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.

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.

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?

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 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

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.

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).

1. Travel to client meetings (this includes driving time and walking to meetings in the building)
2. Case work documentation, paperwork and phone work (this includes case notes, letters, data entry, and related case documentation, case related e-mail)
3. Case work review (reading of medical and other case evaluations, research regarding accommodations required, labor market research specific to the case etc)
4. 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.
5. Administrative Meetings required by management
6. 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.

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.

"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.

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.