Lean Results

September 2012

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 to date

Q2 Q3 Q4

FY12 FY 13

0123456789

10

1

3

7

10

3

Number of Lean Projects(cumulative each fiscal year)

ActualTarget

State Fiscal Year

Proj

ects

2

Lean Projects Completed or Implementation UnderwayTime Accounting • Streamlined standard process established, reducing errors

Youth Recreational Facilities Program – Resulted in two process improvements in Capital Programs: • Changes to contract budget over 15% no longer require 4 week

amendment process• Reduced time for AAG approval process for approx. 50% and

eliminated approval altogether for 50%. Previously took 4-6 weeks for approval

DWSRF – Resulted in two improvements that impact Commerce processes:• Financial review process streamlined • Readiness to proceed and scoping processes move to DOH

OCVA STOP – Resulted in two process improvements:• Improvements to the application process • Reduced time for OCVA grant approval process

Invoicing • Streamlined standard process established. Implementation underway

Vehicle Accident Reporting • Streamlined standard process established

Web Content• Streamlined standard process established. Implementation underway

Legislative Reports • Standard process established. Implementation underway

Associate Development Organization• Standard process established. Implementation underway

DD Endowment• Current state mapped. Accelerated Improvement Workshop

held on Data System. System moving towards completion

Projects on the Radar:1. Purchasing (November) 2. Contract Monitoring (November)3. Another (min-Lean) on STAR (December)

3

Analysis:Types of errors reduced:• Cost distribution / MI codes• Leave slip coding • Mismatched date to work schedule

In addition to reduced error rates: • Reduced the number of forms from 3 to 1. HR now processing

325 documents, down from 500 (nearly 36% less)• Reduced time employees spent transporting documents and

number of touches on documents• Reduced amount of time employees and HR spend fixing errors,

saving about 1.5 FTE in staff time

19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35% 32%

26%

10%

6.7%6.1%

8%6.9%

5.1%4.0%

2.5%4.9% 4.9%

3.0%4.9%

2.5%

6.1%4.9% 4.6%

1.5%

7.0%6.2%

Percent of Time Reporting Errors

ActualTarget

Pay Period

Action Item Lead Due Date Date Completed

Provide technical assistance Payroll Ongoing

Locate all unit/division STARS on the Q drive and communicate to all staff HR 11/30/11 Complete

Pilot in IPP – new form IPP – Darleen 2/29/12 Complete

Report on survey and explain STAR 2.0 Caroline 3/13/12 Complete

Implement STAR 2.0 Caroline 4/1/12 Complete

Identify new STAR form owner and hold mini-lean on MI Codes Connie 10/12

Facilitate mini-Lean to address issues with MI codes and links in form Cyndee

Action Plan

Baseline

Time Accounting

4

Analysis:• Prior to the process improvement, it took four to six weeks to

obtain AAG approval.

• Commerce and the AAG agreed that contractors that go through our competitive processes don’t need to be approved by the AAG after a contract boiler plate is agreed on. Only those that are direct appropriation will require AAG approval.

• In Q5 six contracts were approved by the AAG.

• One contract took 78 days. Commerce’s AAG and the Department of Ecology’s AAG worked through issues with our RCW and Ecology’s WAC, which were conflicting.

Baseline Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8FY12 FY13

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

0%

88%

Percent of contracts approved by the AAG within two weeks (14 calendar days)

ActualTarget

Action Item Lead Due Date Date Completed

Meet with Sandra Adix to review current state VSM and discuss AAG approval process

Bill Cole 5/12 Completed

Begin tracking data to demonstrate success Bill Cole 6/12 Ongoing

Agree on contractor boilerplate for competitive contracts Bill Cole

Action Plan

Capital Programs – AAG Approval Process

5

Analysis:• It takes four to eight weeks cycle time to amend a contract.

• Two contractors didn’t have to go through the process in Q4, which means their project closed/completed up to eight weeks sooner for each and they didn’t have to go though the process.

• This saved about four hours of staff touch time per amendment, for a total of eight hours.

Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8FY12 FY13

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

65%

100%

Percent of contracts that had budget changes that didn’t have to go though the amendment process

ActualTarget

Capital Programs – Budget Development and Amendment Process

265

Baseline

6

Analysis:

• Early analysis indicates some delay may be attributable to later than usual coding availability.

• Commerce is using this unit to test the new process, in hopes that it can be rolled out to the entire division.

• The Community Services and Housing Division processes 781 contracts annually.

Cycle Tim

e (in

days)

Touch Tim

e (in

minutes)

Tracking Sy

stems

HandoffsSte

ps

Approvals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

12.5

30

3

11

22

67

25

1

5

16

2

Original State/Baseline

Results

OCVA Grant Approval Process

7

Analysis:

• Commerce processes more than 800 invoices per month.

• The chart shows the average number of days it takes for an invoice to processed from the moment it arrives at Commerce to the moment it leaves the agency in the form of an Electronic Fund Transfer or Warrant.

• Improvements will be based on lowering the number of handoffs in this process and therefore processing invoices in fewer days. This will take time off of invoicing and error rates should fall. More information to come.

• For additional data, please view the table on the following slide.

Action Assigned To Due Date Date Completed

Communicate with contractors that they can now submit PDF A19s, saving 2 – 10 days Programs 9/15/12

Meet with unit managers in CSHD to check in on how the process is working Leslie and Tedd 10/1/12

Meet with unit managers in BSD, IPP, LGID Leslie and Tedd 11/1/12

Stop using fiscal shadow systems to track invoices unless the need is documented Business Units using CMS July 18

Action Plan

Invoicing Process

Jan-1

2Fe

b-12

Mar

-12

Apr-12

May

-12

Jun-1

2Ju

l-12

Aug-12

Sep-1

2Oct

-12

Nov-12

Dec-1

2Ja

n-13

Feb-1

3M

ar-1

3Apr-1

3M

ay-1

3Ju

n-13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

7.2

Average Number of Days from Invoice Receipt to Warrant or EFT Release

Commerce Average

BSD

CSHD

IPPD

LGID

Target

Days

in P

roce

ssin

g

Baseline Jan. - June

January February March April May June July

BSD 42 5 7 49 7 11 45

CSHD 980 864 823 828 739 824 1,073

IPPD 9 14 7 26 33 29 44

LGID 10 5 34 55 72 73 100

Total 1,041 888 871 958 851 937 1,262

Invoices in CMS Each Month by Division

Jan-12

Feb-12

Mar-12

Apr-12

May-12

Jun-12Jul-1

2

Aug-12Sep

-12Oct-

12

Nov-12Dec-

12Jan

-13Feb

-13

Mar-13

Apr-13

May-13

Jun-130%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Percentage of Invoices Processed in Seven Days or Less

Commerce Average

BSD

CSHD

IPPD

LGID

Perc

enta

ge o

f Inv

oice

s Pro

cess

ed

Invoicing Process

8

Baseline Jan. - June