|
Selecting and Sequencing
Work Processes for Improvement
- Raphael L. Vitalo
and Joseph P. Vitalo
Problem
You have narrowed your focus for doing Kaizen events to several candidate work
processes. You cannot Kaizen all of them at once. You ask for guidance from
leadership and are told that improving every one of the candidates is urgent.
How do you proceed?
Solution
We suggest using a criterion rating approach to prioritizing the candidate
work processes. It evaluates each work process against a set of criteria that
represent your business improvement goals. This approach allows you to evaluate
to what extent improving each work process will contribute to realizing these
goals. Use the results of this activity to rank order the candidate work processes.
The first ranked process is where you begin your improvement efforts. Schedule
the remaining work processes for Kaizen events beginning with the second ranked
process and proceeding to the lowest ranked work process. Here is how it is
done.
| 1. |
|
Build a table with the names of the processes
as column headers (see example in Exhibit 1, below). |
| |
|
| Tip: |
Use an electronic spreadsheet to build your table. It
will complete the computations that you need to do in the steps below. |
|
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
Create a row for each business driver or key business concern.
| Tip: |
A business driver is your business' near-term for improving
its operations and the results. Use the name of the business driver
as the name of each row. Examples of business drivers are "improve
profit margins," "elevate customer satisfaction with delivered
product," and "increase revenues." Add to this list
any concerns management may have with regard to making improvements.
For example, management may feel that it is critical that improvements
occur speedily, that success in making improvements have a high likelihood,
or that the cost expended to make improvement be minimized. |
|
| |
|
|
| 3. |
|
Establish a rating scale for evaluating work processes against
drivers and concerns.
| Tip: |
Keep the scale simple until it is clear
you need greater precision in your judgments. Consider using a qualitative
judgment of how well doing a Kaizen event on each work process will
satisfy each business driver or concern (e.g., "not at all,"
"a little"). See a description of a simple qualitative scale
in the footnote to Exhibit 1. |
|
| |
|
|
| 4. |
|
Rate how well the improvement of each work process would
satisfy each driver and concern.
| Tip: |
Apply the rating scale. Use the best information
you can obtain from people knowledgeable of the work process and its
affects on business drivers. Use your knowledge of Kaizen and the
work setting to judge how well the improvement of the work process
would satisfy listed concerns. Record your ratings in the table you
prepared. |
|
| |
|
|
| 5. |
|
Compute the total score each process receives.
| Tip: |
Sum the ratings for each candidate work
process. You can also average the ratings. If you use the latter approach,
the number reflects the typical rating the work process received on
the scale you created. |
|
| |
|
|
| 6. |
|
Rank the candidate work processes.
| Tip: |
The work process with the highest score
ranks first, next highest second, and so forth. |
|
| |
Exhibit
1 - Example of Table and a Qualitative Scale1 |
|
| |
Business
Drivers/Concerns |
Name
of Process #1 |
Name
of Process #2 |
Name
of Process #n |
|
| |
Improve profit margins |
5.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
|
| |
Elevate customer satisfaction
with delivered products |
3.00 |
5.00 |
2.00 |
|
| |
Increase revenues |
4.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
|
| |
Produce results fast |
4.00 |
3.00 |
1.00 |
|
| |
Have a high likelihood of
success |
3.00 |
4.00 |
5.00 |
|
| |
Least cost expended to get
improvement |
4.00 |
3.00 |
5.00 |
|
| |
Etc. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Totals |
23.00 |
19.00 |
17.00 |
|
| |
Average |
3.83 |
3.17 |
2.83 |
|
| |
1.
Rating Scale: Level 1 - Will not satisfy this driver or concern at all;
Level 2 - Will satisfy this driver or concern a little; Level 3 - Will satisfy
this driver or concern somewhat; Level 4 - Will satisfy this driver or concern
a great deal; Level 5 - Will satisfy this driver or concern completely. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Make Finer Distinctions
To make even sharper judgments about what priority to assign improving each
candidate work process, use the importance of a driver and concern in your evaluation.
For example, you can assign each driver or concern an importance score ranging
from 1 to 10, where 1 is least critical and 10 is most critical (see Exhibit
2). Complete your ratings as before. Now, however, compute the cell value for
how well a process satisfies a driver or concern by multiplying the importance
of the driver or concern by the rating you assigned the candidate work process
(see Exhibit 2). Sum the ratings for each candidate work process—however,
do not compute the average rating.1.
This method produces finer distinctions between candidate processes that otherwise
rate evenly.
| |
Exhibit
2. Example of Table and a Qualitative Scale1 Using Weights |
|
| |
Business
Drivers/Concerns |
Name
of Process #1 |
Name
of Process #2 |
Name
of Process #n |
|
| |
Improve profit margins [10]
2 |
[10x 5 rating] = 50 |
[10x 2 rating] = 20 |
[10x 2 rating] = 20 |
|
| |
Elevate customer satisfaction
with delivered products [10] |
[10x 3rating] = 30 |
[10x 5 rating] = 50 |
[10x 2 rating] = 20 |
|
| |
Increase revenues [9] |
[9 x 4 rating] = 36 |
[9 x 2 rating] = 18 |
[9 x 2rating] = 18 |
|
| |
Produce results fast [8] |
[8 x 4 rating] = 32 |
[8x 3 rating] = 24 |
[8x 1 rating] = 8 |
|
| |
Have a high likelihood of
success [7] |
[7 x 3 rating] = 21 |
[7 x 4 rating] = 28 |
[7 x 5 rating] = 35 |
|
| |
Least cost expended to get
improvement [4] |
[4 x 4 rating] = 16 |
[4 x 3 rating] = 12 |
[4 x 5 rating] = 20 |
|
| |
Etc. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Totals |
185.00 |
152.00 |
121.00 |
|
| |
1.
Rating Scale: Level 1 - Will not satisfy this driver
or concern at all; Level 2 - Will satisfy this driver or concern a little;
Level 3 - Will satisfy this driver or concern somewhat; Level 4 - Will
satisfy this driver or concern a great deal; Level 5 - Will satisfy this
driver or concern completely.
2. The single number in brackets ([ ] ) that appears after
each concern indicates how important satisfying that concern is to the
business. "1" is least important and "10" is most
important. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
By applying the criterion rating method described above, you can resolve the
question of how to sequence work processes for improvement. The method offers
several benefits. First, it allows you to explain, step-by-step, how you arrived
at your decision. Second, your approach incorporates the major goals of the
business and concerns of its leadership. Leadership, therefore, will be better
able to understand your explanation and see it as responding to the business's
needs. Third, the entire process can be done with a team of people. You can
involve your Action Team, if your lean initiative is using such a vehicle for
organizing and implementing improvement events. Or, you can do it with representatives
from the various work processes. The point is, the method allows you to engage
and involve others and that builds the participation you need to make and sustain
work process improvements. Finally, the method is transferable. You can use
this criterion rating approach to make any complex or difficult decision. Simply
define the goal for the decision, identify the key concerns related to accomplishing
that goal, generate alternatives, and evaluate each alternative against each
concern. We use this method during Kaizen events—e.g., to decide which
improvements to proceed with when the team is undecided or the consequences
of error are high. We also use it with lean planning teams, since it allows
everyone to express their views and enables a better buy-in on whatever the
final decision is.
Footnote
1The
meaning of the average rating has changed given the use of importance scores.
Published April 2006; Revised October 2006
Help Us Provide
You Better Content. |
|
 |
Tell us your thoughts about this
article. |
|
Be sure to name the article in your
feedback. |
|
|
|
