<\/p>\n
Of all the possible disconnects in business processes, some of the most frustrating \u2013 and insidious \u2013 are filed under \u201cBureaucracy\u201d. Many characteristics used in designing world-class processes focus specifically on firewalling potential bureaucratic behavior. When targeting process improvement efforts, \u201celiminating bureaucracy\u201d \u2013 that is, getting rid of redundant (and repetitive) procedures and unnecessary tasks \u2013 is almost always the first place to start.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s easy to pick on \u201cgovernment bureaucrats\u201d \u2013 just recently, White House Aide DJ Gribbin conducted his own ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/trump-2.png?w=300\")
\u201cbrownpaper\u201d review with President Trump, highlighting the byzantine path to getting a highway built with federal funds. Such soul-sucking is not limited to civil servants. In most organizations, the bureaucracy \u2013 and its hidden costs \u2013 is so pervasive that even if no other process improvements are made, eliminating these behaviors will reap plentiful, and ongoing, rewards.<\/p>\n
Two of the most common, and commonly grating, bureaucratic activities are \u201capprovals\u201d and \u201cinspections\u201d. Neither offer much value, and eliminating them significantly improves efficiencies \u2013 and effectiveness.<\/p>\n
\u201cApprovals\u201d come in many forms: \u201cLet me read that before you send it out\u201d; \u201cAll requisitions must be accompanied by a supervisor\u2019s signature\u201d; \u201cNo one can use the conference room without Stacy\u2019s permission.\u201d The arguments in favor almost write themselves: \u201cI don\u2019t want to be blindsided!\u201d, \u201cIt\u2019s my job to protect the budget!!\u201d, \u201cIf no one watches it will become chaos!!!\u201d<\/p>\n
Make no ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/radar.png?w=300\")
mistake, each example is a tragic waste of time, money, and human spirit. In most cases, an \u201capproval process\u201d indicates a fundamental lack of trust: in others\u2019 abilities, judgment, or maturity. (Sometimes, like Cyrus, it\u2019s because we just \u201clike to know\u201d things. That\u2019s a poor excuse: there are lots things I like to do that I don\u2019t at work.)<\/p>\n
Often we build approvals into the process because we can\u2019t (or won\u2019t) properly delegate the work. It\u2019s \u201ceasier\u201d to have someone else start, bring it to us for our two cents, and then kick it back to them for finishing. That\u2019s not \u201capproval\u201d, that\u2019s insecurity.<\/p>\n
Sending things back for revision not only adds delays (time is money), but also incurs rework costs.<\/p>\n
How to Fix:<\/em><\/p>\n Ask: How many times have you not<\/u> approved something? Often, the answer is \u201cnever.\u201d If that\u2019s the case, it\u2019s not an \u201capproval\u201d step, it\u2019s a \u201cperusal\u201d step, and can be easily eliminated. (The argument: \u201cBut it only takes me a moment to read!\u201d actually underscores how non-value-adding it is.)<\/p>\n The next step in fixing this is to review rejected items, and study the reasons they were not approved. Pareto the most significant, and then train the staff to not make those mistakes again. (Hint: Your employees understand how budgets work. Don\u2019t use a wasteful \u201capproval process\u201d in lieu of enabling them to make good decisions.)<\/p>\n One special case I see frequently is \u201cmultiple\u201d signatures. I came close to blows with one client who wanted to change an approval process from one-required-signature to two, in the aftermath of a systemic failure. Rather than deal with the reasons for the breakdown, the \u201ceasier\u201d solution was to add a second set of eyes \u2013 and another round of delays.<\/p>\n Inspections are essentially after-the-fact approvals. All the real work is complete, but someone needs to \u201cmake sure Most inspections \u2013 and this includes the bulk of the work done by the \u201cQuality Department\u201d \u2013 offer zero<\/u> value. By design and definition, an inspector is merely making sure someone else did the job he was assigned.<\/p>\n How to Fix:<\/em><\/p>\n Easy to write, complicated to fulfill: Train the staff to do it right the first time. Then, dutifully work through each step of their process and find ways to eliminate the potential for error. Create a system that prevents incorrect pieces to move on in the process, and rejects incoming mistakes. Can\u2019t figure out how to do that? Ask the people doing the job \u2013 they know. Whether you call it poka-yoke or simply good design, do it.<\/p>\n Even if approval and inspection processes don\u2019t offer much value, they don\u2019t offer much harm, do they?<\/p>\n Sure they do.<\/p>\n To appreciate the true cost of bureaucracy, two elements must be considered \u2013the \u201cduration\u201d of each activity and its \u201ctime on task\u201d. \u201cTime on task\u201d is fairly straightforward: How much time someone spends actually interacting with the process (e.g., the time Natalie spends cutting-and-pasting from the sales contract to the Project Request Form, the amount of time Cyrus spends reading the request form).<\/p>\n \u201cDuration\u201d is the time from the start<\/em> of one task until the time You can calculate the cost of time-on-task (multiply time spent with labor rates) to determine if the activity is worth it. The duration presents a less-clear picture in terms of expense, but nicely frames the opportunity costs of how a single step \u2013 such as Cyrus\u2019s \u201creview\u201d \u2013 consistently delays client work.<\/p>\n Once you know the impact, you can also make decisions about needs for revision, quality tolerances, and more. If you are looking for money to add to the training budget, it is probably locked up in here.<\/p>\n Think about this from a customer\u2019s perspective. Approvals and Inspections slow down work, and add cost (which is passed on to the customer), and only serve internal needs. Unless government-mandated, or a true life-or-death checkpoint, this bureaucracy should be eliminated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ever stand around waiting for a cashier to \u201cget approval\u201d on a return? Eventually, the manager punches his code into the register and walks away \u2013 that\u2019s the \u201capproval process\u201d! <\/p>\n Bureaucracy wastes your time (you had to wait for the manager to show), disempowers employees, wastes money, and destroys the human spirit. <\/p>\nInspections<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/stamp-2125073__480.jpg?w=150\")
it\u2019s right\u201d before a customer sees it. This is different than a collaborative review in creative or one-of-a-kind endeavors (\u201cCan I walk you through this presentation?\u201d, \u201cRead this \u2013 does this even make sense?\u201d, \u201cThey\u2019re giving us 24 whole dollars for this island \u2013 what am I missing here?\u201d).<\/p>\nSo What?<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/bureaucracy-2106924__480.jpg?w=300\")
the next <\/em>task starts. So the time-on-task for Cyrus to read the Project Request Form and make an assignment may be six minutes; however, it is over six days duration<\/em> from the time Natalie distributes it until Cyrus assigns the project. (And, remember, my cheat sheet is nearly perfect in making the same assignment, in no time at all).<\/p>\n