Government, Bureaucracy, Ethics, Reengineering
Prologue
A while back
my colleague Ozzie Paez and I wrote several articles for UPDATE on various
topics ranging from resilience to leadership and terrorism. Since those articles, Ozzie has focused his
work on decision making as it pertains to organizational leadership. Interestingly, one of Ozzie’s more recent
writings touches on the shortcomings of reengineering in the context of
decision making. The following is an
excerpt from that paper as a lead in to this article.
“Many
business process re-engineering efforts fail because the re-engineered
processes come into direct conflict with informal social processes on which
organizations have long relied to carry out their operations….
In
considering government structure, power and reach, the same questions help us
gage the balance and locus of decision-making control, which reflect the level
of social and political freedom in the society at large; and related economic
factors such as innovation, investment, agility and growth, which depend on
distributed timely awareness and decision-making. Of particular
concern are areas where the power of decision-making rests with individuals who
are not well informed, do not bear direct responsibility for their actions or
inactions and are personally insulated from feedback.” More on this in future UPDATE issues—hope you
enjoy this one.
Introduction
When many
people hear the words government and ethics in the same sentence it connotes an
oxymoron. Are there ethical people in
government? Absolutely! Are there unethical people in
government? Absolutely! But the same can be said for any slice of
people or society as a whole. Why single
out government – and here we are talking about government at any level̶—because
government is so visible to all of us, whether it is the seemingly
non-functioning federal government or your state, county or local
governments. All have problems and all
are visible to the citizens they supposedly represent.
Our intent
in this edition of Update is not a treatise on ethical government. That might come in a subsequent issue. We think government, bureaucracy, and ethics
are all aspects of a problem that is pervasive in our society today. We want to focus on government, since at all levels
it impacts every one of us. It also
represents organizations that don’t have the flexibility of some businesses and
don’t have necessarily the best and most forward thinking leaders. Government has the strange dichotomy of
elected officials, who are the face of government in the public, with staff
behind the scenes making many day to day decisions without full public
accountability. Government also has the
ability to fund by just raising taxes.
We are going
to offer the view that government desperately needs some form of reengineering. Now some of you are tempted to yawn and say
that reengineering is so passé. Yes, much
of what we saw in the past, under the name reengineering, was not as successful
as was intended and in some cases, smoke and mirrors gaining big consulting
fees for many people. However, the basic
tenets of reengineering were sound – look at what and how you are doing things,
identify ways to improve those things, and implement the improvements. This process is easy to describe in a
sentence, but very difficult to achieve.
Reengineering 101
Reengineering
was the “flavor of the month” several years ago. Many large and medium sized consulting firms
made their names with corporate-wide reengineering projects . Often the reengineering initiatives included large
new computer systems. Many of these
projects met with only limited success or failed outright. Chief among the reasons for the failures was unsupported
ambition and lacking patience; with limited buy-in from the various management
levels, disappointing results led to large scale layoffs and downsizing. (We’ve written about the short horizon of the
bean counters). The process of these
reengineering projects was often very disruptive to day- to-day operations and
quickly became viewed by the working level staff and lower-level management as
just a means to eliminate people.
The basic
concept was sound – understand how a particular process or part of the business
was working and then, using the knowledge of the workers involved in the
process, identify ways to make improvements.
Some of the improvements were small, others, significant. The goal was to work smarter and use existing
resources better. Also, if management and leadership are always be doing its job,
conditions shouldn’t deteriorate to a level requiring reactive initiatives such
as reengineering. Suffice it to say, the
ambitious nature of reengineering, the lack of adequate pre-planning and
buy-in, and the process’s disruptive nature limited the outcomes of
reengineering’s potential. But there is
much value in the basic tenets of reengineering. We would like to explore applying those
basics to improving government.
Why Does Government Equal
Bureaucracy?
When you
think about the federal government, the state government or your county or
local government, you probably start to think about all the different
departments and all the people involved – in other words the bureaucracy. Walking through Washington, DC, you look at
all the granite buildings and realize that most are some branch of the federal
government and house hundreds or thousands of people doing something. The same holds true for your state capital or
your local town hall and annex buildings.
By our
government’s nature, there is no incentive for efficiency in most government
organizations. All the salaries and
program costs come from taxes and fees. If
costs go up, simply raise taxes and fees.
Unfortunately there is no consideration of whether this behavior is ethical
or in the best interest of the constituents; it’s “just the way things are
done.” This seemingly unlimited ability
to raise taxes and fees removes any incentive to explore improving how things
are done. We are non-partisan here – we
are looking at government from a leadership, management and business
perspective. When a new law is passed, changed, or a new requirement is set, it
implies implementation. Some department is now charged with additional
duties. Too often, that new work is
either piled up on existing workers without considering whether all the work
can be properly handled or, at the federal and state levels, it becomes a new bureaucracy. Why
not start to look at the existing work and see if it can be done smarter, or
even eliminated, and free up the resources to be able to handle new work?
We are
directly familiar with the public utility industry. In the “old days – late 1980s/1990s” these
very large companies functioned much like governments. They were regulated monopolies. There was little incentive for them to be
efficient. If someone was not carrying
their load, and it appeared more people were needed, the case was brought in
front of the Public Utility Commission, and based on our experience the request
was granted – perhaps for not as much as requested, but it was granted—so
staffs became enlarged with minimal metrics to measure effectiveness or value
added.
New
procedures continually are added but rarely are old and obsolete procedures eliminated. Bob Lutz writes in his book, Car Guys vs Bean Counters – The Battle for
the Soul of American Business, that a procedure at General Motors specified
criteria for wheels and tires based on, as he says, “the wilds of Alaska”, so
tires would not burst and wheels would survive the roughness. This criterion was inappropriate for modern
roads, but only when it got to the point where the GM product appeared obsolete
did anyone ask the questions, then realize why things were the way they
actually were. After that, the designers
could move wheels further out, design car bodies for larger wheels and tires,
improve the design and appearance, and improve competitiveness. The reengineering methodology can reveal
these out of date procedures which impact current progress and
effectiveness. By not discarding old
and obsolete procedures, the organization gets bogged down.
Finally,
process is another opportunity for significant improvement. Typically, technology appears to be a
significant upgrade to an organization’s operation. Many times, though, applying a new technology
to an old or ineffective process is the norm.
Rethinking the process and those processes that impact the one being
examined is much more difficult and challenging than just overlaying technology
and believing that an improvement has been made.
We are
confident that our readers, on their daily encounters, witness these
phenomena. The Post Office is a classic
example. Contrast sending a package or
letter via Express Mail vs Federal Express overnight delivery. We do realize there are potential legal
implications associated with the Post Office, but the reality is Federal
Express is much more efficient and reliable.
Going back
to our government example, we read, seemingly every day, about inefficiencies
in government, whether at the Veterans Administration, FEMA or state or local
governments. Is there really not enough
staff to make things function as they were envisioned? We submit that the number of staff is not the
problem but how the staff is used and the processes the staff is saddled with
are the prime culprits. Instances that
make the national news like the VA or FEMA are drastic issues but similar
smaller instances exist right at the local levels and may not make the national
news but do impact local citizens.
A
bureaucratic example from personal experience – seemingly small and
insignificant, but when multiplied by the number of different departments and
governments around the country it illustrates how this trend can take on a life
of its own. A large condominium
development with 44 buildings, 7 pools and two clubhouses uses a lot of water
and sewer service from the local authority.
Each month the Property Owners Association, which pays for the service,
receives over 50 individual bills, each in a separate stamped envelope. The Association Manager must then create a
spreadsheet that accounts for each bill and calculate a total so a single check
can be cut for payment. The local
authority requires the spreadsheet be submitted so they can verify that each
bill is paid. In all other utility
services, the Association receives a summary bill from the service
provider. The water and sewer department
has been contacted on numerous occasions asking for summary billing but the
bureaucratic answer is always “No, it can’t be done.” The
service provider incurs additional mailing expenses, the cost of generating
individual bills, and the time and expense of a clerk going through a
spreadsheet to verify payment—monthly.
Why not consider an alternative process?
Obviously we don’t know, but it is probably considered job security, and
there is little incentive to work smarter--if the workload requires an
additional staff member, fees can be raised to cover it. Dumb things like this triplicate work exist
throughout governments at all levels (and throughout many businesses). Why are they allowed to continue? In this case, the issue has been taken to the
management of the department – with no response. It has been taken to a city council member
who said he would investigate but nothing has changed because the elected
officials “don’t have the authority to intervene in staff functions”. Where is the incentive to make government
officials take action?
How Do We Change This? Looking Inward – not Outward
While we use
the term reengineering, we always attempt to take a balanced and reasonable
approach in our thinking, even when assessing the shortcomings of
reengineering. Considering the scope of
government, the fact that leaders are typically elected with defined terms,
along with the issues discussed above about staff positions being more
permanent, a comprehensive reengineering initiative would be naïve, far too
ambitious and destined for failure.
Perhaps that’s why we never hear about it or see it in the governmental
ranks. What is achievable and necessary
is a commitment to an ongoing or continuous improvement initiative. The point here is that the organization must
look inward and examine several key areas, make the commitment to the ongoing
improvement initiative and despite who is elected – the process goes on. This method is a departure in many respects,
because the tendency is to look outward.
What can we cut as far as services, what are we doing that can be done
more effectively, what can we do to increase revenue, plus many other
considerations external to the efficient functioning of government.
About 20
years ago, public utilities struggled with the notion of looking inward. It was a culture shock as well as painful at
the time. Yet, in many respects, despite
the pain and shock, those organizations are in a better position today.
So what are
these pieces that the organization must look inward upon? They include:
·
A commitment to implement and follow through on an improvement program
·
A communication strategy
·
Needs Analysis
·
Analysis of Processes/Functions, People, Systems, and Structure
·
Implementation strategy
·
Training
·
Measurement
We will
briefly discuss each piece of this puzzle indicating the rationale as well as
what might be accomplished and expected from each.
Commitment
Without a commitment from the leaders in an organization nothing
will work. In a government organization,
that commitment must be from the elected leaders and the senior staff. That commitment must be made clear to everyone. Staff will initially fight change – it is
human nature but if they see a commitment and active involvement they will know
it is serious and recognize that they need to get on board. We have seen too many improvement efforts
fail because it was clear that senior leaders only gave the effort lip service
and were not really committed.
Communication Strategy
Once the commitment has been made, the improvement
effort will require a cohesive and well-coordinated communication initiative to
ensure staff and management buy-in and support, as well as ongoing internal and
external communication as required.
Needs Analysis
An assessment of why improvement is needed is a key step
to start. What has triggered the effort
that is now starting and will end with improved processes? This analysis can be an elaborate effort or
an honest self-assessment to look within the organization and at interfaces
with the external “customers”. For most
organizations, it requires admitting the need to improve—a difficult step.
Analysis of Processes
Process analysis sounds laborious and difficult. It can be a complex process but it doesn’t
always need to be. A process needs to be
selected that is recognized as being “broken” or has morphed into something
very complex. It needs to be high value
to the organization. A team of people
who are part of the process and are willing to look at it with a critical eye map
the process, flow charting each existing
step. Once done, duplicate or
unnecessary steps are obvious. These can
be the easy first improvements. Here, the
guidance of an experienced facilitator can make all the difference. It is easy to describe in one paragraph but
does take a little work. However, the
results can be amazing. Some processes
that function around a software program can be more complex since software
interfaces and potential enhancements are more time consuming.
People Analysis
The step determines
a staffing policy and strategy that will allow the organization to be flexible
in responding to the changes in the environment/region or area of
responsibility.
As the
organization’s responsibilities change, so will the staffing needs change. These changes may encompass areas of
experience, education, and staffing level requirements. It is important for the organization to be
flexible in its structure to adapt and respond to any changes it encounters
As a note,
this part of the improvement initiative can be one of the most anxiety-charged
efforts of the overall improvement process.
it can (and most likely will) reveal staffers whose relevance is
diminishing, or their ability to ‘remain undetected’ within the organization is
compromised, or their function is gone.
Analysis of Systems
A Systems
Analysis Strategy establishes a comprehensive and integrated approach for
analyzing the systems used within the organization and defines a method for
improving these systems and making their configuration more uniform if
appropriate.
A team from
within the organization methodically analyzes the systems and tools used as
part of performing the work. It is
important to analyze the non-uniformity, as an example, to determine the impact
on process improvements. The systems
used by the organization impact departments external to our group and therefore
need to be integrated or analyzed.
Analysis of
Structure
As part of an organization’s broad-based improvement initiative,
the structure used to perform functions must be included. The structure of the organization is the
framework for future success of the organization. The optimum structure is both flexible and
strong to survive the "storms" with a minimum of damage. In determining the structure, balance must be
achieved between functions desired and required by law and our constituents and
those that are a viable and cost effective that can be maintained and
continuously improved. The structure
must be evaluated concurrently and on an ongoing basis with internal processes
and systems to assure that artificial and real barriers are not inadvertently
introduced that could negate improvements implemented in these other
areas. Individual and organizational
strengths must be identified and capitalized on by structuring an organization
in a manner that utilizes human and other resources to their maximum
potential. External forces must be
continually analyzed as well to assure our responsiveness and quality now and
in the future.
Implementation
Strategy
Implementation of improvements should be coordinated and planned
to ensure the organization is prepared for the change and can assimilate the
change in a timely efficient manner.
Change can have many behavioral impacts, so this strategy is essential
to long term improvement.
Implementation of any change (process, system, structure,
etc.) requires careful planning and
coordination for the change to be accepted and assimilated. Each change may require a special approach
and certainly a special action plan.
This effort requires coordination with the sponsor of the change and the
departmental or organizational manager.
Training
A Training Strategy should be in place to establish a
comprehensive and integrated approach for providing the training needed to
support the initiatives of the improvement plan.
Providing adequate training is typically a challenge for any
organization. The availability of adequate training is important to the near
term as well as the long term success of any improvement initiative. The training strategy provides a means to
integrate training into the improvement plan.
Measurement
Any continuous improvement initiative has several checks along the
way to ensure an accurate and effective change mechanism. The overall programmatic perspective occurs
at this point in the process.
Measurement is a longer term view on improvements and their ultimate effectiveness.
As part of a truly “living” improvement process, a determination of
long term effectiveness is essential.
This method requires tools and processes to observe and measure
effectiveness of improvements. Measurement
tools identify the need for adjustments in the improvement approach or the
actual improvements.
Summary
The discussion above highlights an improvement process. There are some key points to keep in mind.
·
Don’t try to
change the total culture in one big effort.
It will fail! The commitment must
come from above but the work must involve those who work the process. Let improvements come from the bottom up.
·
Beware of
“sacred cows” – those items or people or steps that someone in power has a
personal interest in keeping alive. Some
may be valid but the analysis will speak for itself.
·
Start
simple. Master the basics. Try the effort on some simpler processes that
may not be mission critical for the organization. Learn the improvement process and build on
successes. We are sure you have heard the term ‘low hanging fruit,’ find the
low hanging fruit to realize what success feels like.
·
Celebrate those
successes and multiply and grow them.
·
Handle
people impacted by improved processes with dignity and respect. Try to find other positions when possible but
don’t create work just to keep someone employed.
How Does This Apply in Business?
We have
focused this article on government organizations but all that we have discussed
is directly applicable to any organization.
We used the generic term “reengineering” but clearly we are advocating not
a drastic redesign of entire organizations (either government and businesses) ,but
a measured improvement process. The
result: measurable benefits and excitement within organizations to make
continuous improvement an organizational culture.
Posters from despair.com
