Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2017

Home

t ration ch e el nditions.for advancl g a► d di �� n>�ns metadaeaonlioveacFl matter is that our staff members worked very hard to overcome the poor processes that were not designed to help them succeed. Our process simply didn't make it easy for them to do the right thing. Often, for the sake of de- livering value in their jobs, our staff members simply operated outside of the process. They would go out of their way to avoid the process so as to prevent the cascade of bad effects that would follow if they kept to their scripts. This was readily apparent in the third stage of the effort: defining, and improving, our flow. Achieving Great Flow The action that best personifies process im- provement is the mapping that comes during the flow stage. Symbolized by the flow charts that show the beginning, middle, and end of an effort, most practitioners can easily sketch the basic flow of any process in accordance to the critical path. But a critical path isn't enough to truly understand how your business is operating when it involves multiple people from multiple groups. The real flow from the start to finish of a process is surprisingly com- plex and full of hidden decisions, conditions, tha �f= a mo a eonm r 4ti0� mots: halo and bottlenecks that no single person can identify on their own. And often, it varies from person to person in the existing condition. Mapping the flow, especially as it cur- rently exists, requires significant time and effort. It is, essentially, an audit of the team's work: what they do, how they do it, and when they do it. And like any audit, their involve- ment is critical for success. For a large de- partment such as ours, this meant bringing a staff of more than 20 people to an off -site conference room where they could define ev- ery step of the conceptual review process —as it currently exists and as they currently use it —and map the information on a whiteboard for all to see. The work took several hours, and the visual result wasn't pretty. But it painted a very compelling picture. Within this basic illustration, not only does one find the critical path that serves as the backbone of any process, but also the smaller actions, inputs, and decisions that make it possible. Some of which are inconsis- tent from one participant to another. It is vital that the exercise of mapping the existing flow highlights these inconsistencies. For example, the original process for initiating a conceptual review involved a plan- ner receiving the request from an applicant or, more commonly, informing a would-be applicant that it was required. Sometimes, this occurred after a file had already been created in our case management software. If so, the conceptual review meeting was noted in the case file electronically. But not always. Many cases had no record that a conceptual review meeting had ever been conducted since different users acted in different ways without a process to dictate. Even the simple matter of scheduling the meeting was often different from user to user. Some planners would schedule the meeting themselves in Microsoft Outlook. Others would ask a permit technician to schedule the meeting for them. And again, some would not schedule the meeting at all; they would adhere to the department's standard time for these meetings (Monday afternoons) but hold the meeting in any con- ference room that was available. In the grand scheme, we've hardly scratched the surface on the rest of the process and already find inconsistencies throughout. One important note is that this effort can and should be categorized as a "blame - free autopsy." This is process improvement, ZONINGPRACTICE 5.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 5