The Battle for Lean

I recently came across a news article on how Fort Dodge, Iowa, population 27,000, has decided to dive into lean government.  There were a lot of good points in the article, reinforcing that this particular town government is a bit more enlightened than most... including our own federal government.

Management techniques introduced by Toyota may soon be used in a bid to improve the efficiency of Fort Dodge government services. Toyota called it lean manufacturing, but the city version is known as lean government. It's a long-term system of change that seeks to squeeze out any inefficiencies in a given task.

Fierke said hiring a firm is necessary because no one on the city staff has the training to conduct a thorough lean government review.

Lutz said laying off employees is not the ultimate goal of lean government. Fierke noted that the city is launching the process at a time when 42 employees will become eligible for retirement in the next five years.

Sounds great, eh?  Recognizing a problem, knowing that lean can help, and also knowing that lean is not about laying off people.  That's some pretty amazing leadership for a town like Fort Dodge.

But then you start reading the comments to the article, and it hits you why lean isn't more prevalent, why it is met with so much resistance.  And we can learn from that.

Wouldn't need to hire any one if some one in the city goverment had an ounce of COMMON SENSE.

How often have we heard that?  Yes, lean truly is a lot of common sense.  But it is often very hard to see common sense when you're ingrained in the status quo.

Can someone explain this to me? The city is struggling financially, and now they want to pay someone to show them how to slim down the city payroll. I thought we hired a city manager and created all these other positions to handle this stuff. I have an idea why don’t we eliminate all the overpaid positions at city hall that promised to bring in more businesses and have not delivered.

Once again.  Yes we pay managers to "handle this stuff"... in government and in business.  But we also pay managers to know when to recognize that there's a better way, and then determine how to obtain the knowledge to implement that better way.

Answer me this Do you think spending $140,000 minimum to help us do what we should be doing ourselves already is a wise idea? 

Can they do it themselves without obtaining the knowledge?  If it is done right, the ROI will be incredible... far greater than $140,000.

Toyota has a terrible reputation for workers relations.

Huh?  That's basic misinformation.  But once again, a false opinion held by some people that needs to be dealt with.

Wasn't that what the city manager was hired to do? Of course Fierke wants them retained. Less work for him to do. Can't remember the last time someone was hired to do part of my job. Must be nice to work for the city.

Consultants make it easier for managers?  Not if consultants do their job.  Then the manager has the even more difficult task of implementing.

So there you have it.  A great program by an enlightened town government, dealing with the same misgivings of their constituencies as business has with theirs... except that business is not a democracy.  But for a lean program to be successful, those issues and opinions need to be dealt with.

Comments

[Scott Sorheim]

I stumbled on that same article last week. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. This isn't the first time a government agency in Iowa has implemented lean (see here http://leantech.com/blog/?p=72 and here http://leantech.com/blog/?p=26).

However, since this is at a local level, it seems to be felt as a lot more "personal" regarding how the money is spent.

It's interesting because I would imagine if you asked a lot of those same commenters if they felt the government was bloated or inefficient, they would probably say "yes". So what kind of change would they recommend? It looks like a lot of their comments are targeted at people, and not processes, which of course is probably where the real problems lurk. It's probably good people involved in broken processes.

I know the PDG guys, who are being considered to lead the change. I really respect their approach, which is to put processes in place that allow an organization to implement and sustain change without the constant need for a consultant to be around. Which probably also explains why you see the consulting fees phased out over a period of three years.

[Carlos Donatelli]

From my perspective as and OD consultant regarding this strategy is a little different and uses some common sense. There is still time to change the proposed consulting mandate. Suggestion to City Manager:
1) Modify the contract to have consultants train internal managers/facilitators in the Kaisen methodology. Then leave and let them perform.
2) This puts project ownership internally immediately Vs externally and accelerates the change/cost reduction process
3) Cost is reduced by 2/3
4) Put the action planning/accountability in the performance management system
5) Build an incentive system that supports the change process based on a High Performance Model
6) Creates a sense of strength/pride to internal management Vs impotence

Put some speed into this contracting modification before the city council decides and save the community much needed cash and increases pride in performance and everybody wins. Carlos

President Owner
Human Resources International
Las Vegas, NV
702-686-9327

[AgustinC]

As you say, good thing manufacturing is not a democracy. Although you do need in most instances cooperation (buy-in) from your peers and co-workers.

In this case though, it seems that dealing with government adds an additional negative layer to the lean change. This public affairs layer, opens the floor to all kinds of people. People who may not really know the effects or depth of the change needed. But nevertheless people who like to voice out their frustration with governments.

Hopefully this opens up options and opportunities for other areas of government.