1. No category

Spring15 Vol.18 No.1
In This Issue
Comments From the
Chair........................ 1
The Baldrige Performance
Excellence Framework:
A Model for the Public
Sector....................... 2
Can Transparency
Help Government
Continuously Improve
Performance?............. 4
Ordinary Problems,
Extraordinary
Solutions................... 7
CDOT Lean Process
Improvement Program
Recognized as
2015 Harvard Ash
Center Bright Idea in
Government................ 8
Improvement Programs
in State Government:
To What Extent Is It
Happening?................ 9
2015 Leadership......... 11
COMMENTS
From the Chair
By John Baranzelli
Looking Toward the Future
(With Your Help)
As I write this, I have
just returned from a
whirlwind weekend
meeting in Phoenix,
AZ, where representatives from all of ASQ’s
many sections and
divisions gathered to
discuss the mission,
vision, and strategic
objectives of the organization. For the past
couple of years, ASQ has been working to
take the organization in a bold new direction. The vision of ASQ leadership is to make
quality a global priority, an organizational
imperative, and a personal ethic, so that ASQ
becomes the community for everyone who
seeks quality concepts, technology, or tools to
improve themselves and their world.
So what does all of this mean to you? I’m
glad you asked.
It means the development of a richer and
more diverse Quality Body of Knowledge
(QBoK)—one not restricted by borders but
truly representative of the best practices
from around the world. It means networking and sharing of best practices with quality
professionals on a global level. It means
empowered and aligned leadership at all levels of ASQ working to make this organization
the very best in the world.
Leadership at the ASQ Government
Division is committed to supporting the vision
and goals of the Society. The discussions we
have had regarding how best to support this
vision has prompted us to ask some very
important questions such as: What is the
future of government? How can we better
support our members in the future? And most
importantly: What is the future of the ASQ
Government Division?
These are questions that we cannot answer
alone. These questions demand input from you.
During the next few months we will be
reaching out to you in various ways to better
understand your needs and determine what
we can do to better help you share the gift of
quality within your organizations and your
communities. To begin this process, we will
be conducting a leadership dialogue during the 2015 World Conference on Quality
and Improvement (WCQI) in Nashville, TN,
on Sunday, May 3. If you are planning to
attend WCQI this year, please plan to stop by
and talk with us. For those of you who will
not be traveling to WCQI, we will be conducting a webinar version of this leadership
dialogue shortly after WCQI so that all members have an opportunity to participate in this
important discussion.
This is an exciting time to work in government. Recent transparency and open data
initiatives are empowering a new generation
cont. on p. 2
Comments From the Chair cont.
of entrepreneurs to create powerful new solutions to everyday problems. Public sector security and private sector
ingenuity are coming together in a powerful new way, which
could fundamentally change the role of government at all
levels. Although I cannot see the future, I know one thing is a
virtual certainty: The importance of quality will remain.
You are the architects of this exciting future and we are
here to support you every step of the way. In the weeks and
months ahead, please join our discussion and help us better understand your needs and your goals. We are asking for
your help in making the ASQ Government Division the community for everyone who seeks quality concepts, technology,
or tools to improve government around the world.
John Baranzelli is the 2015 chair of the ASQ Government Division and the
author of the book Making Government Great Again. He is an engineering
executive with 25 years of experience in the public sector and has been a
member of ASQ since 2006.
The Baldrige Performance Excellence Framework:
A Model for the Public Sector
The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program oversees the nation’s only presidential award for performance excellence while
offering the Baldrige Performance Excellence Framework (including Baldrige Criteria), assessments, tools, training, and a community for those dedicated to helping organizations improve. Many states also run state-level Baldrige-based programs.
Award recipients are not only in the private sector. There have also been public sector award recipients as well as a leading
consulting firm specializing in public sector clients. Here is the list of public sector recipients of the National Baldrige Award:
• 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers Public Sector Practice
• 2012 City of Irving, Texas
• 2009 VA Cooperative Studies Program Clinical Research Pharmacy Coordinating Center
• 2007 City of Coral Springs, Florida
• 2007 U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC)
The following articles are about how two government Baldrige Award recipients have continued to sustain the performance
improvement practices that they initiated. Each article was written roughly five years after the organization received its award.
These articles were reprinted with the permission of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. For more information on
Baldrige products and services, including the new Baldrige Excellence Builder booklet (available for free in PDF format), visit
http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/ or contact the Baldrige Program at baldrige@nist.gov.
A Role-Model Government Center
That Keeps Getting Better
Sustaining Excellence: Coral Springs
Keeps Shining as a Role Model
By Christine Schaefer
Originally posted on September 4, 2014
By Christine Schaefer
Originally posted on March 12, 2013
In 2009, a federal government organization that supports
multicenter clinical trials for the benefit of American military
veterans received the prestigious national Baldrige Award. The
Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program (VACSP) Clinical
Research Pharmacy Coordinating Center (Center) distinguished itself for high productivity and for maintaining strong
customer (investigator) relationships. For example, the Center’s
2008 productivity level of $221,000 per full-time employee
compared favorably to eight top competitors (i.e., the highest
competitor’s performance was approximately $195,000). The
Center has maintained 75 percent of its customers for greater
than 10 years, generating repeat business that raised the organization’s extramural funding (the leveraged portion generated
When the City of Coral Springs, Florida, won the Baldrige
Award in 2007, it became the first city in the nation—
and one of the first two nonprofit
organizations—to receive the U.S. presidential honor for performance excellence.
cont. on p. 3
cont. on p. 3
Government Division
2
That year, Coral Springs boasted results
such as a triple-“A” bond rating from all
three of the largest U.S. bond-rating agencies for seven years
in a row; a crime rate per 100,000 people that decreased
by nearly half over 10 years (to become the lowest in
Florida and the fourth-lowest nationwide for cities of similar
size); and high levels of satisfaction among residents, businesses, and city employees. As the Baldrige Program’s 25th
Spring 2015
The Baldrige Performance Excellence Framework:
A Model for the Public Sector cont.
A Role-Model Government Center
That Keeps Getting Better cont.
Sustaining Excellence: Coral Springs
Keeps Shining as a Role Model cont.
outside congressional appropriations) to a level of $11 million
in 2008 demonstrating true customer engagement.
anniversary celebration is fast approaching, I recently asked
Susan Grant, deputy city manager of Coral Springs, to share
an update on her city’s Baldrige journey today. Following are
her responses:
The Center continues to focus on delivering exceptional
service to its customers (investigators). Its 100+ employees
support clinical trials across multiple clinical study sites by
providing pharmaceutical expertise, project management,
safety monitoring, regulatory oversight, and manufacturing
and distribution services. The Cooperative Studies Program
encompasses five coordinating centers, the pharmacy center,
three epidemiology centers, and a genomics center.
Initially, the Center utilized the Baldrige Framework for
Performance Excellence, and the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 9001 quality management system standards as the foundation of continuous improvement. In 2004
the Center became the first ISO 9001-registered VA facility.
“The interlinking of Baldrige and ISO began many years
ago when we asked ourselves how best to provide quality
services for investigators and veterans, but over time we pondered if our performance measures were telling us enough
and whether something was missing in our ISO-defined
management review,” said Julia E. Vertrees, associate center
director of quality assurance. “Today, using the concept of a
Total Integrated Performance Excellence System (TIPES), the
Center is working toward a deeper integration and interlinking of our quality tools with the Baldrige framework key to
building a holistic management approach.”
Jan Hickey, chief of clinical manufacturing, noted that
when the recession hit several years ago, decreased federal
funding “slashed travel and training dollars.” Yet she called
the organization’s use of the Baldrige performance excellence
principles and ISO a “lifeline for us.”
How has your organization been sustaining excellence
since winning the Baldrige Award? Any recent results you
wish to share?
Maintenance of customer satisfaction (both resident and business) during the recession as well as maintenance of the city’s
“AAA” bond rating are a few of the results that demonstrate
our sustained excellence since winning the Baldrige Award.
Other important results that we’ve maintained include the
city’s low crime rate and short emergency response times.
While employee satisfaction has dipped slightly, it is still
above 90 percent and compares favorably to results of other
cities. In 2013, the City of Coral Springs had more “A” rated
schools than any other city in Broward County—a critical
measure, since quality of education is the number-one reason
cited for why residents move to Coral Springs.
Have you used Baldrige feedback reports to improve?
Yes, we have absolutely used our Baldrige feedback reports
(and, before that, our Florida Sterling feedback reports)
to improve our organization. Some examples include the
more systematic selection of comparison data—which has
ultimately resulted in better performance in the areas being
compared. In addition, system improvements for part-time
employees and volunteers and a more robust succession
planning system have led to improvements in employee
engagement for these groups of employees.
How do you see the value of the Baldrige Criteria?
Vertrees added, “The TIPES supports an organizational
culture and processes that can achieve and sustain high performance levels in good times or bad.”
The Baldrige (and Florida Sterling) Criteria provided a solid
framework for the city to begin our improvement efforts 20
years ago. The criteria proved to be comprehensive and integrated—so every area of our organization was addressed.
VACSP Total Integrated Performance Excellence System
Any advice for other organizations trying to improve
their performance?
Yes: View the implementation of any efforts to improve
performance as a journey, rather than as a destination. Our
efforts to improve as an organization started with research
and garnering buy-in from multiple stakeholder groups. One
of the great things about the Baldrige Criteria is that they are
not “one size fits all” or prescriptive in any way—so you are
able to adapt the criteria to fit your organization.
Image used
with permission.
Government Division
3
Spring 2015
Can Transparency Help
Government Continuously
Improve Performance?
momentum around excellence in public service should be
sustained because it’s the right thing to do.
By Marc D. Berson,
ASQ Government Division Newsletter Editor
I have spent virtually my entire 28-year
career providing management consulting and training services to public
sector organizations, generally to help
them improve performance—from process reengineering to cost reduction to
improved efficiency to greater productivity to better service delivery. My
passion is to help the public sector
provide needed quality-oriented services at the least cost to the taxpayer.
The ASQ Government Division has chosen the theme
for this year’s World Conference to be “Transparency in
Government.” So, given my passion, and following lots of
“noodling,” I decided to explore the question here. Can
transparency help government continuously improve performance? This is a loaded question because there are several
issues covered in this short seven-word inquiry. And although
you can predict that my answer to the question will be
“YES,” this article will explain that there are a number of
things to think through as you embark on being transparent
so that you will also be cost effective and set the stage for a
sustainable program.
Keeping the end in mind, let’s first look at the end of the
question, “… improve performance.” I would suggest that this
is the ultimate goal—as stewards of public funds, government
leaders should do everything they can to provide citizens,
businesses, and other stakeholders the best services they can
as efficiently and effectively as possible. This requires continuously reviewing these services and asking questions, such as:
• Is the service or product needed?
• Can we reduce redundancy or consolidate steps?
• Can we improve timeliness, quality, and/or cost of delivery?
• Are there better practices on how to deliver the service?
• Do we have the right staff with the right skills performing
the work?
So, why is it important to evaluate performance “continuously?” First, there is almost always room for improvement,
especially given the world we are currently living in with its
rapid pace of technological advances, the introduction of
new apps, the increasing use of the cloud, and easier access
to best practices. Second, I would argue that an organization that re-evaluates its services continuously has built and
nurtured a capability (staff, skills, infrastructure, body of
knowledge, processes, etc.), culture, and propensity toward
thinking it can do better—and this kind of excitement and
Government Division
4
Sounds awesome! Unfortunately, it’s easy to say but very
difficult to accomplish—especially in the public sector.
Governments have inherent challenges that are not as prevalent in the private sector. For instance:
• Political leaders and administrations change frequently,
which causes a short-term vs. a long-term focus.
• Decision making is too often political, rather than
performance-based.
• Lack of competition—jurisdictions or agencies don’t typically have to be concerned that another jurisdiction or
agency will take its place if their services are poor.
• Since there is no profit motive, there is no natural incentive to operate efficiently.
• Often there are no monetary bonuses tied to improving
processes or operations.
• Performance management systems actually protect poor
performers and, in turn, lead to poor organizational
performance.
Let’s be clear: I am not suggesting that these are excuses
to avoid continuous performance improvement; I am merely
suggesting that it takes greater determination and resolve to
overcome the forces resisting performance improvement!
I should also emphasize that although the challenges
listed above are generally true, there are certainly exceptions
where jurisdictions (or agencies) have built robust improvement programs that have been sustained over many years,
such as the governments of Ohio; Colorado; Louisville, KY;
Kansas City, MO; and New Brunswick, Canada, to name
a few. (Note: There are featured articles about each one
of these jurisdictions in the last three Government Division
newsletters [except Louisville—the success at Louisville was
presented at the 2014 World Conference]).
So what can we learn from the jurisdictions (or agencies)
that beat the odds? What common characteristics did they
have that enabled them to overcome the usual challenges?
Sustained Leadership Commitment – The single most
important characteristic each jurisdiction had was government leaders with long-term thinking (whether they were
elected or not), who served as champions, regularly demonstrating their commitment and unwavering support for a
culture of improvement. These leaders are allocating funds
and resources to the program, remaining involved, and communicating to stakeholders. These leaders are able to gain
support from other leaders in the organization and have the
perseverance to withstand the resistance that comes with the
territory. I have been fortunate to work with or know government leaders like this, and I have the utmost respect for them,
because what drives them is solely a passion to do the right
thing, in spite of the risks.
cont. on p. 5
Spring 2015
Can Transparency Help Government Continuously Improve Performance? cont.
Reinforcement of the Message – Through superb communication and outreach (timely, frequent, and multichannel),
these organizations find opportunities to reinforce why the
program is important and how it adds value. They tell the
story of improvements made, but are humble enough to
explain what could have been done better and lessons
learned. They celebrate and recognize people and teams
for successes, and they hold people accountable for meeting their goals. These organizations maintain websites and/
or publish training material, success stories, lessons learned,
etc., to openly share with others. Some even offer training
opportunities to other government personnel—another form
of outreach that also promotes the program and encourages
others to get engaged.
Stakeholder Engagement – Performance improvement
should be a shared responsibility. These organizations, in one
form or another, engage employees, citizens, businesses, and
other stakeholders to be a part of the improvement community and culture. Colorado’s Department of Transportation has
the “Everyday Ideas” program to encourage employees to submit great ideas for improvement (see CDOT article on p. 10).
Ohio’s LeanOhio holds kaizen events (about a week in length)
to immerse employees in process improvement. Howard
County in Maryland conducted employee and customer
opinion surveys to help identify improvement opportunities.
Coral Springs, FL, regularly conducts surveys of its citizens
and businesses to collect objective evidence on how the city
is doing and what it can improve. Maryland’s online StateStat
enables citizens to view key performance metrics and stay
connected with what their government is accomplishing. At
Philadelphia’s first Citizen Engagement Innovation Summit,
311 new updates were recently announced that enable residents to truly partner with the government to address service
requests or concerns. Many government agencies understand
that they don’t have all the answers and it’s OK to seek help
from others outside their organization, even if it exposes
some weaknesses. These examples show that there can be a
community of stakeholders involved in improvement if the
government enables it to happen through transparency of
data, information, and performance.
If you’ve stuck with me, you’re probably saying, “Finally,
he has circled back to the original question about transparency! What took him so long?” I did say that this was a
loaded question and I believe it deserved a longer more indirect answer, because there are several issues at hand.
YES, absolutely! Transparency can help government continuously improve performance. Some will even argue that
transparency is required to continuously improve performance, because without transparency how can stakeholders
have visibility and be actively engaged in what the government is doing and how can they challenge the decisions of
our elected officials?
All this is true, but transparency needs to be done the
right way, at the right time, in the right amount, for the right
reasons. To explain what I mean, I’ve summarized a few key
points in the following table:
Transparency Dos and Don’ts
DO …
DON’T …
Do post useful “open data”
and information
Don’t forget about regularly
updating and purging the data
to ensure it remains useful
Do present data that
stakeholders need/want
Don’t expend government
resources to collect and post
data that stakeholders really
don’t need/want
Do create performance metrics Don’t publically post
performance metrics until you
that are meaningful and
are comfortable with them
purposeful
and/or ready for the response
Do take action to improve
processes as a result of
performance not meeting
targets
Don’t collect and post
performance data just for the
sake of doing it
Do periodically re-evaluate
performance metrics for
currency, relevancy, etc.
Don’t fail to openly
communicate successes or
lessons learned—good or
bad––it renews the public trust
So, yes, transparency is key to improving performance, as
long as we don’t compromise security interests and we make
smart choices in our approach to the improvement program.
But, allow me to revisit the word “continuously” for another
moment. Suppose you have successfully established an
improvement initiative, how do you sustain the program, and
continuously improve performance?
In addition to ensuring that data, information, and performance remains transparent, using some or all of the
following ideas will greatly enhance the probability of maintaining an ongoing improvement program:
■ Appoint
a chief performance officer (CPO), or equivalent, to lead the improvement program. It is important
to have a position with sufficient clout and authority to coordinate multiple improvement initiatives,
interface with other organization leaders, and get
things accomplished.
■ Draft
policy requiring the use of annual auditable standards for performance/quality. Similar to a financial
audit, the performance/quality audit would occur once
per year and would evaluate the organization’s performance/quality improvement program.
cont. on p. 6
Government Division
5
Spring 2015
Can Transparency Help Government Continuously Improve Performance? cont.
■ Establish
mandatory monthly performance review
meetings—this would build a routine structured event
into the culture of the organization and bring together
key decision makers and other stakeholders to review
improvement efforts, examine performance trends
against targets, and make other strategic decisions for
the program.
practitioners should ourselves be smart and efficient in how we
approach improvement initiatives. We need to set an example:
Let’s not expend scarce government resources unless there
is a good reason. We should be purposeful and focused in
collecting the data needed, evaluating the right metrics, and
then ultimately improving processes and organizations in an
expeditious manner.
■ Post
I recognize that performance improvement is hard to do and
takes persistence and discipline. Many organizations simply
avoid the issue or create excuses to explain their inaction. I’m
asking that you consider taking the more difficult path of initiating transparency and performance improvement efforts in your
organization for the greater good of achieving your mission and
providing excellent public service in the longer term.
action plans to display improvement efforts that are
underway or pending. These action plans should contain
short- and long-term deadlines along with assignments
of those who are responsible for task completion—essentially, manage improvement activities like any other
project. Action plans should be transparent by being
made accessible to employees and external stakeholders,
and updated monthly or bi-monthly. Making the action
plans and deadlines accessible will drive accountability
toward implementing improvements, and will serve as an
avenue to engage your internal and external stakeholders
in improvement efforts.
■ Dedicate
a strong effort on communication and reinforce the message toward a performance improvement
culture—as discussed above, there are several methods that should be used to reiterate why performance
improvement is a “value-add” to an organization and
its stakeholders.
■ Offer
performance improvement training (in-house or
externally) to employees—this promotes the improvement culture, increases buy-in, and encourages other
personnel to get engaged or contribute in some way in
improvement initiatives.
■
Create a stretch goal of becoming a high performing organization (HPO) and/or applying for the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award—these kinds of stretch goals
have a tendency to bring people together for a common
purpose, and in so doing the organization would be
instituting best practices and establishing their performance improvement culture.
As a side note, maybe it’s my background in industrial engineering and Six Sigma driving me to
suggest that many of the ideas presented above are
grounded in the notion that we as improvement
Government Division
6
I have had the good fortune of periodically conversing
with many different professionals (federal, state, and local
governments; consultants; public and private organizations;
different countries, etc.) involved in organizational improvement. I have spent time gaining their perspectives and collecting
data (although I cannot claim yet that my sample is statistically
representative). I wrote this article based on my discussions
with these professionals along with a merger of my own experience conducting performance improvement efforts in countless
organizations. I encourage anyone to write me back at marc.
berson@practical-me.com and offer your own experiences,
comments, agreement, or disagreement—I welcome all of it.
_________________________________
Marc D. Berson is the president of Practical Management Envisioneering
(PME) LLC. He has 28 years of experience as a program director, practitioner,
advisor, and instructor of business process improvement, performance management, metrics development, quality assurance, organizational efficiency, work
measurement, staffing/workforce modeling, procurement strategy, and related
management consulting initiatives. Applying Six Sigma, industrial engineering,
and statistics principles and techniques, Berson has directed study teams in data
collection and analysis for many public organizations (large and small) including
federal, state, and local levels of government, as well as other entities. Berson
is an ASQ Certified Six Sigma Black Belt (CSSBB) and currently serves as an
officer and newsletter editor in the ASQ Government Division. He has a master’s
degree in engineering administration from Virginia Tech and a BS in commerce
and engineering from Drexel University.
Spring 2015
Ordinary Problems,
Extraordinary Solutions
By Gary Vansuch, Director of Process Improvement,
and Andrew Frank, Process Improvement Intern,
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Colorado’s population is forecasted to nearly double by the
year 2050. The federal gas tax, which makes up a large portion of CDOT’s funding, has not been raised or adjusted for
inflation in 21 years. The highway system accounts for 28
billion vehicle miles traveled per year. And yet, the Colorado
Department of Transportation is continually asked to do more
with less; to optimize taxpayer dollars and provide the best,
most effective and efficient multimodal transportation system
to move goods, people, and information across the state.
The strain put on Colorado’s transportation system due to
increased demand and decreased funding has necessitated
a change in how CDOT does business. Understanding this
need to improve and evolve the organization, Governor John
Hickenlooper initiated a statewide lean program with the
goal of increasing efficiency, cutting costs, and maximizing
potential. This lean initiative is helping CDOT to accomplish
as much as possible with limited resources, foster a culture
of continuous improvement, and develop the organizational
agility that is necessary for success in the 21st century.
The ideal lean organization is evolving, adapting, and
never content to let the wheels of innovation cease to turn.
This requires that improvement be ingrained into the philosophy of the organization, and that ideas come not only from
the executive level, but from the front lines where the product is being developed. It may be easier to strategize from
behind a desk, but it’s more beneficial to cultivate ideas by
engaging employees.
Alan Robinson and Dean Schroeder, authors of the excellent Ideas Are Free, point out that front-line ideas offer four
times more improvement potential than ideas generated by
managers. This is not to say that ideas generated by executive management are not beneficial, but rather that there is
a wealth of untapped potential in every organization’s workforce. CDOT’s Everyday Ideas initiative aims to harness this
potential by empowering employees to make autonomous
process improvements across the organization.
Numerous front-line employees and managers at
CDOT have taken to this initiative and created tools
that cut costs, increase safety, and reduce the environmental impact of CDOT’s work. For instance, a
hydraulic fluid holding box was created by several
employees who recognized that there was nothing to
hold hydraulic hoses while working on equipment.
This resulted in frequent fluid spills that spread pollutants and made the storage of these hoses arduous
and time consuming. The hydraulic fluid holding box
reduces fluid spills, allows for the proper disposal
of these pollutants, and makes the storage of these
hoses fast and simple (more information about the
hydraulic fluid holding box can be found at this
address: https://www.codot.gov/business/processimprovement/everyday-lean-innovations-ideas/
hydraulic-fluid-holding-box).
Likewise, a “wing cart” was developed by
an employee who wanted to improve the process
of mounting and removing wing plows from midrange and tandem-drive-axle trucks. This job typically
required two or more employees working for two
or more hours with a front-end loader or overhead
crane. Using the wing cart, this process takes a total
of six minutes, and requires only one employee
(more information about the wing cart can be found
at this address: https://www.codot.gov/business/process-improvement/everyday-lean-innovations-ideas/
wing-cars-allow-faster-safer-removal-and-installation).
CDOT understands that its most powerful resource is the
knowledge, experience, and ingenuity of its workforce, and
Everyday Ideas gives employees an outlet to share their ideas
for process improvement at both the micro and macro levels.
Employees are encouraged to identify a problem or opportunity, develop a solution, test their innovation, and apply
the change. These ideas are catalogued, reviewed, and then
disseminated and replicated where they are most applicable.
At right are only a few examples of the exciting innovations
that CDOT employees are developing, and every day there are
new ideas submitted that have the potential to improve the
cont. on p. 8
Government Division
7
Spring 2015
Ordinary Problems, Extraordinary Solutions cont.
organization. CDOT understands that continuous improvement and change are necessary for
organizational success, and by investing in our
employees, we’re creating a brighter future for
CDOT, and for Colorado’s citizens. By encouraging everyone, everyday, to think creatively,
identify opportunities, and solve problems,
Everyday Ideas is making CDOT a more effective, efficient, and elegant organization.
CDOT’s Process Improvement Website:
https://www.codot.gov/business/process-improvement.
Hydraulic Fluid Holding Box:
https://www.codot.gov/business/process-improvement/
everyday-lean-innovations-ideas/hydraulic-fluid-holding-box.
Wing Cart:
https://www.codot.gov/business/process-improvement/
everyday-lean-innovations-ideas/
wing-cars-allow-faster-safer-removal-and-installation.
Gary Vansuch is director of process improvement for the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Vansuch
directs efforts to improve the organization’s operations,
focused on making government more effective, efficient, and
elegant. He has more than 30 years of business improvement
and change leadership experience in the energy, financial services, research,
and governmental services sectors. CDOT’s process improvement initiative was recognized in 2015 with the “Bright Ideas” designation from the
Innovations in American Government Awards program, which is administered by Harvard University. Vansuch has held several leadership positions
within ASQ, including chair of the Service Quality Division and chair of
the Ishikawa Medal Selection Committee. He is a Lean Six Sigma Master
Black Belt and a Certified Change Management Practitioner. Additionally,
Vansuch served six years with the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
program, including four years as a senior examiner and as a member of the
national Case Study Development Team. He has also been a judge for ASQ’s
International Team Excellence Awards, and a judge for the RIT/USA Quality
Cup competition for improvement teams.
CDOT Lean Process Improvement
Program Recognized as
2015 Harvard Ash Center
Bright Idea in Government
DENVER – The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and
Innovation at the John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, has recognized the Colorado Department
of Transportation (CDOT)’s Lean Process Improvement
Initiative as a part of the 2015 Bright Ideas program.
To make government more effective and efficient, CDOT
launched a lean process improvement program in 2011.
The effort builds the creative and inventive skills of frontline employees to improve larger, cross-functional processes
through lean rapid improvement events and smaller ones
through everyday lean ideas.
This year’s Bright Ideas cohort includes 124 programs
from all levels of government—school districts; county, city,
state, and federal agencies; as well as public-private partnerships—that are at the forefront in innovative government
action. CDOT’s lean initiative was selected from among
500 applicants.
“The lean program has had an incredible impact on
improving businesses’ processes so CDOT can better and
more efficiently serve our customer,” said outgoing executive
director Don Hunt, who helped initiate the programs. “By
engaging all of our employees in this effort, we were able to
take processes that have a real impact to our customers and
make them faster and more responsive.”
Through the CDOT lean program, CDOT now:
• Hires employees 17 percent faster—getting qualified
employees to work more quickly
• Issues oversize and overweight permits 30 percent faster—
enabling commercial vehicles to get their goods to where
they need to go
• Reimburses transit project grantees 75 percent faster—getting dollars to benefit customers more quickly
• Uses inventions by CDOT employees to improve environmental safety through a new hydraulic fluid holding box
to improve safety and more quickly repair delineator posts
cont. on p. 9
Government Division
8
Spring 2015
CDOT Lean Process Improvement Program Recognized as
2015 Harvard Ash Center Bright Idea in Government cont.
“The Bright Ideas program demonstrates that often
seemingly intractable problems can be creatively and
capably tackled by small groups of dedicated, civicminded individuals,” said Stephen Goldsmith, director
of the Innovations in Government Program at the Ash
Center. “As exemplified by this year’s Bright Ideas, making government work better doesn’t always require
massive reforms and huge budgets. Indeed, we are
seeing that, in many ways, an emphasis on efficiency
and adaptability can have further-reaching effects than
large-scale reforms.”
This is the fourth cohort recognized through the Bright
Ideas program, an initiative of the broader Innovations in
American Government Awards program. For consideration
as a Bright Idea, programs must currently be in operation
or in the process of launching, have sufficient operational
resources, and must be administered by one or more governmental entities. (Nonprofit, private sector, and union
initiatives are eligible if operating in partnership with a governmental organization.) Bright Ideas are showcased on the
Ash Center’s Government Innovators Network, an online
platform for practitioners and policymakers to share innovative public policy solutions.
Improvement Programs in
State Government: To What
Extent Is It Happening?
A Summary of Survey Results
By Rich Mallory
CPS HR Consulting conducted a survey in April 2014 on behalf of the
ASQ Government Division to benchmark the current state of improvement
initiatives in state government, as well
as to help ASQ determine which
agencies might have case studies worthy of recognition. The following is
the survey report’s executive summary. The full report can be found at
http://www.cpshr.us/resources_whitepapers.html.
Based on this survey and additional secondary research,
an estimated 20 percent of all state agencies now have formal lean quality improvement programs in place. Quality
in government initiatives have a short life cycle, and most
do not survive more than three to five years due to a lack
“It is an honor to be recognized by the Ash Center,” adds
Gary Vansuch, CDOT director of process improvement.
“Everyone, every day is involved in enhancing the services
and programs provided to the public. At CDOT, we use lean
and our existing resources to create more value in the work
we do on a daily basis by ensuring our processes are effective
and impactful.”
For more information about process improvement at
CDOT, visit: www.codot.gov/business/process-improvement.
About the Ash Center for
Democratic Governance and Innovation
The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and
Innovation advances excellence in governance
and strengthens democratic institutions worldwide.
Through its research, education, international programs, and government innovations awards, the center
fosters creative and effective government problem solving and serves as a catalyst for addressing many of the
most pressing needs of the world’s citizens. For more
information, visit www.ash.harvard.edu.
of structured support, both by political leadership and by
top agency executives. The average duration of all reported
statewide quality efforts was about two years, with 29 percent reporting being in place for less than one year. Lean and
continuous quality improvement efforts have a limited life
span in government because there is no long-term incentive
for maintaining successful efforts. These efforts are often initiated by a single executive leader in government, and do not
survive changes in political administration.
This study supports the professional observation of the
Government Division that quality in government is not grown
and maintained without focused and continuous work, and that
auditable quality standards are necessary to support these efforts.
The respondent group estimated that 39.9 percent of all
subordinate agencies in their jurisdictions “are effectively
using the principles of process (and) quality improvement.”
However, since it was determined that the respondent group
was dominated by those who do practice quality, that average
cannot be considered broadly representative. Only five of 36
initial survey responses (or 14 percent) reported no quality
activity, so it is clear that the high average is typical only of
those jurisdictions with formal efforts—a minority of the total.
Another means of estimating the prevalence of use of
quality methods in government was derived from the number
cont. on p. 10
Government Division
9
Spring 2015
Improvement Programs in State Government:
To What Extent Is It Happening? cont.
Only 45 percent of respondents believed that their commitment to quality efforts would be good for their own future
career advancement. Additionally, several respondents provided comments indicating that quality efforts are the “right
thing” to do. One typical comment was that “there is a commitment to improve performance on behalf of the taxpayer at
all levels of (our) state government. You can’t help but be part of
the process.” Another said, “it is our best opportunity to get past
politics at the top and concentrate our staff efforts on improving
process efficiency and effectiveness from the bottom up.”
of the agencies (262) that were deemed to have received the
survey and that provided an affirmative initial response that,
“Yes, my agency (or department) actively practices the principles of performance improvement, process improvement,
or quality improvement.” Thirty-six agencies did provide this
kind of affirmative response, providing a “low estimate” that
13.7 percent of all state agencies practice quality.
Respondents said the reported quality efforts were voluntary and only encouraged and supported by statewide offices
where they exist. One comment noted there is no statewide
process to improve performance, “However, individual areas
are being identified (for action) … and the efficiencies are
being shared (with all).” Another respondent said that quality
practices are used to address problems and inefficiencies in
single agencies, “but (learning is) not replicated elsewhere
and are not part of any management decision making.”
Another practitioner said that “not all agencies are engaged
in process improvement. … It is not across the board and
seems to be a minority of agencies.”
Additional analysis determined that the longest duration
for any statewide quality effort is the Minnesota Office of
Continuous Improvement, established in 2007, coming up on
eight years of service.
The primary motivation for quality efforts underway seems
to be the commitment of quality managers to “do the right
thing” and to deliver excellent customer service. It is also
important that they are supported in their efforts by higher
management. On a scale of one to five, where five represented
“strongly agree” and one represented “strongly disagree,” 85
percent of respondents believed there was higher-level management commitment to the success of their efforts.
Government Division
10
Responses were mixed regarding higher management’s
commitment to quality in terms of maintaining a culture that
promotes improvement through recognition and inquiry.
When asked if employees are empowered to ask “Why do we
do this?” without fear of reprisal, 59 percent of respondents
answered affirmatively, while 36 percent answered neutrally
(neither agreed nor disagreed). The same responses were
given regarding whether “those involved in successful (quality
improvement) efforts have received appropriate recognition.”
Eight respondents reported a statewide office that uses
established quality frameworks, all of whom reported
that lean or Lean Six Sigma practices were used. Of 20
respondents, 55 percent reported using only lean quality improvement efforts, whereas 45 percent used lean/Six
Sigma. Other predominant quality practices included DMAIC
(45 percent), kaizen (40 percent), and ISO (20 percent either
using or planning to use).
Just under half (45 percent) of respondents said they had
case studies or documented results from process improvement
teams. For those who had documentation, the number of
teams ranged from as few as three to as many as 500 teams.
Adoption of auditable quality standards provides the
long-term support most organizations need to maintain and
enlarge the use of quality practices in state government
because they have the potential to provide a “maturity score”
on the efficiency and effectiveness of every program office
in each state. The standards, more fully described in the
book, Quality Standards for Highly Effective Government,
by Richard Mallory, include a process management standard
that allows simple scoring of the management of the key processes of every manager and supervisor in state government.
According to Mallory, “The net effect of auditable quality
standards is to make the use of quality practices immediately
evident, and to reward those managers and supervisors who
do adopt and maintain quality practices.” These standards
are also published on the ASQ website: http://rube.asq.org/
gov/2014/02/auditable-quality-standards-for-government.pdf.
Spring 2015
2015 Leadership
Government Division
will be hosting exciting
WCQI meetings
CHAIR
John Baranzelli
Illinois Department of Transportation
john.baranzelli@outlook.com
217-414-0808 – mobile
MARKETING CHAIR/PAST CHAIR
Brian DeNiese
Region of Peel
Brian.DeNiese@peelregion.ca
905-791-7800 x4088
CHAIR-ELECT
Mark Abrams
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
marklabrams@gmail.com
978-660-6384
MEMBER LEADER/WEB PAGE LIAISON
Richard Wilson
City Manager, Retired
rclaywilsonjr@gmail.com
831-435-9140 (mobile)
• The first meeting will take place
from 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. and
will be a leadership dialogue
focused on the topic of Sustaining
Lean Process Improvements in
Government Agencies.
TREASURER
Fred Albert
FAA Resource Planning Team
Planning & Requirements Group, AJVW3A
Fred.Albert@faa.gov
425-203-4792- office
Bonnie Gaughan-Bailey, CQIA
Division Strategic Operations Manager
Florida Department of Health
Bonnie.Gaughan-Bailey@flhealth.gov
850-245-4444, ext 3872
• The second meeting will take place
from 3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. and
will be an open dialogue between
the Government Division leadership and our members.
MEMBERSHIP CHAIR
Laura Freeman
IDA
lfreeman@ida.org
703-845-2084 - work
703-946-0859 - mobile
IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR/SECRETARY
Chair of Center for Auditable Standards
Rich Mallory
Senior Project Manager
CPS HR Consulting
rich_mallory@yahoo.com
916-208-8867 – mobile
916-471-3128 - office
AUDIT CHAIR/SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY MEMBER LEADER
Christena Shepherd
Jacobs/ESSSA Group
christena.c.shepherd@nasa.gov
256-544-7419
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUALITY STANDARDS
IN GOVERNMENT
CHAIR
Denzil Verardo
CA Commission on Cost Control in
State Government
denzilv@frontiernet.net
916-955-7242
Fred Albert
Marc Berson
Rich Mallory
Christena Shepherd
ADVISORY MEMBERS
James Harrington
hjh@harrington-institute.com
408-358-2476
The Government Division will
be located at booth 851.
Vo l u n t e e r s
Welcome
Are you a member of the
Government Division with a few
hours to spare and an interest in
participating on the Government
Division leadership team?
In particular, we hope to find
Mark Miloscia
miloscia@comcast.net
members to help us maintain the
content on our website: asq.org/gov.
No special Web building or html
NEWSLETTER EDITOR
Marc Berson
Practical Management Envisioneering
(PME)
President
marc.berson@practical-me.com
202-236-1182
Government Division
Consider attending the following
meetings during the 2015 World Con­
ference on Quality and Improvement
in Nashville, TN, on Sunday, May 3,
2015, in Ryman Ballroom C.
skills are necessary. Contact Sarah
McCalvy at ASQ for more information: smccalvy@asq.org.
11
Spring 2015
Next deadline for Government Division News submittals is June 25, 2015
600 N. Plankinton Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53203-2914
Government Division News is published quarterly by the
Government Division of ASQ.
Information regarding change of address, go to: www.asq.org
• Log in as a member
Government Division News is a publication of the
ASQ Government Division. The Government Division
does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in
Government Division News by contributors. Items are
chosen for their general interest to Society members,
but conclusions are those of the individual writers.
• Click on “My Account”
• Click on “My Contact Information” (tab)
Or contact: ASQ Customer Care at 800-248-1946
Newsletter Submission Dates
Summer Issue
Submit by June 25, 2015
Fall/Winter Issue Submit by October 26, 2015
Spring Issue
Submit by February 24, 2016
Send your submissions to marc.berson@practical-me.com.
Please consider the environment.
Do you really need a paper copy of this newsletter?
Please send a message to jbecker@asq.org with
“Electronic Only” in the subject line.