Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2017

Home

their project. The practitioner gains the assur- ance that the project will meet our regulations and thus promote the proper growth and change we seek to create. The next principle is mapping the value stream. In our case, it is the sequence of activ- ities that blend together to create and deliver the permit. At minimum, this sequence starts at intake, when an application is received. Every progression through this stream creates a combination of work (people reviewing the permit request) and value (people finalizing the review and delivering their comments). This progression is signified by the third principle: flow. When the process runs smoothly, it presumably has good flow in that there is no unnecessary delay. When a process is disjointed or bottlenecked in one area, the flow suffers. To even consider the notion of flow is to already think very differently about a review process. In this light, we no longer see the "silos" or "islands" where the planners review one thing, then another, ad infinitum with no care for what happens upstream or down with the engineers or building code reviewers. Instead, flow leads one to see his or her own work as one of the interconnected actions that deliver the overall value to the ap- plicant. This concept of flow is intuitive to all review staff. But it takes a new meaning when considered with the next principle, establish- ing pull. "Pull" refers to the value the customer draws from the process. Consider the fact that development review does not operate on its own, producing permits as inventory or stock for others to pick up if they want them. Our work is demand -driven, determined by the number of requests or customer demands we receive. As this relates to development review, the customer makes a request, we do the work, and the customer thus "pulls" value (i.e., a reviewed plan) according to our defined process. In development review, we are often "pulled" to respond to increased volumes of permit requests in the spring and summer months when construction activity is its high- est. The greater volume and demand strains our resources, and it becomes critical to bal- 'C:=4' 1. Identify 2. Map Value the Value Stream 5. Seek Perfection 4. Establish Pull 3. Create Flow ance quality versus quantity. This inevitably comes down to capacity. As lean as a process can be, it can still only serve so many custom- ers until it either loses its timeliness or its quality. But what is the limit? How much be- comes too much? Establishing pull is centrally focused on answering those questions. The final concept is continuous improve- ment. When all other principles are applied and you begin improving your process, you do so with a vision in mind. This vision will naturally be specific (e.g., to reduce permit- ting times by zo percent) and must be mea- surable by creating key performance indica- tors (KPIs) for the team to accomplish. When done right, something marvelous happens to a team. They start to meet their KPIs and fulfill the vision. Spurred by their success, they naturally seek to then improve it further. Every action in process improvement creates greater value, which leads to happier ap- plicants, which leads to happier staff, which leads to even happier applicants, and a virtu- ous cycle is born. APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES TO ADAMS COUNTY, COLORADO To see the real strength of developing this ap- proach, consider the transformation we've ex- perienced in Adams County, Colorado. This is a jurisdiction of 500,00o in the Metro Denver region that is currently experiencing record - breaking volumes for development review. In past years, as recent as zosq, this volume would have crushed the staff. Time lines were not measured, but it wasn't uncommon to have basic plan reviews take six months to complete. Complaints were frequent, and the staff was beleaguered and divided. No elements of the system were consistently implemented using online case management software, and people had to hand off physical plan documents from one person to another like passing a baton in a relay race. Much of the delay in reviews came from an inability to pass the baton successfully. Or to even have to do such a thing at all. In zoi5, we identified our first two pro- cesses to improve. This decision required some definite strategy. We couldn't improve all processes at once so, in our case, we chose the two processes that either consumed the most volume or had the greatest ability to create "front-end impact" in a manner that could ensure smoother flow in later stages of development review. The rationale here is ZONINGPRACTICE 5.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3