Not exactly the same, but sort of, Im on the Board of Directors for a non-profit which administers to the needs of several hundred mentally and/or psychologically disadvantaged adults (some of whom routinely assist with my postings in this forum).
The non-profit employees psychologists, social workers, job counselors and trainers, has housing accommodations for some and some are outpatient. The individual needs have a broad range, the options for assistance have a broad range and the funding comes from a broad range of sources, from federal, state, community, and individual sources. The rules and regulations, timings of filings, means of filing, filing documentation required, and documentation required for record keeping are complex and dynamic.
In order to understand the complexities and interactions I began to help the staff understand and use Value Stream Mapping and we used overlapping matrices and process maps that followed both the actions and flow of the various clients served, care givers and administrative staff, compared and contrasted to the information flow and took it from the endpoint of outcomes anticipated/expected/desired and worked backwards to program intake and then reversed the flow from intake to outcome for the mirror-image comparative. We then attributed value ratings to everything we did eliminating some things and making others more robust. And remapped the desired state comparing it to regulations and other process needs. After we did the mapping of desired state we changed procedures and retrained staff to the new process.
After we worked with the new process for a few months we went in and did some obvious tweaking and improved a few steps in a couple of the functional processes, ran with that for a month or so and then went in with some detailed and measured assessments of potential pinch points in the overall flows making some additional improvements.
The important things we did were: 1.) process mapping current and desired states 2.) using Value Stream Mapping which compared current to future states, ran parallel and commonly documented process flows for physical and information flows, and also required assessing the value add or not of activities 3.) we took an outcomes based perspective as our primary vantage point in the assessment and worked backward to program intake and 4.) we compared our steps and information flow to regulatory and program dictates that allow for and regulate our activities.
This took about 8 months to complete and was successful for us, and success was measured, by increased client job placements, reduction in client complaints, more immediate and better documented interventions when required (some necessitating Whizlab biochemical testing), and a much better process of billing for services rendered which was a new paradigm for us because the state is not giving block grants at this point they are reimbursing for services rendered.
But, in summary, we used some Lean and some Six Sigma tools to make better processes for our complex and dynamic operations and helped assure better continuity of both funding and services rendered (which oddly were not always well linked), my non-profit thinks Im a great contributor and wonders why they staffed the board with MDs, JDs, and PhD Psychologists when all they really needed was a PhD in Operations Research. A thought that I try to foster without telling them the truth that it was just the application of some pretty basic tools and if youll pardon this last and undoubtedly debate inspiring concept common sense. Fundamentally, itll all work if you make it work. And its not rocket surgery or even brain science.
KPI’s and their specific metrics and reporting mechanism were a fall-out of the above noted activities. KPI’s for a non-optimized process just show you areas of opportunity. I’d say that, from my experience, KPI’s are probably just the start of your/their needs. Good luck.
Vinny
.
