Downloaded 455 times
Uploaded byTKMG, Inc.
Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3
The document outlines a structured approach to metrics-based process mapping in three parts: documenting the current state, analyzing it, and designing the future state. It provides detailed steps such as labeling maps, defining critical paths, calculating summary metrics, and identifying value-adding versus non-value-adding activities. Final recommendations include eliminating unnecessary steps, balancing work, and implementing an organized visual workplace to improve process efficiency.
In this document
Powered by AI
Introduction to MBPM and presenters. Overview of resources for process mapping.
Three-part series in MBPM: Document current state, analyze/implement future state, document improvements.
Steps to label maps and document activities, metrics, and staff involved in the current state process.
Define critical path, create timeline, calculate metrics, and identify value-adding vs non-value-adding activities.
Summary metrics comparison of current vs projected future state; identification of value vs non-value activities.
Identifying data points indicating improvements needed, such as high lead times and low activity ratios.
Introduction to key tools for root cause analysis including cause-and-effect diagrams and Pareto charts.
Strategies for redesigning processes: eliminating steps, improving quality, and creating parallel paths.
Projected metrics and labor requirements comparing current state to future state; freed capacity calculations.
Prioritization grid for improvements and implementing action plan for future state mapping and enhancements.
Recap of MBPM series parts and contact information for further inquiries.
More Related Content
Similar to Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3
Metrics-Based Process Mapping: Part 2 of 3
- 1.
- 2. 2 Karen Martin, Principal KarenMartin & 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 KarenMartin & 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 KarenMartin & 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.
- 6. © 2010 KarenMartin & 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: Definethe “Timeline Critical Path” For parallel activities: Chose the longest LT unless a “dead-end” activity
- 8. Step 7: Createthe Timeline
- 9. © 2010 KarenMartin & 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 KarenMartin & 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 KarenMartin & 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 KarenMartin & 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 KarenMartin & 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 KarenMartin & Associates Step 9: Label the value-adding (VA) and necessary non-value adding (N) activities 14
- 15. Step 10: Circlethe 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 DesignConsiderations 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 KarenMartin & 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 KarenMartin & 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 PrioritizationGrid 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 23 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 KarenMartin & 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 KarenMartin & 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