metrics-based process mapping: part 2 of 3

23
Company LOGO Metrics-Based Process Mapping Part 2 of 3

Upload: karen-martin

Post on 13-Dec-2014

614 views

Category:

Business


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Recorded webinar: http://slidesha.re/18boq16 Part 1 - http://slidesha.re/15qe1qW Part 3 - http://slidesha.re/139L8Sb (Excel tool product demo) Subscribe: http://www.ksmartin.com/subscribe To purchase the book: http://bit.ly/MBPMbk Metrics-Based Process Mapping (MBPM) is a methodology that was developed to support the adoption of lean practices in office, service, and knowledge work environments. Designed and developed by Karen Martin & Mike Osterling, this technique integrates the functional orientation of conventional swim-lane process maps with the time and quality metrics used in value stream mapping.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

Company

LOGO

Metrics-Based Process Mapping Part 2 of 3

Page 2: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

2

Karen Martin, PrincipalKaren Martin & Associates

www.ksmartin.com

Mike Osterling, PresidentOsterling Consulting www.mosterling.com

Chapter 12 –Metrics-Based Process Mapping

(manual method)

Excel Tool for Archiving Completed Maps

Available from Productivity Press, Amazon, or any major bookseller

About Us

Page 3: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 3

Metrics-Based Process Mapping:Three-Part Series

Part 1: Document the current state.Part 2: Analyze the current state; design

and implement the future state.Part 3: Document the improved process.

Page 4: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 4

1. Label the map in upper right corner. Process name, date, facilitator and/or team members

2. List the functions involved in left column.3. Document all activities/steps.

Verb/noun; concise language; include function as well.

4. Number the activities. One number per column; concurrent activities are

labeled A, B, C, etc.

5. Add activity-specific metrics (PT, LT, %C&A), barriers to flow, and number of staff involved (if relevant). Include units of measure (mins, hrs, days, etc.)

Creating the Current State MBPMPhase I

Page 5: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

Metrics-Based Process Mapping (MBPM)

Page 6: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 6

Creating the Current State MBPMPhase II

6. Define the critical path. Longest LT unless “dead-end” step; use colored marker

7. Create the timeline.8. Calculate the summary metrics

CP PT Sum, CP LT Sum, AR, RFPY, Total PT, Labor Required

9. Define the value-adding and necessary non-value-adding activities Use small colored post-it labeled with “VA” and “N.”

10. Circle the step-specific metrics that indicate the greatest opportunity for improvement. Use red marker. Longest LTs, Low %C&As, High PTs, Low step-specific ARs

Page 7: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

Step 6: Define the “Timeline Critical Path”

For parallel activities: Chose the longest LT unless a “dead-end” activity

Page 8: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

Step 7: Create the Timeline

Page 9: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates

Document the Current State

Step 8 – Calculate the summary metrics Critical Path (timeline) PT Sum Critical Path (timeline) LT Sum % Activity (PT Sum/Total LT Sum) x 100

Rolled First Pass Yield (RFPY) %C&A x %C&A x %C&A… Include ALL post-its, not just critical path

Labor Requirements (see next slide)

9

Page 10: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates

Summary Metrics: Labor Requirements

Total PT Sum of all activities, not just timeline

Labor Requirements

10

Total PT (in hrs) X # occurrences per year# FTEs*Available work hrs per year per employee

=

* FTE = Full-time Equivalent (e.g. Two half-time employees = 1 FTE)

Available work hour per year per employee

= 2,080 – (paid holidays + paid vacations)

Page 11: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates

Summary Metrics: Current State Findings

11

Metric Current State ProjectedFuture State

Projected % Improvement

Timeline Process Time Sum

Timeline Lead Time Sum

Activity Ratio

Rolled First Pass Yield

Total Process Time

Labor requirements

Freed capacity (FTEs)

Page 12: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates

Document the Current State

Step 9 – Identify the value-adding (VA) and necessary non-value-adding (N) activities Use small colored post-its labeled with “VA” or

“N”. All unlabelled post-its represent waste. NOTE – this is the first of two “bridge steps”

between current state documentation and future state design.

12

Page 13: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 13

Defining Value

Value-Adding (VA) - any operation or activity your external customers valueand are (or would be) willing to pay for.Non-Value-Adding (NVA) - any operation

or activity that consumes time and/or resources but does not add value to the service provided or product sold to the customer. Necessary - regulatory or necessary for the

business to function effectively, etc. Unnecessary - everything else - WASTE

Page 14: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates

Step 9: Label the value-adding (VA) andnecessary non-value adding (N) activities

14

Page 15: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

Step 10: Circle the data that indicates the greatest need for improvement

Greatest need for improvement:• High LT• High PT• Low PT/LT ratio• %C&A below 80%• Other barriers to flow

Page 16: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

Root Cause Analysis: 4 Key ToolsCauseCause--andand--Effect DiagramEffect Diagram

Machine Measurement Environment

People Material / Info Method

Budgets Submitted Late

Lack of experience

Time availability

No sense of import

No stnd spread sheet

Email vs. FedEx

No standard work

Input rec’d late

Forecast in other system

Manual vs. PC

System avail.

No milestones

$ vs. units

Weather delays

Dispersed sales force

Changing schedule

Machine Measurement Environment

People Material / Info Method

Budgets Submitted Late

Lack of experience

Time availability

No sense of import

No stnd spread sheet

Email vs. FedEx

No standard work

Input rec’d late

Forecast in other system

Manual vs. PC

System avail.

No milestones

$ vs. units

Weather delays

Dispersed sales force

Changing schedule

5 Why’sWhy? Why? Why? Why? Why?

P a r e t o Cha r t Cr e di t Appl i c a t i on De l a y s

2 9 0 9

6 2 7 5 6 1

2 4 2 1 8 0

2 4 9 3

4 1 %

7 7 %8 6 %

1 0 0 %9 7 %9 4 %

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

N o S i g n a t u r e I n s u f f i c i e n t

B a n k I n f o

N o p r i o r

a d d r e s s

C u r r e n t

C u s t o me r

N o C r e d i t

H i s t o r y

O t h e r

Re a son f or D e l a y

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Check Sheets Quantify Occurrences

|Equipment failure

|||||||||||||Changing customer requirements w/ no adjustment to expected delivery

||||||||||Order entry error

|||Staffing/absenteeism

|||||Quality issue requiring rework

|||||||Material shortage

Tally Reason

|Equipment failure

|||||||||||||Changing customer requirements w/ no adjustment to expected delivery

||||||||||Order entry error

|||Staffing/absenteeism

|||||Quality issue requiring rework

|||||||Material shortage

Tally Reason

Page 17: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

Future State Design Considerations

Eliminate steps / handoffs Combine steps Create parallel paths Alter task sequencing

and/or timing Implement pull systems Reduce / eliminate batches Improve quality Create an organized, visual

workplace Reduce changeover Eliminate motion &

transportation

Standardize work Eliminate unnecessary

approvals / authorizations

Stop performing non-value adding (NVA) tasks

Co-locate functions based on flow; create cells (teams of cross-functional staff)

Balance work to meet takt time requirements

17

Page 18: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates

Summary Metrics:Projected Future State Results

18

Metric Current State ProjectedFuture State

Projected % Improvement

Timeline Process Time Sum

Timeline Lead Time Sum

Activity Ratio

Rolled First Pass Yield

Total Process Time

Labor requirements

Freed capacity (FTEs)

Page 19: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates

Summary Metrics: Labor Requirements

Total PT Sum of all activities, not just timeline

Labor Requirements

19

Total PT (in hrs) X # occurrences/year# FTEsAvailable work hrs/year/employee

=

* FTE = Full-time Equivalent (2 half time employees = 1 FTE)

Freed Capacity = Current State FTEs – Future State FTEs

Page 20: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

PACE Improvement Prioritization Grid

High LowAnticipated Benefit

Ease

of

Imp

lem

enta

tion

Diff

icul

tEa

sy

20

7

513

4 23

1

2289

2

10

16

11

6

12

1419

15

173

21

18

Page 21: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

Value Stream

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2 Improve quality of referral KE Sean O'Ryan

3, 4 Reduce lead time beween schedulingand preregistration steps PROJ Dianne

Prichard

5, 6 Eliminate the need for two patient check-ins KE Michael

O'Shea

6 Eliminate bottleneck in waiting area KE Dianne Prichard

9 Eliminate lead time associated with transcription step PROJ Sam Parks

10 Eliminate batched reading KE Sam Parks

7 Reduce inventory costs, regulatory risk and storage needs KE Michael

O'Shea

12 Reduce delay in report delivery PROJ Martha Allen

12 Reduce delay in report delivery KE Martha Allen

Implement voice recognition technology

Reduce setup required

Cross-train and colocate work teams

Implement additional fax ports

Collect copays in Imaging

Balance work / level demand

5S CT supplies area; implement kanban

Value Stream Mapping Facilitator

Increase percentage of physicians receiving electronic delivery (rather than hard copy)

Approvals

Executive Sponsor Value Stream Champion

Signature:

Date: Date: Date:

Signature: Signature:

Block# Goal / Objective Improvement Activity

Implement standard work for referral process

Type Owner Implementation Schedule (weeks) Date Complete

Date Created

11/21/2007Allen WardSally McKinseyDave Parks 12/13/200710/18/2007 1/10/2008

Future State Implementation PlanExecutive Sponsor

Value Stream ChampionValue Stream Mapping Facilitator

Implementation Plan Review Dates11/1/2007

Outpatient Imaging

Create an Action Plan: Who, What, When, Where, and How?

Page 22: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 22

Metrics-Based Process Mapping:Three-Part Series

Part 1: Document the current state.Part 2: Analyze the current state; design

and implement the future state.Part 3: Document the improved process.

Page 23: Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 23

Karen Martin, Principal7770 Regents Road #635

San Diego, CA 92122858.677.6799

[email protected]

Visit us on Twitter, Linked In, Facebook, YouTube

For Further Questions