LEAN

Bringing Lean
To the Office
by Len Tischler

W
hen I read statements such as service
sector productivity trails manufacturing
by a wide margin,1 I see an opportunity
to make improvements.
As an old quality guy, I was invited recently
to teach a university course in lean thinking. I
had to read up on lean, design the course and
develop projects for the students to learn lean
hands-on. I chose projects on the university campus
rather than with local manufacturers, and the univer-
sitys admissions office agreed to let my students try a

couple of lean projects. I found lean methods pro-

vide much quicker results than the more tradition-
In 50 Words al quality methods do and that they can apply very
Or Less easily to office work.

The Theory of Lean

Lean manufacturing principles can produce more
Lean is simple. Well look at lean in terms of its
immediate results than other quality techniques can. purpose, principles, model, stages of implementa-
tion and expected outcomes.
A team of college students used lean to streamline Leans purpose is to create more value while
processes in their universitys admissions office. reducing waste and cost for everyone. Lean does
this through three principles:
1. Let customers say what is of value to them.
The students were able to reduce a process that
2. Reduce nonvalue adding activities in the sys-
took two to three weeks to about one day. tem, causing process speed to increase.
3. Faster process speed positively relates to less

32 I JULY 2006 I www.asq.org

 waste, less cost, less work in process (WIP), 2. Flowcreate the way to do it.
less complexity, higher quality and happier 3. Levelinglevel the workload. Balance the pace
customers. of production against the pace of customer
Actually, you can begin by reducing waste, cost demand. Distribute the workload evenly.
or complexity and arrive at the same results. The Finally, lean has three expected outcomes:
idea is that by reducing any one of these, the others 1. Better processesoffer customers more value
tend to follow. and do it more efficiently (less cost, less waste,
There are several models of lean in literature and least action).
practice. Womack and Jones model,2 probably the 2. Better working conditionsthese include clear-
most widely used, has five parts: er, shared work goals and values, a greater
1. Valuekeep asking what our customers value ability to accomplish (more pride and joy in
and want. work), a greater ability to keep improving
2. The value streammap the flow of the work. things (fewer restrictions, more growth oppor-
Find ways to speed it up or reduce costs, tunities), a feeling that youre being of service
waste, WIP or complexity. (not just stuck in routine work) and a feeling of
3. Flowdo the work so it flows through the integrity (doing what you say).
process smoothly and without interruption. 3. Meeting the organizations needs and pur-
Eliminate WIP, mistake proof, make the work posethese can include profit, growth, sus-
easy to do and monitor, and use single-piece tainability, value and impact.
flow.
4. Pullproduce only what customers ask for, Implementing Lean
when they need italso known as just-in-time. Lean has a general process of implementation
5. Perfectionkeep improving. similar to the Shewhart cycle of plan-do-study-act.4
Tapping, Shuker and Luyster3 divide the imple- Figure 1 shows this cycle.
mentation of lean into three stages: Certain prerequisites are needed before imple-
1. Demandunderstand what your customers menting lean, such as getting support from the top
want and when they want it. Determine the manager and the process leader, having a trained
minimum time to produce each piece or person to facilitate the process and identifying a
smallest shipment lot. need for change. Next comes identifying the specif-

FIGURE 1 Implementing Lean

Prerequisites

Choose a value stream to improve

Standardize the new processes Identify customer value for the value stream

Measure the improvement Map the current state of the value stream

Implement the improvement plans Study the value stream

Create improvement plans Map an ideal value stream

QUALITY PROGRESS I JULY 2006 I 33

LEAN

FIGURE 2 The Faculty Calling Process: Current Value Stream

1. Prospect sends inquiry 2. Admissions

3. Data
via web, e-mail, phone, Wait office receives Wait Wait
input
fax or mail inquiry
Secretary
Secretary/mailroom

5. Forward call
4. Inquirer call 6. Caller receives
Wait sheet to student or Wait Wait
sheet is created call sheet
or faculty callers
Admissions director Caller
Admissions director

8. Caller makes 9. Caller gets info

7. Begin attempts
Wait contact with Wait about inquirer; Wait
to contact inquirer
inquirer categorizes inquirer
Caller
Caller Caller

10. Caller sends 11. Admissions 12. Admissions director

completed call sheet to Wait director receives Wait forwards call sheet to
admissions director completed call sheet admissions representatives
Caller Admissions director Admissions director

13. Admissions
Wait representative receives Nonvalue Value adding
Key:
call sheet adding step step
Admissions representative

ic value stream, or process, to be improved and its You then study the value stream to find the largest
boundaries (beginning and end points). It is impor- wastes of time and WIP. You then brainstorm or
tant to identify the customers served by the value use other creative techniques to map an ideal value
stream and their various needs and wants. This is streamone that contains the least amount of
known as customer value. waste possible or creates throughput in the least
Then comes mapping the value stream. This is amount of time.
very similar to flow charting the current state of a Once you have maps of your current system and
system or process in other quality methods. The your ideal value stream, you can then create and
major difference is that in lean you not only map implement improvement plans. As you study the
each individual process and its order, but you also current and ideal value stream maps, improvement
include such information as the time it takes for ideas seem to clearly stand out, and there is little
each action (processing time) and between each need for traditional quality tools such as Pareto or
action (wait time), as well as the amounts of WIP. fishbone diagrams.5

34 I JULY 2006 I www.asq.org

 Finally, you measure the improvement you made evenings from a nearby call center for $7 to $8 per
from your attempted changes, and you either stan- hour. We trained them to handle inquiries effective-
dardize the new process or start again. ly, particularly to decide whom the inquirer should
talk with nextan admissions rep, a faculty mem-
Office Example ber, a current student or someone else. We asked
I had my students do two projects in the univer- inquirers if it made a difference to them whether a
sitys admissions office. The first project focused on faculty member called them, and almost all said no.
the process of handling inquiries about the univer- Steps two through six took an average of more
sity. Inquiries came from outside the university,
and more than 90% were from potential new stu-
dents. This value stream was called the faculty
calling process, because faculty made the initial
callbacks to the inquirers. The purposes of the It is important to identify
value stream were to:
Respond to potential new students quickly. the customers served by
Provide good information.
Capture information about the inquirer to ease the value stream and their
further help.
Forward potential new students to the correct various needs and wants.
admissions representative for follow-up.
Together with the staff, we defined the begin-
ning and end of the process: from the time a caller
submits an inquiry to the time the correct admis- than seven days. They included the admissions
sions rep receives the information and is able to director receiving all inquiries (which he processed
call the person. In between, a faculty member about weekly, causing an average 3.5-day delay),
made a first callback to the inquirer. printing a form for each inquirer, deciding which
The current value stream included 13 steps and faculty member would make the initial call and
took an average of two to three weeksabout 10 sending the form through campus mail to the fac-
days until the inquirer received a first call from a ulty member.
faculty member and another seven to 10 days until We asked the admissions director for his criteria
the correct admissions rep received information for deciding which faculty members received
about the inquirer (see Figure 2). The admissions which forms, and the universitys IT staff used
director (the value stream manager) spent four min- these criteria to construct an automated decision
utes per inquiry, and each faculty member spent five tree for e-mailing the forms. Steps two through six
to 30 minutes per inquiry. now were reduced from more than seven days to
As we studied the value stream, we found only less than one minute.
three steps were adding value: receiving the inquiry, Another time waster was that faculty usually
making the initial telephone contact with the inquir- had to call several times over several days to reach
er and the admissions rep receiving the needed the inquirer. By hiring professional callers in the
information to follow up. Value adding was defined evenings, most inquirers would be reached with
from the customers (inquirers) perspective. fewer attempts and on the same day, thus saving
As we studied the current value stream map, our time in the process and shortening response time.
first question asked what inquirers wanted. In Steps nine through 13 also took an average of
other words, where is the customer value? In- more than seven days: Once the faculty member
quirers wanted to be called back quickly and usu- called the inquirer, the faculty member would com-
ally during evenings (they were mostly high school plete the printed form and send it via campus mail
students and at school during the day). Faculty to the admissions director, who looked at these
were mostly available to call during the day. once weekly (again, an average of 3.5 days wait
We decided to hire professional callers for the time) and decided which forms went to which

QUALITY PROGRESS I JULY 2006 I 35

LEAN

admissions reps, who received them via depart- $500 worth of paper was saved annually.
ment mail. Again, we obtained the admissions The campus mail system was less burdened.
directors criteria for this process, and the IT peo- An immediate automatic e-mail response thank-
ple automated it. ing the inquirer for his or her interest also was
The professional caller now would receive a implemented. The only new costs were those of
form online on inquiries made and received that setting up the automated systems, writing an oper-
day, complete the form while on the phone with ations manual for the new procedures, and training
the inquirer and almost instantly send it to the and paying the professional callers.
proper admissions rep, who would receive it in the The ideal value stream map is shown in Figure 3.
morning. Steps nine through 13 were reduced from
more than seven days to a few minutes. Second Example
Finally, the value stream currently was unman- In the same admissions office, the assistant direc-
ageable: The admissions director couldnt know tor was in charge of processing student applications.
where each form was in the process. Was it in the When a prospective student sent an application, a
mail? On someones desk? Had the person been follow-up process would begin. My team asked all
called yet? With an automated system, the admis- the people involved in processing applications what
sions director could generate management reports they did, how long each step took, who they received
at any time that tracked the progress of each information from and sent information to, and what
inquiry and times of contact. information they dealt with.
Overall, the process was simplified. The follow- As we got their answers, a picture of an out-of-
ing benefits also resulted: control system emerged. We tried to map the
Time from the beginning of the process to the process and couldnt. Even those involved in the
end was reduced from two to three weeks to process agreed the system was not systematically
less than one day. organized. There were 88 steps that often over-
The admissions director and highly paid facul- lapped, occurred in no clear order and were done
ty were no longer involved. This allowed fac- by several different people. The process was repre-
ulty to focus on teaching and research rather sented in a mess of 88 sticky notes.
than making phone calls, thus improving the My students stared at this map for several hours,
universitys quality of education and image. trying to make sense of it, bringing in value stream
Most inquirers received a call within hours or participants to help. They began by asking what
minutes of sending their inquiry. the purpose of the system is: What customer value
was being created? Customersthe student appli-
cantswanted to get through the system quickly
and wanted to be able to know at any time where
FIGURE 3 The Inquiry System:
they stood in the system.
Ideal State Value Stream
It finally dawned on my students: There are five
overall steps that organize the whole value stream.
Receive Enter Call is Manager Figure 4 shows the ideal value stream map. We
Wait
inquiry data made manages showed it to the process owners, and they all
process
Who: Secretary Who: Caller agreed this is what they do. They were amazed at
Who: how simple the whole value stream was. After
Data mostly Caller
Manager years of doing this work routinely, they were excit-
input automatically. enters data
into e-mail. ed to finally understand their jobs and how they fit
E-mailed to Manager with the others jobs in the value stream.
proper caller. E-mail is sent gets
Immediately, the value stream manager wanted
to correct management
to create an operations manual. Based on the data
admissions report.
we collected about the process times for each step
representative or
other appropriate and wait times between each step, she divided the
person. work more efficiently, created better interfaces with

36 I JULY 2006 I www.asq.org

 FIGURE 4 The New Value Stream for Handling Applications

Complete? Accept?

No Yes

Data processing Application Acceptance Post-acceptance

Receiving
and filing processing processing processing

other university departments (financial aid and the effort. The value stream is a richer concept than the
registrar), developed a process for monitoring the process is; built into the value stream is a focus on
progress of each application and used the manual customer value and the idea of a stream or flow of
to train each person in the value stream. activities. It can include the flow of work through-
The office put a system in place that allowed out an entire supply chain or value chain or any
everyone in the value stream to track applicants part of it.
progress. IT developed a stoplight bar6, 7 to visual- Lean seems to produce very quickly about 80%
ly track informationred when information is or more of the improvement that a traditional qual-
missing, green when information is complete. IT ity approach would produce and can produce both
created computer interfaces so information could incremental (kaizen) improvements and innovative
be shared across the admissions, registrars and leaps (as in re-engineering). For example, changing
financial aid offices. the format of a form so it is easier to complete pro-
IT also designed a Web page for applicants to see duces is an incremental improvement. Automating
instantly what information the university still need- an entire process that once was done by hand
ed and the progress of their applications. Now each could provide an innovative leap that can greatly
piece of data is entered only once, there are fewer reduce cost or increase quality.
staff handoffs, fewer errors, less overall work, The five main things to remember when imple-
shorter wait times, and all process owners and cus- menting lean are:
tomers have instant access to an applications 1. Be clear on what constitutes customer value,
progress. including demand levels and times.
A secondary effect of this project was that other 2. Measure time, waste, WIP or cost for each pro-
employees in admissions, financial aid and the regis- cessing action and between each action when
trars office asked us for help with their processes. mapping the current value stream. Clearly
With this project, it took one week to collect data and determine which process actions add value
create both current and ideal value stream maps and for customers.
another week for major changes to begin. Although 3. Find ways to do only what adds value and
we were met with skepticism and resistance at the aim to do that with greatest speed or least
start of the lean improvement process, within a week waste, WIP or cost.
we had enthusiastic people wanting to get involved. 4. Find ways for the work to be done most effec-
Within two weeks, the university began approving tively (in flow, mistake-proof, easy to do and
similar projects for other administrative areas. to self-monitor).
5. Produce only what customers value, and pro-
Better Than the Rest duce it in a way that delights them.
Lean is a better way to begin improvement than
are traditional quality approaches: There are fewer REFERENCES

initial tools to learn, the whole process can be done 1. Matthew May, Lean Thinking for Knowledge Work,
very quickly, and the results can be more powerful Quality Progress, June 2005, p. 33.
than any single traditional quality improvement 2. James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, Lean Thinking: Banish

QUALITY PROGRESS I JULY 2006 I 37

LEAN

Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation, second edition, Free Into a Strategic Competitive Advantage, ASQ Quality Press,
Press, 2003. 2003.
3. Don Tapping, Tom Shuker and Tom Luyster, Value
Stream Management, Productivity Press, 2002. LEN TISCHLER is an associate professor of management
4. Duke Okes and Russell T. Wescott, eds., The Certified and chair of the management/marketing department at the
Quality Manager Handbook, second edition, ASQ Quality University of Scrantons Kania School of Management in
Press, 2001, p. 118. Scranton, PA. He has a doctorate in organizational behav-
5. James R. Evans, Total Quality: Management, Organization
ior from the University of Maryland, College Park, and is a
and Strategy, fourth edition, South-Western College
Publishing, 2004. Senior Member of ASQ.
6. Paul Palady, Exploiting the Worlds Most Recognized
Standard, Quality Progress, February 2001, p. 54.
7. Steven Prevette, Stoplight Charts (With SPC Inside),
Quality Progress, October 2004, p. 74.
Please
BIBLIOGRAPHY
comment
Michael L. George, Lean Six Sigma Service: How To Use Lean If you would like to comment on this article,
Speed and Six Sigma Quality To Improve Services and please post your remarks on the Quality Progress
Transactions, McGraw-Hill, 2003. Discussion Board at www.asq.org, or e-mail
William Lareau, Office Kaizen: Transforming Office Operations them to [email protected].

2006 Quality Institute for Healthcare

Improving Efficiency of Delivery Systems
Houston, TX July 31 August 2, 2006

Can quality healthcare delivery be efficient and profitable?

How does efficient delivery translate into patient value?
What are the best measures of efficiency?
Will more efficient practices lead to lower healthcare costs?

The 2006 Quality Institute for Healthcare (QIHC) is a unique three-day event that will address these
questions and will deliver a selection of informational resources, including:
daily workshops results-driven case presentations
keynotes by nationally recognized thought leaders networking opportunities

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON QIHC AND TO REGISTER, PLEASE VISIT http://qihc.asq.org.

38 I JULY 2006 I www.asq.org