ARTICLES
Using
the GAPS Approach for Specific Agency
Challenges
by Asbury Lockett, President
of Envisioned Results Coaching
While the GAPS
approach is often part of a coordinated effort to
improve agency processes across the board, it is also
appropriate for targeted or "spot" improvements.
If the timing is NOT right for your agency to commit to
a widespread improvement effort, the GAPS approach can
still be used to systematically develop an action
plan to achieve certain required performance
objectives.
The GAPS approach is a
collaborative one in which everyone puts their heads
together to come up with a better way to do things. If the objective
is clear and specific, having a systematic way to tap
into the expertise of the real process "experts" (those
who perform the process on a daily basis) makes perfect
sense. Any
other approach can result in serious flaws in the plan
to improve.
It can also harbor resentment as those involved
in the process feel that they are being forced to make
changes in which they had no
input.
Using the collaborative
approach of GAPS, exactly how the strategies and tactics
were derived to achieve the required objective becomes
transparent. Everyone has a chance to be heard and the
criteria to decide which direction to take is ultimately
based on a single objective question--"Does the
suggested improvement decrease the waste in the
process?" At the point when this question is posed,
everyone involved has a very good understanding of what
waste looks like.
As waste is understood to reflect the process and
NOT the person doing the task, improvement suggestions
are then depersonalized. This
depersonalization makes the improvement much more
palatable to the person involved, since he now realizes
that when someone says a task that he performs is
"waste", it is no reflection on his work habits
whatsoever.
Challenges tackled using the
GAPS approach must be faithful to the concept that
nothing coming out of this
collaborative approach will result (or even
appears to result) in involuntary terminations. For obvious
reasons,
any link that is able to be drawn between the
GAPS approach and headcount reductions will never be
able to be uncoupled rendering any use of the GAPS
approach at any time in the future completely
ineffective.
Since GAPS depends on
collaboration, it works best when there is a high level
of trust between those who are performing the processes
and their management. If this trust is
NOT in place, results will be sporadic at best, and, at
worst, nonexistent.
One other caveat worth
mentioning is that improving the process being examined
must have a direct effect on the performance metric
which you seek to improve. For
instance, a department of vehicle licensing could have
an objective to reduce traffic fatalities by 5%. This agency
decides to attack the wait times needed to currently get
a drivers license.
In and of itself, attacking wait times would seem
like a good process to improve. However, what is
the link between wait times and traffic fatalities? Even if the team
does great work and is able to cut wait times down to
half of their current levels with existing personnel, if
the only metric that matters is traffic fatalities and
this metric does NOT improve, those working on the team
will become discouraged. Why? Because they
were put into a position where, no matter what they did,
“success”
(as measured by the performance metric being
tracked) was not possible.
The bottom line is that the
GAPS approach CAN be used effectively for many, although
not every, performance improvement challenge. When new
improvement ideas are desired and a collaborative
approach is needed to get everyone’s buy in, GAPS is
worth exploring.
(from the June 2008 issue of
The Closer-- the official GAPStm
Program
Newsletter)
Where Are All the Improvement Ideas
Going?
by Asbury Lockett, President of Envisioned Results Coaching
Taking action on suggested improvements is a tricky business. It takes courage to suggest an improvement idea. The person making the suggestion is in a vulnerable position. What if my idea is criticized? What if this criticism makes me look incompetent? What if it is taken the wrong way? What if my boss doesn't like my idea? If an idea is inadvertently handled incorrectly, the flow of future ideas can dry up virtually overnight.
In GAPStm , one of the non value adders we discuss is not using people's knowledge, skills, and abilities. Show me an organization (either private or public sector) that has processes in place for more than a year that just barely get the job done, and I know with a high degree of certainty that this organization is not adept at cultivating and acting upon improvement ideas.
Has your organization inadvertently created a culture where innovative ideas have become rare occurrences? If so, perhaps you will recognize some of these responses to new ideas:
Response #1: "Great idea-- go make it happen!"
Interpretation:
Go do this in your "spare" time. Don't expect any support from anyone else. New ideas just mean that I'm increasing my own workload. It will be a cold day in you know where when I open my mouth again with another suggestion.
Response #2: No response
Interpretation:
I guess my idea was so bad it wasn't even worth a response. I'll just keep my mouth shut to avoid being humiliated like this again.
Response #3: "We'll have to look into doing that"
Interpretation:
Sounds like a brush off to me. As busy as everyone is around here, nothing will ever be done with this.
Response #4: "That is really out of the control of our department"
Interpretation:
Even though the other department's actions are causing us all types of grief, they are viewed as more important than us. We're just lowly [fill in the blank], so I guess there is nothing we can do to make things go more smoothly for us.
The net result of this type of response is an attitude of just making the existing process work as best it can. In the meantime, the brain is essentially checked at the door and the countdown until retirement begins.
Every organization, regardless of how busy they are, must periodically reevaluate its processes to see how they can be improved. The interesting thing is that most organizations already know which of their processes are "broken", but they just don't know how best to fix them. With the current emphasis on measuring and evaluating public sector performance, insuring that every process that an agency undertakes supports improved performance among the dimensions that the agency has established becomes crucial. In the long run, an effective system that taps into the ideas of those "experts" who are successfully performing the process (in spite of considerable obstacles) is the only way that ongoing improvement can be sustained.
(from the July 2007 issue of The Closer-- the official
GAPStm Program newsletter)
Determining the Satisfaction of Your Real Customer Can be a Challenge
by Asbury Lockett, President of Envisioned Results Coaching
Application
of GAPStm starts with the determination of which steps in the process are value-added and which steps are non value added (NVA). NVA is also referred to as "waste". After a value added task is completed, the customer is closer to getting his or her needs fulfilled. Once a NVA step is completed, the customer is no closer to getting his or her needs fulfilled. In other words, an NVA step adds time and cost to the process, but no benefit as defined by the customer.
Herein lies one of the
fundamental problems in applying GAPStm appropriately-defining the customer. In the private sector, defining customers is pretty easy. Typically, it is the person or entity who is paying the bill. Occasionally, it can also extend to the person receiving the benefit of the product or service. This would be in the case where something is purchased for someone else as a gift. It could also be the situation where a service is purchased by a company on behalf of its employees (i.e. training and coaching services). In these situations both parties-the payer and the recipient-must be satisfied in order for the product or service provider to state that their customers are indeed satisfied.
When public sector agencies provide services, the situation can be very different. The definition of the customer now must often include all the constituents who are served by this agency. The needs of these constituents can be at odds, making the measurement of customer satisfaction extremely tricky.
Let's take an example. A citizen requests a permit for a septic system as part of the plan to build her dream home. Because the necessity for this permit was overlooked, it is needed within a couple of days or she cannot move in as she planned. This would result in her having to continue to live with relatives which she finds unacceptable. The backlog for the review of these septic system requests is two months. Since this citizen is under the gun, a reviewer steps up to the counter, takes a quick look at the plans and says, "It looks okay to me. Here's your permit. Go ahead and start your work." On the way out, the overjoyed customer completes a customer satisfaction survey where she rates the department performance "superior" in every aspect. The customer is satisfied. It doesn't get any better than that, right?
What was the purpose of the permit process in reviewing the septic system plans? Was it strictly to approve whatever is submitted? Of course not. However, if this were to occur (and occur quickly), customer satisfaction as measured by those coming in to get their plans approved would skyrocket. What about the other public sector customers who are not completing customer satisfaction surveys? What about the next door neighbor who must endure the costly repercussions of a septic system that is leeching waste into his yard? Or how about the folks downstream from the nearby creek who now find their once wonderful picnic & fishing area fouled with sewage?
A wise person once said, "you can't please all the people all the time". This is not suggesting that you do not seek and/or ignore measurements of customer satisfaction. Just realize that increasing the satisfaction of one customer may just DECREASE the satisfaction of another ten whose opinion was never surveyed.
(from the July 2007 issue of The Closer-- the official
GAPStm Program newsletter)
----------------------------------------------
LINKS
"Government Agencies are Ripe with Lean Opportunities"
Asbury Lockett, President of Envisioned Results Coaching
View Article Here
"Why Every Government Agency Should Embrace the Lean Process"
Venu Gupta, Superintendent of Buildings and Fleet for the City of Milwaukee, WI
View Article Here
| 
