in which they work must have to determine a reasonable ratio of professional development vs casework vs other.
I suspect this may be controversial in some professional circles.  I mean… we are professionals. We can manage our own process.  Right?  Hmm….   I just ask the question.  I look forward to this group’s comments.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Government]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:29:27 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Public Deployment of Lean Strategies]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/public_deployment_of_lean_strategies.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Lean government paradigm promotes the analysis and implementation of efficient administrative and customer service process in order to reduce the cost of government while maintaining quality customer citizen service.  
Some have characterized this with the phrase “do more with less”.  While this reflects a public policy that would shrink the size of government just for the sake of shrinking it, this is poor public policy and clearly not the purpose of the lean government initiative.   
Lean government practices will allow government at the local, state and federal level to provide better services with the same dollars that exist and in the long run meet the needs of all citizens who need it, rather than some. Public managers in conjunction with legislators and executives have the challenge of maintaining this balance. They must be cognizant of the pluralistic influences of their customer citizens, legislative overseers and the importance of facilitating exceptional employee performance.
The difficulty arises when accurate process maps have been completed, budgets for the cycle have passed and realistic staffing measures and related overhead costs set. Shortly after this momentous time, which falls annually or biannually in most jurisdictions, something changes. Customer need increases, public support for the program weans or some unforeseen employee performance issue arises. Public managers need to include some flexible contingent plans for these changing times. Where in the private sector new staff can be brought on board when production needs change relatively easily, in the public sector this is more difficult due to equal opportunity human resource policy in government. 
If public budgets are built upon the a lean process model without any contingencies then there will be a probable chance that vital services may not be available at some time in the future.  This would be devastating to those who depend on government services for survival.  Accurate process analysis combined with workable contingencies will prevent this kind of difficulty in the public sector.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Government]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:47:43 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Resistance is Futile]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/resistance_is_futile.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[    "Resistance is futile". That is the warning statement from the Borg Collective, an arch enemy of the Federation of Planets in the Star Trek television series. Any trekkies out there? The first time I heard that phrase I thought; boy are they over-confident, they have not dealt with Captain Jean Luc Picard yet. And of course after moments of near destruction the Enterprise destroys the enemy and the crew sighs with relief that they have not been assimilated. 
     During my early learning about the lean transformation paradigm the concept of staff resistance to the process was paramount. Being a creative soul this statement came to mind.  I thought of Captain Picard and his eventual triumph over the Borg. Resistance is futile became a mantra of sorts as I worked the new process into the daily routine of the operation I manage. 
    Now… two years later the word lean is almost never mentioned except in the past tense as the Management Initiative that started a few years ago. But, my observations are clear. Many staff are sustaining 5S work spaces, we are in a pull focus completing the tasks way ahead of schedule and ready for new work from our referral base. The plan is working because people are working the plan. Certainly some personal work style transformation has occurred. That is a good sign of the long term benefits of this organizational development tool. It takes time for staff to use the knowledge and work it into their daily work habits, but I remain convinced that there has been some behavior change which is good for the individual employee and the organization. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:31:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Transformation is the New Operating System in Maine]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/transformation_is_the_new_operating_system_in_maine.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been contemplating organizational transformation over the last few months. Jim Womak at the Lean Institute has started a new research project that is collecting organizational development results from various lean projects in the public sector. He has encouraged all who have thoughts to contact him.   The driving question is: "What is the best way to conduct a lean transformation?"  I found this very interesting since the organization I work for, The Maine Department of Labor, set a similar goal for our whole department over the last two years called Bend the Curve. The model they used involved training in house staff in how to use various lean tools: value stream mapping, 5S, push/pull analysis and other similar six sigma tools.  Now "in-house" staff are facilitating process analysis groups throughout the Maine Department of Labor. These groups have produced process information that has resulted in significant changes within the organization.  
A similar initiative, also called Bend the Curve, is taking place in the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.
Recently their February newsletter included an article from their Lean Initiative director, Walter Lowell. Walter has been reading a book titled The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Lean: Lessons from the Road, by James Flinchbaugh and Andy Carlino. Walter says in his article:

"… they have a chapter called Pulling it all Together. In this chapter they describe Lean as the Operating System (OS) for an organization. The concept of an Operating System is familiar to most of us, but it’s a relatively new idea that first came into common usage with the proliferation of personal computers. Every PC has an operating system — for most people we know it as some version of Microsoft’s Windows, with XP or the just-released Vista. The operating system on a PC serves the function of making everything you do on the computer easy (ok, easier). It coordinates, schedules, executes instructions, delivers messages, and links files, and so on. What came as an insight to me in reading Hitchhiker is that the concept of an operating system is a good way to describe Lean. By implementing Lean thinking, we are designing and building into our organization (State Government) a capacity to coordinate actions, execute daily work routines, enhance communications, and deliver things faster and easier.
Think of Lean as the ingrained organizational intelligence that connects all our work together, designed to facilitate communication between our organization, (DHHS) and our clients and customers. For example, when you click on an icon such as Excel on your computer you expect something to happen quickly and reliably every time (i.e. a spread sheet opens) with no surprises. When a citizen requests a service from the State, they expect a similar response (i.e. something will happen quickly and reliably each time).
Lean as an operating system is more than the sum of its tools and methods. It is a new way of thinking and reacting in what we do and how we do it. Lean provides the foundation to transform our work, to make it more efficient and more effective, and to improve over time in service to our staff and citizens."

The combination of these two initiatives in Maine State Government has had a profound effect on the overall work environment. State employees who have participated in this process analysis are realizing that waste can be reduced, more work can be accomplished with the same effort and focus and in the long run the tax payer, our main customer, will get their money’s worth. Transformation is the new operating system in Maine.

 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Government]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:52:18 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Balancing Production and Planning in a Lean Environment]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/balancing_production_and_planning_in_a_lean_environment.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Now we have the tools.  Supervisors are watching the process, identifying muda, re-work and redundant processes. Front line staff are meeting production goals within acceptable standards. Our work-in-progress is flowing with less wait time, a focus on pull of resources and just-in-time customer service.  We are sustaining production within dictated standards. What is next?   A meeting.  A person in the production line is not working within standards.  The governing authority inserts some new standards or a new program.  Somebody at the top still is not happy?  In government it may be a powerful citizen group driving the change, or a manager who has a new idea, or a legislative accountability unit.  
An intervention plan is required. Management must decide what to do. How much muda exists in a meeting? When does listening, brainstorming and planning becoming waste?  We know from experience that with out a plan there is no standard or map. With out standards there is no measurment and without measurment, well ... that is the whole point of continious improvement and lean thinking.  
But the real question is this. How many times can a work group review and plan before making a decision. When does this become muda?     
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:58:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: We Don't Make Widgets]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/we_dont_make_widgets.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently a colleague suggested Ken Miller’s book , " We Don’t Make Widgets" as a strategy base for dealing with resistence from employees in the public sector.  A brief overview is available at: http://www.governing.com/books/widgex.htm. It looks like a good read.  
Thanks to all the comments on my last blog.  It is clear performance and philosophy can be a contraversial topic.  Jim Hines most recent comment was concise and a great conclusion to that discussion.  "Back to basics, Think".  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:32:22 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Is Lean Thinking Another Name for Prudence?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/is_lean_thinking_another_name_for_prudence.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently I had a call from a well known training company in England who were planning a Six Sigma Lean Government workshop in February of 2007.   He did not ask about successes, or best practices, he wanted to know the major difficulties with our Lean initiative in Maine.  Thinking about it, I reached the conclusion that anxiety/resistance that stemmed from organizational change was a potential major barrier to successful implementation of a lean transformation if not the most significant concern.  Resistence causes anxiety from both labor and management.  Change is difficult, with union/management pressures, budget constraints and significant accountability expectations many government employees are stressed to the max. Some deal well with this through exercise, appropriate time managment and other personal wellness strategies. However, this potential state of mind is not a good situation if management is in denial about this reality.   Ultimately the lean government strategy will fail if this important detail is not part of the overall strategy.  Measurement of work to reduce waste combined with innovative use of technology is only part of the overall picture.  The people part of lean continues to be a critical aspect which can be fogotten in the hype of scientific management, continious improvement, value stream mapping and other process analysis tools.  Government exists to serve the people through services and infrastructure coordination and that includes the employees who provide the service.
A recent article in the Public Administration Review * speaks to this dilema. The article "In Search of Prudence: The Hidden Problem of Managerial Reform"  by John Kane and Haig Patapan of Griffith University in Austrailia,  touches on the accountability and related prudence reform that began in the Reagan years, continued through the Clinton Administration. These authors call this the New Public Management and basically contrast Aristotle’s phronesis (practical wisdom) with Weber’s analysis of government bureaucracy as being best managed as a rational-legal structure with measurable standards that can be objectively evaluated.  Lean thinking adds a new dimension to Webers view and includes customer service and the personal transformation that occurs when worker get more work done with the same or less effort.  Lean thinking, I would propose, is a metamorphosis of this movement. Lean Thinking has clearer goals and better implementation strategies, but it appears management may be in danger of making some of the same mistakes that are outlined in this article.  The article concludes: 

"An administration that endorses prudence requires the reconstruction of an ethos in which the public sector is honored as a distinctive realm that is dedicated to the very best public service and in which public servants are honored for their role in providing such service." (Kane, Patapan PAR 2006)*
In the Maine Department of Labor a lean initiative has been ongoing for over two years. More on this is available in one of my previous blogs. One of the great sayings from my home state that I am proud to introduce here is this "As Maine goes, so goes the Nation." At the MDOL employees are honored each year with a employee recognition event.  This event counters the potential sinking emotional ship that can occur with any organizational development effort. This years event the planners brought in a wonderful combination of motivational speaker, comedian and juggler, Randy Judkins.  The attendees laughed so hard and enjoyed the unique presentation so much, that for a moment at least, nirvana had arrived. I understand that it is not always possible to arrange for this kind of healthy comic release, but the point of this article is that without some strategy for recognizing that organizational change can take its toll on employees ultimately the initiative may fail. Finding a balance between individual creative effort and measured production in conjunction with a strategy for recognizing the human need for recognition and support is the key to successful lean transformation in government. 
* Public Administration Review (PAR) Volume 66, Number 5, September/October 2006, American Society for Public Administration, ISSN 0033-3352, Blackwell Publishing 2006  http://www.aspanet.org/scriptcontent/index_PAR.cfm]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:26:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: IT Looking to LEAN for Programming]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/it_looking_to_lean_for_programming.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[October 2, 2006 - Eweek published an interesting article by Peter Coffee titled "What it means to be Lean".  He correlates computer programming with lean thinking and describes a new book related to lean software.

"I just received a new book with a copyright date of 2007, "Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash," by Mary and Tom Poppendieck (Addison-Wesley Professional).   Wonderful, I thought. I’ve only just finished teaching my editors that developers use "agile" (short for "agile methods") as a noun. I’ll bet that "lean" is next. Whether or not the term catches on, the book is usefully concise and densely packed with convincing stories about good practices that have transformed projects—often despite initial skepticism from developer teams."
He goes on and references the Seven Wastes of Manufacturing and mentions that programmers and their teams can learn alot using these theories when writing and creating software packages.  
We all have experienced the glitches in BETA version of new software. This is great news to all of us who rely on functional software for our daily work. Increasing awareness of First pass yield in software development will save time and money! Great article Peter.
The full article can be accessed at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2024364,00.asp. 
Quotes here are used with permission.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:14:03 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Historical Perspective of Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/historical_perspective_of_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This note from Jim Womack at the Lean Institute provides an excellent historical perspective of lean manufacturing. It is reprinted here with permission.
 
Stephen
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
I’ve been reflecting on today’s remarkable headlines about the latest retreat by the Ford Motor Company as part of its “Way Forward” campaign. While reflecting, I have found it useful to think about the history of lean thinking at Ford, going back nearly 100 years. I believe it offers many useful lessons for our current-day lean journey and Ford’s immediate choices.
The historical record is clear. Henry Ford was the world’s first systematic lean thinker. His mind naturally focused on the value creation process rather than assets or organizations. And he was the first to see in his mind’s eye the flow of value from start to finish, from concept to launch and from raw material to customer. In addition, Ford was history’s most ferocious enemy of waste. (Except, possibly, Taiichi Ohno at Toyota who claimed that he learned what to do from reading Henry Ford’s books.)
Ford relentlessly emphasized the need to analyze every step in every process to see if it created value before finding a way to do it better. Otherwise the step should be eliminated. (This was Ford’s greatest criticism of Fredrick Taylor and Scientific Management. Why, asked Ford, was Taylor obsessed with getting people to work harder and more efficiently to do things that actually didn’t need to be done if the work was organized in the right sequence and location?) Then, when the wasteful steps had been eliminated, it was time to put the rest in continuous flow.
By 1914 at his Highland Park plant Ford had located most of the manufacturing steps for his product – the Model T – in one building and had created very nearly continuous flow in many parts of the operation, using single-piece-flow fabrication cells for components in addition to the moving final assembly line. He had even devised a very primitive pull system by using “shortage chasers” on timed routes along the assembly line to check inventories at every assembly point and convey the information back to the fabrication areas. This speeded up upstream processes that had fallen behind and slowed down those that were getting ahead.
Equally remarkable, Ford had designed his Model T in only three months in one large room with a small group of engineers under his direct oversight. This surely was a high point in lean practice for decades to come.
Then it gradually fell apart. Ford’s span of management control at Highland Park had been remarkably broad because he could easily take a walk to see the condition of every process, in design, assembly, and fabrication. And he could train a cohort of managers to see what he was seeing and remove more waste. No abstract measures of performance were needed.
However, as the company grew Ford’s personal management method became impractical. But what to replace it with? Ford himself seems not to have had an answer except to link every step by conveyors – as he attempted to do at the massive Rouge complex completed in the late 1920s. By the 1930s the whole Ford Motor Company was in a sense one linked process. (Ohno, of course, realized that lengthy conveyors governed by a central schedule are a push not a pull system, but this was much later.) Did this mean that in the founder’s mind that the company needed only one manager -- Ford himself -- even as it became the world’s largest industrial enterprise?
In any case, the system came crashing down in the 1930s as Ford tried to produce multiple products with multiple options in wildly gyrating markets. Only the staggering cash reserves from retained profits during the Model T era kept the company going until Henry Ford II was able to take over in 1945.
But what management system should he impose on the chaos? Henry Ford II read Peter Drucker’s 1946 classic, The Concept of the Corporation, praising the General Motors management system and quickly remade Ford in the image of GM.
What a different system it was! Henry Ford had managed by going to the gemba to inspect the value creation process. General Motors executives managed by analyzing financial abstractions. For example, asset utilization (normalized for sales volume), days of inventory, cost of scrap, etc. in the factory. Available engineering hours utilized in product design. Managers were then rewarded for making numerical targets using methods developed by staff experts that managers rarely understood. A good way to make many of these numbers was to make products in large batches in order to achieve high asset utilization and low cost per individual step. The total value creation process from end to end -- which had been so clear to Henry Ford -- was gradually lost from view.
Soon Ford executives using the financial measures developed by finance czar J. Edward Lundy were even more rigorous in analyzing the performance of their area of control than GM executives. Robert McNamara and the Whiz Kids were the exemplars. And Ford did regain competitiveness as a GM clone, claiming a stable second place in the auto industry.
In addition, by the late 1940s Ford was one of three U.S. auto companies using the same management system in the same town with the same union. With high investment barriers to entry, a remarkable era of stability was put place, lasting nearly forty years until the transplant Japanese factories succeeded in the U.S. in the later 1980s.
When it suddenly became apparent at that point that the leading Japanese companies -- Toyota followed by Honda -- were using a different management system, it was very hard for Ford to respond.
In the late 1980s, as Dan Jones, Dan Roos, and I wrote The Machine That Changed the World, we were able to document that Ford had applied a number of lean techniques in its assembly operations and was making dramatic progress in manufacturing productivity. We took this to mean that at least one American company was applying lean principles and with good results.
What we couldn’t report, because we had no way to measure it, was the status of the management system. And this was largely unchanged. Ford managers were still manipulating abstractions because the gemba consciousness of the early Ford Motor Company had been lost. Even worse, in the product development and supplier management processes, no change had occurred at all.
But Ford could still be successful in its home market for another 20 years by developing large pickups and SUVs. These were essentially America-only vehicles, suited to wide roads and low energy prices. They could only be challenged by Toyota and its Japanese emulators if they were willing to design vehicles specifically for the U.S. market and to locate production in  North America.
In 1997 I got a call from Jac Nasser, who had just taken over Ford’s North American Automotive Operations on his way to becoming CEO of Ford. He matter-of-factly told me that Ford’s Explorer and F100 pickup series were the only Ford products that made serious money and that he calculated that he had four years to become as efficient and effective as Toyota. Otherwise, the large pickups and SUVs would be copied by foreign firms at lower cost with higher quality and Ford would be in terminal decline. “So,” he asked, “how can Ford become Toyota in four years?”
We sat down to talk over just what this would mean -- dramatically changing the supplier management system, dramatically changing the product development system, dramatically changing the production management system, dramatically changing what managers do -- and he quickly concluded that it was just too hard. So he changed the management metrics, purged the poorest managers according to the metrics, and experimented with selling cars on the web! I was not asked back and had no desire to go back.
Ford actually survived for five years beyond Nasser’s projected meltdown date – although Nasser didn’t as CEO -- to arrive at its current crisis. But my prescription for new Ford CEO Alan Mulally is the same: Fundamentally rethink the supplier management system. Fundamentally rethink the product development system. And fundamentally rethink the production system from order to raw materials and from raw materials to delivery, with special attention to the information management system. (Much can still be learned from Ford’s Mazda subsidiary, which became an able pupil of Toyota after a crisis in 1973.) Above all, fundamentally rethink what mangers do and how they do it in order to regain the gemba consciousness that originally took Ford to world dominance. In brief, Ford needs to remake itself once more, this time in the image of the company that copied Ford’s original system: Toyota.
In addition, finish rethinking the social contract as Ford becomes a normal company (not an oligopolist) in a normal town (where labor doesn’t come from one supplier) that must live in a global market. Finally, rethink brand strategy to get rid of hopeless makes that can never make money – Mercury, Jaguar, Lincoln too? -- while refocusing the remaining brands on what customers really want -- sophisticated, hassle-free transportation in every price range. (A hint: Rethink the vast gap between the company and the customer to provide hassle-free mobility on a continuing basis to user-partners rather than selling cars to strangers in one-time transactions.)
Who knows whether this is doable in the time still available but it is the lean way forward. It will be tragic if the originator of lean thinking is crushed in the end by failing to learn lean lessons from its most earnest pupil.
 
 
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:43:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean and other Six Sigma Certification]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_and_other_six_sigma_certification.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently began to research Six Sigma Belt Certification Programs on the Internet. I have been thinking that I might like to obtain some credential in addition to my Masters Degree.   I became concerned because there appeared to be multiple opportunities with no clear standard.  Each one I discovered had a different number of hours of preparation time. Some were available online and others in person through a training company or University.  Given the fact that standardization is a critical part of good Value Stream mapping and other Six Sigma tools, including Lean Six Sigma, I wondered if there was a standard certification process or organization in the field.   If not there should be.  I wondered what the wise bloggers or readers on this blog think about this.  Seems this developing profession should have a standard based on actual performance not just time spent in training.  What is the thinking of this esteemed group? ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:19:59 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The People Side of Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_people_side_of_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In the beginning… there is some valid concern expressed about the people side of lean and how individuals are affected by Lean initiatives in the public sector.  There is a common, prima facie response when lean thinking is first introduced in the public sector.   “We are about serving people not making cars”, they say.  This is a normal reaction that overtime is proven inaccurate as the benefits of lean thinking are realized through mapping of the work process, an increase of value added activity and a reduction of waste. This leads to a significant increase of morale among employees who have participated in the value stream mapping process.  Each response is certainly individual but most become owners of the future state that is created and as owners, continuous improvement becomes the natural order of things.   
Additionally, lean initiatives are in most cases introduced as a management initiative and thus suspicion is the first reaction from those representing labor’s perspective. It is easy to assume that lean metrics are an evolution of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management and thus a “top down” management initiative.  This certainly is part of lean thinking in that leadership must make a conscious decision to pursue lean thinking, however, there is a significant participatory aspect included since each value stream is completed by the people who do the work.  This is best understood by reviewing the three basic paradigms of public management, Universalism, Pluralism and Participatory management styles.  During my graduate studies I had the great opportunity to write a paper about the three basic paradigms of public administration. (see http://geocities.com/scrate/three_paradigms.html).  I have concluded that lean thinking and the value stream mapping process is a successful blend of universalism and participatory management paradigms bringing the best of both approaches to a wonderful evolution of employee satisfaction, high performance and a highly functional public organization.
Another critical factor regarding the people side of lean relates to its overall influence on individual performance.  No employee wakes up in the morning and says I will do a terrible job today. I plan to perform at my worst for the whole day.  That does not occur. Everyone would like to rise to their greatest potential at every opportunity possible.   Remember those NBA games when Larry Bird hit 10 for 10 from the foul line, 7 three-pointers and 9 from the field? It might be said he was operating in the zone, or demonstrating peak performance. (I know I am aging my self.)   This is an easy concept for most to understand.  But what of the administrative public employee completing a service request for a citizen or the professional technical staff person running that program analysis to compute federal statistics justifying units of service.  Do they regularly get any acknowledgement for top performance?  Does anyone even measure their tasks?  Do they have any personal goals or “stats” to work against?  If they did, their satisfaction would be increased and performance enhanced.  They would move from viewing their job as a chore to valuing their service to the organization.  So goes government. 
The Value Stream mapping process can provide this feedback, increase value and reduce waste resulting in higher employee performance.  When performance is increased employee satisfaction is increased, turnover is reduced and overall organization function is better. People (employees) are transformed to a more satisfactory view of their job and the public organization rises to citizen expectations and thrives in excellence.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 May 2006 18:16:45 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Lean Government Conference]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_lean_government_conference.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just a brief note of a great conference coming up on May 18 &amp; 19, 2006 in Alexandra, Virginia. Sponsored by The Performance Institute, The Lean Six Sigma for Government Conference will provide first hand case studies about government agencies where Lean Six Sigma tools are being successfully used. 
You can review the details at:  http://www.performanceweb.org/CENTERS/GPM/Events/P596/P596.htm
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:11:34 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Government Resource]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_government_resource.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This blog entry is brief.  This week I met and communicated with a new Lean Practitioner Jon Miller at Gemba.com. He has a great blog site at: http://www.gembapantarei.com/lean_government/  that is tracking lean government initiatives around the world. This week he tracked activity in Scotland.  There is documentation of initiatives in Iowa, US Dept of Commerce and many others. Check them out!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:10:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Maine Department of Labor Lean Initiative]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/maine_department_of_labor_lean_initiative.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Applying the Principles of Lean and Public Value to Reshape a Government Agency
In the fall of 2003, the Maine Department of Labor began a tailored change initiative to fundamentally alter the culture and work of the agency.  Combining time-tested “lean” principles from the manufacturing sector with the emerging public sector strategy of “public value,”*  the Department of Labor is improving the quality and efficiency of the services we provide, and doing so with less money.
Like many state agencies, the Maine Department of Labor faces flat or reduced funding streams at a time of steady increases in operations costs. The term “Bend the Curve” relates to the effort to alter the direction of charted projections, to eliminate a looming $9 million shortfall.
The term “public value”*  refers to an emerging public sector strategy to assess the value of government services, products, and regulations to the constituency served by each. Value can be determined only when a constituency “is willing to give up something in return for it.”

* Kelly, Mulgan and Muers, Creating Public Value: an analytical framework for public service reform, see  http://www.annual-report.gov.uk/files/pdf/public_value2.pdf
MDOL - Bend the Curve Goals

Provide the same or better customer service;
Shift the work of the department to match customer expectations and needs;
Achieve efficiencies by fundamentally changing how work gets done;
Improve intradepartmental collaboration and service integration; and
Decrease expenditures by at least $9M and significantly reduce staffing levels over three years while minimizing layoffs.
Better Customer ServiceBend the Curve also addresses the need to continue to provide public value in the services delivered by the department. With a focus on improved processes, measured outcomes, and service delivery from the perspective of the customer, BTC is changing the way we think about our work.
An Investment in LeadershipRecognizing the importance of empowering staff at all levels of the organization to work collaboratively in the change process, the department is investing in the leadership skills of both management and front-line staff.
Continuous ImprovementUsing formal continuous improvement tools, BTC teams address efficiency in service delivery by measuring the current state and planning and implementing a future state that eliminates waste and enhances services to the customer.
For more information about the Maine Department of Labor’s Lean Initiative see their website: http://www.maine.gov/labor/bendthecurve/index.shtml
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:35:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Steps to Lean Government]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_steps_to_lean_government.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This blog is not for the experienced six sigma practitioners, but rather for those government managers trying to get an overview of how a lean initiative might fit with their current strategic planning. I came up with a basic 6 step process that can be easily committed to memory and turned into a mantra of sorts. Vision, Decision, Map, Measure, Transform, Sustain
If your organization is not actively engaged in at least one or more of these organizational efforts then you are not working lean, developing a lean mind set or working toward cultural change and transformation of the workplace.


Vision - What if…our government organization was efficient, customer friendly and employees were happy. What would the organization look like? 
Decision - Commitment to process is necessary from management and labor. It must be more then the newest fad but part of an agency wide committment providing resources and personnel to implement the process. 
Map - The process - What are the steps to produce the desires result (product or service) Current and future state. 
Measure - Value and waste.  Increase value, reduce waste. Set the standards and track performance. 
Transform - Encourage continuous improvement of both process and people based on the map and measure of the future state. 
Sustain- Repeat the process continiously for each division, department and work process. Overtime the lean mind set will settle in to individual performance.  Keep your eye on the vision, support the decision for continious improvement through continuous mapping, measuring and transforming the work process and individual performance.
Organizational transformation occurs one person at a time. It starts with you! ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:11:42 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Introduction to Lean Government]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/introduction_to_lean_government.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ 
     Current budget constraints in the public sector require an innovative response from executives, legislators, public administrators and government employees.  Legislators must set the course with directive policy, administrators must develop the management plan and government employees must remain flexible and committed to the personal transformation required to do public business in a new leaner way.  Bob Dylan said it right…the times they are a changing.
 

     Citizens are demanding ethical and responsible government.  Now, more than ever it is extremely important that programs and services using public funds are accountable and effective. Anything less is unacceptable.  This is the beginning of the election cycle. We need to ask those who seek to lead our government some tough questions.  How will government become accountable and effective?  How can we maintain some compassion without encouraging unhealthy dependency?  How can we as citizens know that our government is not spending money on unnecessary items, staffing or projects with little value to our citizens, communities and economy?  Government functions must be measured against standards, but what standards do we use? 
 
 

     There are multiple ways to answer these questions.  The most crucial factor is how we determine the standards to measure our progress.  Business and public administration, statistics and accounting academic worlds can offer a myriad of possible measurement tools.  Six Sigma, Total Quality Management, World Class Service, GASB, and Management by Objectives to just name a few.   Many of these tools have been proven in the private sector.   One particular approach, called lean thinking has been very successful in manufacturing and has in recent years been successfully adapted for use in the public sector.  
 
 

     Lean thinking, looks at the value of the work people do and directly connects it to the quality and quantity of the product or service provided to customer. It involves identifying and then comparing where human energy is focused and efficient or value added with where that same energy is unfocused and inefficient or unproductive and wasteful.  In the lean thinking paradigm waste is referred to as muda. Reducing muda by focusing on value streams ultimately creates more efficient operations and more productive satisfied employees. Measuring work to increase efficiency is not a new concept. Both Eli Whitney with interchangeable parts and Frederick Taylor with scientific management attempted a similar kind of measurement that helped transform the industrial revolution. More recently Toyota is noted for this approach to organizational process and or production analysis. 
 
 

     Critics say these tools do not belong in the public sector.  However, if administrative functions are financially lean, then more budget dollars can be earmarked for necessary programs that benefit the most needy in our society.  Lean thinking is transforming public work environments from wasteful inefficient organizations with very unsatisfied employees to lean efficient organizations with proud motivated employees. Lean thinking is one strategy being used to achieve increased cost effective efficiencies without decreasing employee morale. This measurement of value and waste in the work environment has evolved to a place that is focused not only on the organizational bottom line but individual employee transformation. 
 
 

     This transformation is a difficult transition for some employees who have been doing things the same way for years.  At first there is resistance, even stubborn objection. But as more efficiency is introduced into the work environment service quality increases, customers are happier and employees become proud of their work quality.  This positive response increases employee satisfaction.  I do not know of any working American who does not want to do a better job. That is the pride of workers in our country.  This idea has moved in the public sector.  Government services and performance are being measured using lean thinking concepts in Iowa, the Connecticut Department of Labor, the Los Angeles Police Department and since June 2004 the Maine Department of Labor in an effort for continuous improvement of government functions.   More government agencies will be looking at this because it works. Lean thinking is a process concept for government whose time has come.    
 
 
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:05:16 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: About Blogger: Stephen C. Crate]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/about_blogger_stephen_c_crate.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Stephen has over 25 years experience in private and public sector employment related to business management, vocational rehabilitation and human resource management. He has public service experience in education, planning, community and organizational development at the municipal and state level. Stephen has served on the Waterville School Board for the last 5 years. 
Stephen was President/CEO of a Maine corporation for thirteen years that specialized in Workers Compensation and Long Term Disability case management and rehabilitation.  He has a Bachelor degree in Rehabilitation Psychology and a Masters Degree in Public Administration from the University of Maine. He is a member of Phi Alpha Alpha the National Honor Society for Public Affairs and Administration and the past President of the Maine Chapter for the American Society for Public Administration. He also has taught Political Science at Thomas College and Sociology, Psychology and Psychosocial Rehabilitation at Kennebec Valley Community College.
He currently works with the State of Maine where a lean government initiative called Bend the Curve has been ongoing for the last 18 Months in the Maine Department of Labor.  Stephen is has trained as a Continuous Improvement Practitioner and data manager to provide administrative process analysis using Value Stream Mapping, Kaizen, Kanban, 5S and other Six Sigma methodology to transform the administrative process and employee function. 
Stephen has developed a specialized interest in the individual employee transformation that occurs when lean concepts are applied to work in government.  Employees become more satisfied, self assured and highly functional making government better for all.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Blogger Bios]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:11:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

	</channel>
</rss>
