Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Company
LOGO
Metrics-Based Process Mapping
Part 2 of 3
2
Karen Martin, Principal
Karen Martin & Associates
www.ksmartin.com
Mike Osterling, President
Osterling Consulting
www.mo...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 3
Metrics-Based Process Mapping:
Three-Part Series
Part 1: Document the current state.
...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 4
1. Label the map in upper right corner.
 Process name, date, facilitator and/or team m...
Metrics-Based Process Mapping
(MBPM)
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 6
Creating the Current State MBPM
Phase II
6. Define the critical path.
 Longest LT unle...
Step 6: Define the “Timeline Critical Path”
For parallel activities: Chose the longest LT unless a
“dead-end” activity
Step 7: Create the Timeline
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Document the Current State
Step 8 – Calculate the summary metrics
 Critical Path (timel...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Summary Metrics: Labor Requirements
Total PT
 Sum of all activities, not just timeline
...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Summary Metrics:
Current State Findings
11
Metric Current State
Projected
Future State
Pr...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Document the Current State
Step 9 – Identify the value-adding (VA)
and necessary non-val...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 13
Defining Value
Value-Adding (VA) - any operation or
activity your external customers ...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Step 9: Label the value-adding (VA) and
necessary non-value adding (N) activities
14
Step 10: Circle the data that indicates the
greatest need for improvement
Greatest need for
improvement:
• High LT
• High ...
Root Cause Analysis: 4 Key Tools
CauseCause--andand--Effect DiagramEffect Diagram
Machine Measurement Environment
People M...
Future State Design Considerations
 Eliminate steps / handoffs
 Combine steps
 Create parallel paths
 Alter task seque...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Summary Metrics:
Projected Future State Results
18
Metric Current State
Projected
Future ...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Summary Metrics: Labor Requirements
Total PT
 Sum of all activities, not just timeline
...
PACE Improvement Prioritization Grid
High Low
Anticipated Benefit
EaseofImplementation
DifficultEasy
20
7
5
13
4 23
1
228
...
Value Stream
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 Improve quality of referral KE Sean O'Ryan
3, 4
Reduce lead time beween scheduli...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 22
Metrics-Based Process Mapping:
Three-Part Series
Part 1: Document the current state.
...
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 23
Karen Martin, Principal
7770 Regents Road #635
San Diego, CA 92122
858.677.6799
ksm@ks...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

4,077 views

Published on

Recorded webinar: http://slidesha.re/18boq16

Part 1 - http://slidesha.re/15qe1qW

Part 3 - http://slidesha.re/139L8Sb (Excel tool product demo)

Subscribe: http://www.ksmartin.com/subscribe

To purchase the book: http://bit.ly/MBPMbk

Metrics-Based Process Mapping (MBPM) is a methodology that was developed to support the adoption of lean practices in office, service, and knowledge work environments.

Designed and developed by Karen Martin & Mike Osterling, this technique integrates the functional orientation of conventional swim-lane process maps with the time and quality metrics used in value stream mapping.

Published in: Business, Technology

Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3

  1. Company LOGO Metrics-Based Process Mapping Part 2 of 3
  2. 2 Karen Martin, Principal Karen Martin & Associates www.ksmartin.com Mike Osterling, President Osterling Consulting www.mosterling.com Chapter 12 – Metrics-Based Process Mapping (manual method) Excel Tool for Archiving Completed Maps Available from Productivity Press, Amazon, or any major bookseller About Us
  3. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 3 Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Three-Part Series Part 1: Document the current state. Part 2: Analyze the current state; design and implement the future state. Part 3: Document the improved process.
  4. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 4 1. Label the map in upper right corner.  Process name, date, facilitator and/or team members 2. List the functions involved in left column. 3. Document all activities/steps.  Verb/noun; concise language; include function as well. 4. Number the activities.  One number per column; concurrent activities are labeled A, B, C, etc. 5. Add activity-specific metrics (PT, LT, %C&A), barriers to flow, and number of staff involved (if relevant).  Include units of measure (mins, hrs, days, etc.) Creating the Current State MBPM Phase I
  5. Metrics-Based Process Mapping (MBPM)
  6. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 6 Creating the Current State MBPM Phase II 6. Define the critical path.  Longest LT unless “dead-end” step; use colored marker 7. Create the timeline. 8. Calculate the summary metrics  CP PT Sum, CP LT Sum, AR, RFPY, Total PT, Labor Required 9. Define the value-adding and necessary non- value-adding activities  Use small colored post-it labeled with “VA” and “N.” 10. Circle the step-specific metrics that indicate the greatest opportunity for improvement.  Use red marker.  Longest LTs, Low %C&As, High PTs, Low step-specific ARs
  7. Step 6: Define the “Timeline Critical Path” For parallel activities: Chose the longest LT unless a “dead-end” activity
  8. Step 7: Create the Timeline
  9. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates Document the Current State Step 8 – Calculate the summary metrics  Critical Path (timeline) PT Sum  Critical Path (timeline) LT Sum  % Activity  (PT Sum/Total LT Sum) x 100  Rolled First Pass Yield (RFPY)  %C&A x %C&A x %C&A…  Include ALL post-its, not just critical path  Labor Requirements (see next slide) 9
  10. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates Summary Metrics: Labor Requirements Total PT  Sum of all activities, not just timeline Labor Requirements 10 Total PT (in hrs) X # occurrences per year # FTEs* Available work hrs per year per employee = * FTE = Full-time Equivalent (e.g. Two half-time employees = 1 FTE) Available work hour per year per employee = 2,080 – (paid holidays + paid vacations)
  11. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates Summary Metrics: Current State Findings 11 Metric Current State Projected Future State Projected % Improvement Timeline Process Time Sum Timeline Lead Time Sum Activity Ratio Rolled First Pass Yield Total Process Time Labor requirements Freed capacity (FTEs)
  12. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates Document the Current State Step 9 – Identify the value-adding (VA) and necessary non-value-adding (N) activities  Use small colored post-its labeled with “VA” or “N”.  All unlabelled post-its represent waste.  NOTE – this is the first of two “bridge steps” between current state documentation and future state design. 12
  13. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 13 Defining Value Value-Adding (VA) - any operation or activity your external customers value and are (or would be) willing to pay for. Non-Value-Adding (NVA) - any operation or activity that consumes time and/or resources but does not add value to the service provided or product sold to the customer.  Necessary - regulatory or necessary for the business to function effectively, etc.  Unnecessary - everything else - WASTE
  14. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates Step 9: Label the value-adding (VA) and necessary non-value adding (N) activities 14
  15. Step 10: Circle the data that indicates the greatest need for improvement Greatest need for improvement: • High LT • High PT • Low PT/LT ratio • %C&A below 80% • Other barriers to flow
  16. Root Cause Analysis: 4 Key Tools CauseCause--andand--Effect DiagramEffect Diagram Machine Measurement Environment People Material / Info Method Budgets Submitted Late Lack of experience Time availability No sense of import No stnd spread sheet Email vs. FedEx No standard work Input rec’d late Forecast in other system Manual vs. PC System avail. No milestones $ vs. units Weather delays Dispersed sales force Changing schedule Machine Measurement Environment People Material / Info Method Budgets Submitted Late Lack of experience Time availability No sense of import No stnd spread sheet Email vs. FedEx No standard work Input rec’d late Forecast in other system Manual vs. PC System avail. No milestones $ vs. units Weather delays Dispersed sales force Changing schedule 5 Why’s Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Paret o Chart Credit Applicat ion Delays 2 9 0 9 6 2 7 5 6 1 2 4 2 1 8 0 2 4 9 3 4 1 % 7 7 % 8 6 % 1 0 0 % 9 7 % 9 4 % 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 N o Si gna t ur e I ns uf f i c i e nt B a nk I nf o N o pr i or a ddr e s s C ur r e nt C us t ome r N o C r e di t H i s t or y O t he r Reason f or Delay 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Check Sheets Quantify Occurrences |Equipment failure |||||||||||||Changing customer requirements w/ no adjustment to expected delivery ||||||||||Order entry error |||Staffing/absenteeism |||||Quality issue requiring rework |||||||Material shortage TallyReason |Equipment failure |||||||||||||Changing customer requirements w/ no adjustment to expected delivery ||||||||||Order entry error |||Staffing/absenteeism |||||Quality issue requiring rework |||||||Material shortage TallyReason
  17. Future State Design Considerations  Eliminate steps / handoffs  Combine steps  Create parallel paths  Alter task sequencing and/or timing  Implement pull systems  Reduce / eliminate batches  Improve quality  Create an organized, visual workplace  Reduce changeover  Eliminate motion & transportation  Standardize work  Eliminate unnecessary approvals / authorizations  Stop performing non- value adding (NVA) tasks  Co-locate functions based on flow; create cells (teams of cross- functional staff)  Balance work to meet takt time requirements 17
  18. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates Summary Metrics: Projected Future State Results 18 Metric Current State Projected Future State Projected % Improvement Timeline Process Time Sum Timeline Lead Time Sum Activity Ratio Rolled First Pass Yield Total Process Time Labor requirements Freed capacity (FTEs)
  19. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates Summary Metrics: Labor Requirements Total PT  Sum of all activities, not just timeline Labor Requirements 19 Total PT (in hrs) X # occurrences/year # FTEs Available work hrs/year/employee = * FTE = Full-time Equivalent (2 half time employees = 1 FTE) Freed Capacity = Current State FTEs – Future State FTEs
  20. PACE Improvement Prioritization Grid High Low Anticipated Benefit EaseofImplementation DifficultEasy 20 7 5 13 4 23 1 228 9 2 10 16 11 6 12 14 19 15 17 3 21 18
  21. Value Stream 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 Improve quality of referral KE Sean O'Ryan 3, 4 Reduce lead time beween schedulingand preregistration steps PROJ Dianne Prichard 5, 6 Eliminate the need for two patient check- ins KE Michael O'Shea 6 Eliminate bottleneck in waiting area KE Dianne Prichard 9 Eliminate lead time associated with transcription step PROJ Sam Parks 10 Eliminate batched reading KE Sam Parks 7 Reduce inventory costs, regulatory risk and storage needs KE Michael O'Shea 12 Reduce delay in report delivery PROJ Martha Allen 12 Reduce delay in report delivery KE Martha Allen Implement voice recognition technology Reduce setup required Cross-train and colocate work teams Implement additional fax ports Collect copays in Imaging Balance work / level demand 5S CT supplies area; implement kanban Value Stream Mapping Facilitator Increase percentage of physicians receiving electronic delivery (rather than hard copy) Approvals Executive Sponsor Value Stream Champion Signature: Date: Date: Date: Signature: Signature: Block # Goal / Objective Improvement Activity Implement standard work for referral process Type Owner Implementation Schedule (weeks) Date Complete Date Created 11/21/2007 Allen Ward Sally McKinsey Dave Parks 12/13/2007 10/18/2007 1/10/2008 Future State Implementation Plan Executive Sponsor Value Stream Champion Value Stream Mapping Facilitator Implementation Plan Review Dates 11/1/2007 Outpatient Imaging Create an Action Plan: Who, What, When, Where, and How?
  22. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 22 Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Three-Part Series Part 1: Document the current state. Part 2: Analyze the current state; design and implement the future state. Part 3: Document the improved process.
  23. © 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 23 Karen Martin, Principal 7770 Regents Road #635 San Diego, CA 92122 858.677.6799 ksm@ksmartin.com Visit us on Twitter, Linked In, Facebook, YouTube For Further Questions

×