Category: Operations

Posted on

Warts-and-All

This week saw the publication of a landmark paper – one that will bring hope to many.  A paper that describes the first step of a path forward out of the mess that healthcare seems to be in.  A rational, sensible, practical, learnable and enjoyable path.

This week I also came across an idea that triggered an “ah ha” for me.  The idea is that the most rapid learning happens when we are making mistakes about half of the time.

And when I say ‘making a mistake’ I mean not achieving what we predicted we would achieve because that implies that our understanding of the world is incomplete.  In other words, when the world does not behave as we expect, we have an opportunity to learn and to improve our ability to make more reliable predictions.

And that ability is called wisdom.

When we get what we expect about half the time, and do not get what we expect about the other half of the time, then we have the maximum amount of information that we can use to compare and find the differences.

Was it what we did? Was it what we did not do? What are the acts and errors of commission and omission? What can we learn from those? What might we do differently next time? What would we expect to happen if we do?

And to explore this terrain we need to see the world as it is … warts and all … and that is the subject of the landmark paper that was published this week.


The context of the paper is improvement of cancer service delivery, and specifically of reducing waiting time from referral to first appointment.  This waiting is a time of extreme anxiety for patients who have suspected cancer.

It is important to remember that most people with suspected cancer do not have it, so most of the work of an urgent suspected cancer (USC) clinic is to reassure and to relieve the fear that the spectre of cancer creates.

So, the sooner that reassurance can happen the better, and for the unlucky minority who are diagnosed with cancer, the sooner they can move on to treatment the better.

The more important paragraph in the abstract is the second one … which states that seeing the system behaviour as it is, warts-and-all,  in near-real-time, allows us to learn to make better decisions of what to do to achieve our intended outcomes. Wiser decisions.

And the reason this is the more important paragraph is because if we can do that for an urgent suspected cancer pathway then we can do that for any pathway.

The paper re-tells the first chapter of an emerging story of hope.  A story of how an innovative and forward-thinking organisation is investing in building embedded capability in health care systems engineering (HCSE), and is now delivering a growing dividend.  Much bigger than the investment on every dimension … better safety, faster delivery, higher quality and more affordability. Win-win-win-win.

The only losers are the “warts” – the naysayers and the cynics who claim it is impossible, or too “wicked”, or too difficult, or too expensive.

Innovative reality trumps cynical rhetoric … and the full abstract and paper can be accessed here.

So, well done to Chris Jones and the whole team in ABMU.

And thank you for keeping the candle of hope alight in these dark, stormy and uncertain times for the NHS.

Posted on

From Push to Pull

One of the most frequent niggles that I hear from patients is the difficultly they have getting an appointment with their general practitioner.  I too have personal experience of the distress caused by the ubiquitous “Phone at 8AM for an Appointment” policy, so in June 2018 when I was approached to help a group of local practices redesign their appointment booking system I said “Yes, please!“

What has emerged is a fascinating, enjoyable and rewarding journey of co-evolution of learning and co-production of an improved design.  The multi-skilled design team (MDT) we pulled together included general practitioners, receptionists and practice managers and my job was to show them how to use the health care systems engineering (HCSE) framework to diagnose, design, decide and deliver what they wanted: A safe, calm, efficient, high quality, value-4-money appointment booking service for their combined list of 50,000 patients.

This week they reached the start of the ‘decide and deliver‘ phase.  We have established the diagnosis of why the current booking system is not delivering what we all want (i.e. patients and practices), and we have assembled and verified the essential elements of an improved design.

And the most important outcome for me is that the Primary Care MDT now feel confident and capable to decide what and how to deliver it themselves.   That is what I call embedded capability and achieving it is always an emotional roller coaster ride that we call The Nerve Curve.

What we are dealing with here is called a complex adaptive system (CAS) which has two main components: Processes and People.  Both are complicated and behave in complex ways.  Both will adapt and co-evolve over time.  The processes are the result of the policies that the people produce.  The policies are the result of the experiences that the people have and the explanations that they create to make intuitive sense of them.

But, complex systems often behave in counter-intuitive ways, so our intuition can actually lead us to make unwise decisions that unintentionally perpetuate the problem we are trying to solve.  The name given to this is a wicked problem.

A health care systems engineer needs to be able to demonstrate where these hidden intuitive traps lurk, and to explain what causes them and how to avoid them.  That is the reason the diagnosis and design phase is always a bit of a bumpy ride – emotionally – our Inner Chimp does not like to be challenged!  We all resist change.  Fear of the unknown is hard-wired into us by millions of years of evolution.

But we know when we are making progress because the “ah ha” moments signal a slight shift of perception and a sudden new clarity of insight.  The cognitive fog clears a bit and a some more of the unfamiliar terrain ahead comes into view.  We are learning.

The Primary Care MDT have experienced many of these penny-drop moments over the last six months and unfortunately there is not space here to describe them all, but I can share one pivotal example.

A common symptom of a poorly designed process is a chronically chaotic queue.

[NB. In medicine the term chronic means “long standing”.  The opposite term is acute which means “recent onset”].

Many assume, intuitively, that the cause of a chronically chaotic queue is lack of capacity; hence the incessant calls for ‘more capacity’.  And it appears that we have learned this reflex response by observing the effect of adding capacity – which is that the queue and chaos abate (for a while).  So that proves that lack of capacity was the cause. Yes?

Well actually it doesn’t.  Proving causality requires a bit more work.  And to illustrate this “temporal association does not prove causality trap” I invite you to consider this scenario.

I have a headache => I take a paracetamol => my headache goes away => so the cause of my headache was lack of paracetamol. Yes?

Errr .. No!

There are many contributory causes of chronically chaotic queues and lack of capacity is not one of them because the queue is chronic.  What actually happens is that something else triggers the onset of chaos which then consumes the very resource we require to avoid the chaos.  And once we slip into this trap we cannot escape!  The chaos-perpretuating behaviour we observe is called fire-fighting and the necessary resource it consumes is called resilience.

Six months ago, the Primary Care MDT believed that the cause of their chronic appointment booking chaos was a mismatch between demand and capacity – i.e. too much patient demand for the appointment capacity available.  So, there was a very reasonable resistance to the idea of making the appointment booking process easier for patients – they justifiably feared being overwhelmed by a tsunami of unmet need!

Six months on, the Primary Care MDT understand what actually causes chronic queues and that awareness has been achieved by a step-by-step process of explanation and experimentation in the relative safety of the weekly design sessions.

We played simulation games – lots of them.

One particularly memorable “Ah Ha!” moment happened when we played the Carveout Game which is done using dice, tiddly-winks, paper and coloured-pens.  No computers.  No statistics.  No queue theory gobbledygook.  No smoke-and-mirrors.  No magic.

What the Carveout Game demonstrates, practically and visually, is that an easy way to trigger the transition from calm-efficiency to chaotic-ineffectiveness is … to impose a carveout policy on a system that has been designed to achieve optimum efficiency by using averages.  Boom!  We slip on the twin banana skins of the Flaw-of-Averages and Sub-Optimisation, slide off the performance cliff, and career down the rocky slope of Chronic Chaos into the Depths of Despair – from which we cannot then escape.

This visual demonstration was a cognitive turning point for the MDT.  They now believed that there is a rational science to improvement and from there we were on the step-by-step climb to building the necessary embedded capability.

It now felt like the team were pulling what they needed to know.  I was no longer pushing.  We had flipped from push-to-pull.  That is called the tipping point.

And that is how health care systems engineering (HCSE) works.

Health care is a complex adaptive system, and what a health care systems engineer actually “designs” is a context-sensitive  incubator that nurtures the seeds of innovation that already exist in the system and encourages them to germinate, grow and become strong enough to establish themselves.

That is called “embedded improvement-by-design capability“.

And each incubator needs to be different – because each system is different.  One-solution-fits-all-problems does not work here just as it does not in medicine.  Each patient is both similar and unique.

Just as in medicine, first we need to diagnose the actual, specific cause;  second we need to design some effective solutions; third we need to decide which design to implement and fourth we need to deliver it.

This how-to-do-it framework feels counter-intuitive.  If it was obvious we would already be doing it.  But the good news is that the evidence proves that it works and that anyone can learn how to do HCSE.

Posted on

Dr Hyde and Mr Jekyll

Dr Bill Hyde was already at the bar when Bob Jekyll arrived.

Bill and  Bob had first met at university and had become firm friends, but their careers had diverged and it was only by pure chance that their paths had crossed again recently.

They had arranged to meet up for a beer and to catch up on what had happened in the 25 years since they had enjoyed the “good old times” in the university bar.

<Dr Bill> Hi Bob, what can I get you? If I remember correctly it was anything resembling real ale. Will this “Black Sheep” do?

<Bob> Hi Bill, Perfect! I’ll get the nibbles. Plain nuts OK for you?

<Dr Bill> My favourite! So what are you up to now? What doors did your engineering degree open?

<Bob> Lots!  I’ve done all sorts – mechanical, electrical, software, hardware, process, all except civil engineering. And I love it. What I do now is a sort of synthesis of all of them.  And you? Where did your medical degree lead?

<Dr Bill> To my hearts desire, the wonderful Mrs Hyde, and of course to primary care. I am a GP. I always wanted to be a GP since I was knee-high to a grasshopper.

<Bob> Yes, you always had that “I’m going to save the world one patient at a time!” passion. That must be so rewarding! Helping people who are scared witless by the health horror stories that the media pump out.  I had a fright last year when I found a lump.  My GP was great, she confidently diagnosed a “hernia” and I was all sorted in a matter of weeks with a bit of nifty day case surgery. I was convinced my time had come. It just shows how damaging the fear of the unknown can be!

<Dr Bill> Being a GP is amazingly rewarding. I love my job. But …

<Bob> But what? Are you alright Bill? You suddenly look really depressed.

<Dr Bill> Sorry Bob. I don’t want to be a damp squib. It is good to see you again, and chat about the old days when we were teased about our names.  And it is great to hear that you are enjoying your work so much. I admit I am feeling low, and frankly I welcome the opportunity to talk to someone I know and trust who is not part of the health care system. If you know what I mean?

<Bob> I know exactly what you mean.  Well, I can certainly offer an ear, “a problem shared is a problem halved” as they say. I can’t promise to do any more than that, but feel free to tell me the story, from the beginning. No blood-and-guts gory details though please!

<Dr Bill> Ha! “Tell me the story from the beginning” is what I say to my patients. OK, here goes. I feel increasingly overwhelmed and I feel like I am drowning under a deluge of patients who are banging on the practice door for appointments to see me. My intuition tells me that the problem is not the people, it is the process, but I can’t seem to see through the fog of frustration and chaos to a clear way forward.

<Bob> OK. I confess I know nothing about how your system works, so can you give me a bit more context.

<Dr Bill> Sorry. Yes, of course. I am what is called a single-handed GP and I have a list of about 1500 registered patients and I am contracted to provide primary care for them. I don’t have to do that 24 x 7, the urgent stuff that happens in the evenings and weekends is diverted to services that are designed for that. I work Monday to Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM, and I am contracted to provide what is needed for my patients, and that means face-to-face appointments.

<Bob> OK. When you say “contracted” what does that mean exactly?

<Dr Bill> Basically, the St. Elsewhere’s® Practice is like a small business. It’s annual income is a fixed amount per year for each patient on the registration list, and I have to provide the primary care service for them from that pot of cash. And that includes all the costs, including my income, our practice nurse, and the amazing Mrs H. She is the practice receptionist, manager, administrator and all-round fixer-of-anything.

<Bob> Wow! What a great design. No need to spend money on marketing, research, new product development, or advertising! Just 100% pure service delivery of tried-and-tested medical know-how to a captive audience for a guaranteed income. I have commercial customers who would cut off their right arms for an offer like that!

<Dr Bill> Really? It doesn’t feel like that to me. It feels like the more I offer, the more the patients expect. The demand is a bottomless well of wants, but the income is capped and my time is finite!

<Bob> H’mm. Tell me more about the details of how the process works.

<Dr Bill> Basically, I am a problem-solving engine. Patients phone for an appointment, Mrs H books one, the patient comes at the appointed time, I see them, and I diagnose and treat the problem, or I refer on to a specialist if it’s more complicated. That’s basically it.

<Bob> OK. Sounds a lot simpler than 99% of the processes that I’m usually involved with. So what’s the problem?

<Dr Bill> I don’t have enough capacity! After all the appointments for the day are booked Mrs H has to say “Sorry, please try again tomorrow” to every patient who phones in after that.  The patients who can’t get an appointment are not very happy and some can get quite angry. They are anxious and frustrated and I fully understand how they feel. I feel the same.

<Bob> We will come back to what you mean by “capacity”. Can you outline for me exactly how a patient is expected to get an appointment?

<Dr Bill> We tell them to phone at 8 AM for an appointment, there is a fixed number of bookable appointments, and it is first-come-first-served.  That is the only way I can protect myself from being swamped and is the fairest solution for patients.  It wasn’t my idea; it is called Advanced Access. Each morning at 8 AM we switch on the phones and brace ourselves for the daily deluge.

<Bob> You must be pulling my leg! This design is a batch-and-queue phone-in appointment booking lottery!  I guess that is one definition of “fair”.  How many patients get an appointment on the first attempt?

<Dr Bill> Not many.  The appointments are usually all gone by 9 AM and a lot are to people who have been trying to get one for several days. When they do eventually get to see me they are usually grumpy and then spring the trump card “And while I’m here doctor I have a few other things that I’ve been saving up to ask you about“. I help if I can but more often than not I have to say, “I’m sorry, you’ll have to book another appointment!“.

<Bob> I’m not surprised you patients are grumpy. I would be too. And my recollection of seeing my GP with my scary lump wasn’t like that at all. I phoned at lunch time and got an appointment the same day. Maybe I was just lucky, or maybe my GP was as worried as me. But it all felt very calm. When I arrived there was only one other patient waiting, and I was in and out in less than ten minutes – and mightily reassured I can tell you! It felt like a high quality service that I could trust if-and-when I needed it, which fortunately is very infrequently.

<Dr Bill> I dream of being able to offer a service like that! I am prepared to bet you are registered with a group practice and you see whoever is available rather than your own GP. Single-handed GPs like me who offer the old fashioned personal service are a rarity, and I can see why. We must be suckers!

<Bob> OK, so I’m starting to get a sense of this now. Has it been like this for a long time?

<Dr Bill> Yes, it has. When I was younger I was more resilient and I did not mind going the extra mile.  But the pressure is relentless and maybe I’m just getting older and grumpier.  My real fear is I end up sounding like the burned-out cynics that I’ve heard at the local GP meetings; the ones who crow about how they are counting down the days to when they can retire and gloat.

<Bob> You’re the same age as me Bill so I don’t think either of us can use retirement as an exit route, and anyway, that’s not your style. You were never a quitter at university. Your motto was always “when the going gets tough the tough get going“.

<Dr Bill> Yeah I know. That’s why it feels so frustrating. I think I lost my mojo a long time back. Maybe I should just cave in and join up with the big group practice down the road, and accept the inevitable loss of the personal service. They said they would welcome me, and my list of 1500 patients, with open arms.

<Bob> OK. That would appear to be an option, or maybe a compromise, but I’m not sure we’ve exhausted all the other options yet.  Tell me, how do you decide how long a patient needs for you to solve their problem?

<Dr Bill> That’s easy. It is ten minutes. That is the time recommended in the Royal College Guidelines.

<Bob> Eh? All patients require exactly ten minutes?

<Dr Bill> No, of course not!  That is the average time that patients need.  The Royal College did a big survey and that was what most GPs said they needed.

<Bob> Please tell me if I have got this right.  You work 9-to-5, and you carve up your day into 10-minute time-slots called “appointments” and, assuming you are allowed time to have lunch and a pee, that would be six per hour for seven hours which is 42 appointments per day that can be booked?

<Dr Bill> No. That wouldn’t work because I have other stuff to do as well as see patients. There are only 25 bookable 10-minute appointments per day.

<Bob> OK, that makes more sense. So where does 25 come from?

<Dr Bill> Ah! That comes from a big national audit. For an average GP with and average  list of 1,500 patients, the average number of patients seeking an appointment per day was found to be 25, and our practice population is typical of the national average in terms of age and deprivation.  So I set the upper limit at 25. The workload is manageable but it seems to generate a lot of unhappy patients and I dare not increase the slots because I’d be overwhelmed with the extra workload and I’m barely coping now.  I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place!

<Bob> So you have set the maximum slot-capacity to the average demand?

<Dr Bill> Yes. That’s OK isn’t it? It will average out over time. That is what average means! But it doesn’t feel like that. The chaos and pressure never seems to go away.

There was a long pause while Bob mulls over what he had heard, sips his pint of Black Sheep and nibbles on the dwindling bowl of peanuts.  Eventually he speaks.

<Bob> Bill, I have some good news and some not-so-good news and then some more good news.

<Dr Bill> Oh dear, you sound just like me when I have to share the results of tests with one of my patients at their follow up appointment. You had better give me the “bad news sandwich”!

<Bob> OK. The first bit of good news is that this is a very common, and easily treatable flow problem.  The not-so-good news is that you will need to change some things.  The second bit of good news is that the changes will not cost anything and will work very quickly.

<Dr Bill> What! You cannot be serious!! Until ten minutes ago you said that you knew nothing about how my practice works and now you are telling me that there is a quick, easy, zero cost solution.  Forgive me for doubting your engineering know-how but I’ll need a bit more convincing than that!

<Bob> And I would too if I were in your position.  The clues to the diagnosis are in the story. You said the process problem was long-standing; you said that you set the maximum slot-capacity to the average demand; and you said that you have a fixed appointment time that was decided by a subjective consensus.  From an engineering perspective, this is a perfect recipe for generating chronic chaos, which is exactly the symptoms you are describing.

<Dr Bill> Is it? OMG. You said this is well understood and resolvable? So what do I do?

<Bob> Give me a minute.  You said the average demand is 25 per day. What sort of service would you like your patients to experience? Would “90% can expect a same day appointment on the first call” be good enough as a starter?

<Dr Bill> That would be game changing!  Mrs H would be over the moon to be able to say “Yes” that often. I would feel much less anxious too, because I know the current system is a potentially dangerous lottery. And my patients would be delighted and relieved to be able to see me that easily and quickly.

<Bob> OK. Let me work this out. Based on what you’ve said, some assumptions, and a bit of flow engineering know-how; you would need to offer up to 31 appointments per day.

<Dr Bill> What! That’s impossible!!! I told you it would be impossible! That would be another hour a day of face-to-face appointments. When would I do the other stuff? And how did you work that out anyway?

<Bob> I did not say they would have to all be 10-minute appointments, and I did not say you would expect to fill them all every day. I did however say you would have to change some things.  And I did say this is a well understood flow engineering problem.  It is called “resilience design“. That’s how I was able to work it out on the back of this Black Sheep beer mat.

<Dr Bill> H’mm. That is starting to sound a bit more reasonable. What things would I have to change? Specifically?

<Bob> I’m not sure what specifically yet.  I think in your language we would say “I have taken a history, and I have a differential diagnosis, so next I’ll need to examine the patient, and then maybe do some tests to establish the actual diagnosis and to design and decide the treatment plan“.

<Dr Bill> You are learning the medical lingo fast! What do I need to do first? Brace myself for the forensic rubber-gloved digital examination?

<Bob> Alas, not yet and certainly not here. Shall we start with the vital signs? Height, weight, pulse, blood pressure, and temperature? That’s what my GP did when I went with my scary lump.  The patient here is not you, it is your St. Elsewhere’s® Practice, and we will need to translate the medical-speak into engineering-speak.  So one thing you’ll need to learn is a bit of the lingua-franca of systems engineering.  By the way, that’s what I do now. I am a systems engineer, or maybe now a health care systems engineer?

<Dr Bill> Point me in the direction of the HCSE dictionary! The next round is on me. And the nuts!

<Bob> Excellent. I’ll have another Black Sheep and some of those chilli-coated ones. We have work to do.  Let me start by explaining what “capacity” actually means to an engineer. Buckle up. This ride might get a bit bumpy.

This story is fictional, but the subject matter is factual.

Bob’s diagnosis and recommendations are realistic and reasonable.

Chapter 1 of the HCSE dictionary can be found here.

And if you are a GP who recognises these “symptoms” then this may be of interest.

Posted on

Miracle on Tavanagh Avenue

Sometimes change is dramatic. A big improvement appears very quickly. And when that happens we are caught by surprise (and delight).

Our emotional reaction is much faster than our logical response. “Wow! That’s a miracle!“

Our logical Tortoise eventually catches up with our emotional Hare and says “Hare, we both know that there is no such thing as miracles and magic. There must be a rational explanation. What is it?“

And Hare replies “I have no idea, Tortoise.  If I did then it would not have been such a delightful surprise. You are such a kill-joy! Can’t you just relish the relief without analyzing the life out of it?“

Tortoise feels hurt. “But I just want to understand so that I can explain to others. So that they can do it and get the same improvement.  Not everyone has a ‘nothing-ventured-nothing-gained’ attitude like you! Most of us are too fearful of failing to risk trusting the wild claims of improvement evangelists. We have had our fingers burned too often.“

The apparent miracle is real and recent … here is a snippet of the feedback:

Notice carefully the last sentence. It took a year of discussion to get an “OK” and a month of planning to prepare the “GO”.

That is not a miracle and some magic … that took a lot of hard work!

The evangelist is the customer. The supplier is an engineer.

The context is the chronic niggle of patients trying to get an appointment with their GP, and the chronic niggle of GPs feeling overwhelmed with work.

Here is the back story …

In the opening weeks of the 21st Century, the National Primary Care Development Team (NPDT) was formed.  Primary care was a high priority and the government had allocated £168m of investment in the NHS Plan, £48m of which was earmarked to improve GP access.

The approach the NPDT chose was:

harvest best practice +
use a panel of experts +
disseminate best practice.

Dr (later Sir) John Oldham was the innovator and figure-head.  The best practice was copied from Dr Mark Murray from Kaiser Permanente in the USA – the Advanced Access model.  The dissemination method was copied from from Dr Don Berwick’s Institute of Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in Boston – the Collaborative Model.

The principle of Advanced Access is “today’s-work-today” which means that all the requests for a GP appointment are handled the same day.  And the proponents of the model outlined the key elements to achieving this:

1. Measure daily demand.
2. Set capacity so that is sufficient to meet the daily demand.
3. Simple booking rule: “phone today for a decision today”.

But that is not what was rolled out. The design was modified somewhere between aspiration and implementation and in two important ways.

First, by adding a policy of “Phone at 08:00 for an appointment”, and second by adding a policy of “carving out” appointment slots into labelled pots such as ‘Dr X’ or ‘see in 2 weeks’ or ‘annual reviews’.

Subsequent studies suggest that the tweaking happened at the GP practice level and was driven by the fear that, by reducing the waiting time, they would attract more work.

In other words: an assumption that demand for health care is supply-led, and without some form of access barrier, the system would be overwhelmed and never be able to cope.

The result of this well-intended tampering with the Advanced Access design was to invalidate it. Oops!

To a systems engineer this is meddling was counter-productive.

The “today’s work today” specification is called a demand-led design and, if implemented competently, will lead to shorter waits for everyone, no need for urgent/routine prioritization and slot carve-out, and a simpler, safer, calmer, more efficient, higher quality, more productive system.

In this context it does not mean “see every patient today” it means “assess and decide a plan for every patient today”.

In reality, the actual demand for GP appointments is not known at the start; which is why the first step is to implement continuous measurement of the daily number and category of requests for appointments.

The second step is to feed back this daily demand information in a visual format called a time-series chart.

The third step is to use this visual tool for planning future flow-capacity, and for monitoring for ‘signals’, such as spikes, shifts, cycles and slopes.

That was not part of the modified design, so the reasonable fear expressed by GPs was (and still is) that by attempting to do today’s-work-today they would unleash a deluge of unmet need … and be swamped/drowned.

So a flood defense barrier was bolted on; the policy of “phone at 08:00 for an appointment today“, and then the policy of  channeling the over spill into pots of “embargoed slots“.

The combined effect of this error of omission (omitting the measured demand visual feedback loop) and these errors of commission (the 08:00 policy and appointment slot carve-out policy) effectively prevented the benefits of the Advanced Access design being achieved.  It was a predictable failure.

But no one seemed to realize that at the time.  Perhaps because of the political haste that was driving the process, and perhaps because there were no systems engineers on the panel-of-experts to point out the risks of diluting the design.

It is also interesting to note that the strategic aim of the NPCT was to develop a self-sustaining culture of quality improvement (QI) in primary care. That didn’t seem to have happened either.

The roll out of Advanced Access was not the success it was hoped. This is the conclusion from the 300+ page research report published in 2007.

The “Miracle on Tavanagh Avenue” that was experienced this week by both patients and staff was the expected effect of this tampering finally being corrected; and the true potential of the original demand-led design being released – for all to experience.

Remember the essential ingredients?

1. Measure daily demand and feed it back as a visual time-series chart.
2. Set capacity so that is sufficient to meet the daily demand.
3. Use a simple booking rule: “phone anytime for a decision today”.

But there is also an extra design ingredient that has been added in this case, one that was not part of the original Advanced Access specification, one that frees up GP time to provide the required “resilience” to sustain a same-day service.

And that “secret” ingredient is how the new design worked so quickly and feels like a miracle – safe, calm, enjoyable and productive.

This is health care systems engineering (HCSE) in action.

So congratulations to Harry Longman, the whole team at GP Access, and to Dr Philip Lusty and the team at Riverside Practice, Tavangh Avenue, Portadown, NI.

You have demonstrated what was always possible.

The fear of failure prevented it before, just as it prevented you doing this until you were so desperate you had no other choices.

To read the fuller story click here.

PS. Keep a close eye on the demand time-series chart and if it starts to rise then investigate the root cause … immediately.

Posted on

Value, Verify and Validate

thinker_figure_unsolve_puzzle_150_wht_18309Many of the challenges that we face in delivering effective and affordable health care do not have well understood and generally accepted solutions.

If they did there would be no discussion or debate about what to do and the results would speak for themselves.

This lack of understanding is leading us to try to solve a complicated system design challenge in our heads.  Intuitively.

And trying to do it this way is fraught with frustration and risk because our intuition tricks us. It was this sort of challenge that led Professor Rubik to invent his famous 3D Magic Cube puzzle.

It is difficult enough to learn how to solve the Magic Cube puzzle by trial and error; it is even more difficult to attempt to do it inside our heads! Intuitively.

And we know the Rubik Cube puzzle is solvable, so all we need are some techniques, tools and training to improve our Rubik Cube solving capability.  We can all learn how to do it.

Returning to the challenge of safe and affordable health care, and to the specific problem of unscheduled care, A&E targets, delayed transfers of care (DTOC), finance, fragmentation and chronic frustration.

This is a systems engineering challenge so we need some systems engineering techniques, tools and training before attempting it.  Not after failing repeatedly.

se_vee_diagram

One technique that a systems engineer will use is called a Vee Diagram such as the one shown above.  It shows the sequence of steps in the generic problem solving process and it has the same sequence that we use in medicine for solving problems that patients present to us …

Diagnose, Design and Deliver

which is also known as …

Study, Plan, Do.

Notice that there are three words in the diagram that start with the letter V … value, verify and validate.  These are probably the three most important words in the vocabulary of a systems engineer.

One tool that a systems engineer always uses is a model of the system under consideration.

Models come in many forms from conceptual to physical and are used in two main ways:

  1. To assist the understanding of the past (diagnosis)
  2. To predict the behaviour in the future (prognosis)

And the process of creating a system model, the sequence of steps, is shown in the Vee Diagram.  The systems engineer’s objective is a validated model that can be trusted to make good-enough predictions; ones that support making wiser decisions of which design options to implement, and which not to.

So if a systems engineer presented us with a conceptual model that is intended to assist our understanding, then we will require some evidence that all stages of the Vee Diagram process have been completed.  Evidence that provides assurance that the model predictions can be trusted.  And the scope over which they can be trusted.

Last month a report was published by the Nuffield Trust that is entitled “Understanding patient flow in hospitals”  and it asserts that traffic flow on a motorway is a valid conceptual model of patient flow through a hospital.  Here is a direct quote from the second paragraph in the Executive Summary:

nuffield_report_01
Unfortunately, no evidence is provided in the report to support the validity of the statement and that omission should ring an alarm bell.

The observation that “the hospitals with the least free space struggle the most” is not a validation of the conceptual model.  Validation requires a concrete experiment.

To illustrate why observation is not validation let us consider a scenario where I have a headache and I take a paracetamol and my headache goes away.  I now have some evidence that shows a temporal association between what I did (take paracetamol) and what I got (a reduction in head pain).

But this is not a valid experiment because I have not considered the other seven possible combinations of headache before (Y/N), paracetamol (Y/N) and headache after (Y/N).

An association cannot be used to prove causation; not even a temporal association.

When I do not understand the cause, and I am without evidence from a well-designed experiment, then I might be tempted to intuitively jump to the (invalid) conclusion that “headaches are caused by lack of paracetamol!” and if untested this invalid judgement may persist and even become a belief.

Understanding causality requires an approach called counterfactual analysis; otherwise known as “What if?” And we can start that process with a thought experiment using our rhetorical model.  But we must remember that we must always validate the outcome with a real experiment. That is how good science works.

A famous thought experiment was conducted by Albert Einstein when he asked the question “If I were sitting on a light beam and moving at the speed of light what would I see?” This question led him to the Theory of Relativity which completely changed the way we now think about space and time.  Einstein’s model has been repeatedly validated by careful experiment, and has allowed engineers to design and deliver valuable tools such as the Global Positioning System which uses relativity theory to achieve high positional precision and accuracy.

So let us conduct a thought experiment to explore the ‘faster movement requires more space‘ statement in the case of patient flow in a hospital.

First, we need to define what we mean by the words we are using.

The phrase ‘faster movement’ is ambiguous.  Does it mean higher flow (more patients per day being admitted and discharged) or does it mean shorter length of stage (the interval between the admission and discharge events for individual patients)?

The phrase ‘more space’ is also ambiguous. In a hospital that implies physical space i.e. floor-space that may be occupied by corridors, chairs, cubicles, trolleys, and beds.  So are we actually referring to flow-space or storage-space?

What we have in this over-simplified statement is the conflation of two concepts: flow-capacity and space-capacity. They are different things. They have different units. And the result of conflating them is meaningless and confusing.

However, our stated goal is to improve understanding so let us consider one combination, and let us be careful to be more precise with our terminology, “higher flow always requires more beds“. Does it? Can we disprove this assertion with an example where higher flow required less beds (i.e. space-capacity)?

The relationship between flow and space-capacity is well understood.

The starting point is Little’s Law which was proven mathematically in 1961 by J.D.C. Little and it states:

Average work in progress = Average lead time  X  Average flow.

In the hospital context, work in progress is the number of occupied beds, lead time is the length of stay and flow is admissions or discharges per time interval (which must be the same on average over a long period of time).

(NB. Engineers are rather pedantic about units so let us check that this makes sense: the unit of WIP is ‘patients’, the unit of lead time is ‘days’, and the unit of flow is ‘patients per day’ so ‘patients’ = ‘days’ * ‘patients / day’. Correct. Verified. Tick.)

So, is there a situation where flow can increase and WIP can decrease? Yes. When lead time decreases. Little’s Law says that is possible. We have disproved the assertion.

Let us take the other interpretation of higher flow as shorter length of stay: i.e. shorter length of stay always requires more beds.  Is this correct? No. If flow remains the same then Little’s Law states that we will require fewer beds. This assertion is disproved as well.

And we need to remember that Little’s Law is proven to be valid for averages, does that shed any light on the source of our confusion? Could the assertion about flow and beds actually be about the variation in flow over time and not about the average flow?

And this is also well understood. The original work on it was done almost exactly 100 years ago by Agner Krarup Erlang and the problem he looked at was the quality of customer service of the early telephone exchanges. Specifically, how likely was the caller to get the “all lines are busy, please try later” response.

What Erlang showed was there there is a mathematical relationship between the number of calls being made (the demand), the probability of a call being connected first time (the service quality) and the number of telephone circuits and switchboard operators available (the service cost).

So it appears that we already have a validated mathematical model that links flow, quality and cost that we might use if we substitute ‘patients’ for ‘calls’, ‘beds’ for ‘telephone circuits’, and ‘being connected’ for ‘being admitted’.

And this topic of patient flow, A&E performance and Erlang queues has been explored already … here.

So a telephone exchange is a more valid model of a hospital than a motorway.

We are now making progress in deepening our understanding.

The use of an invalid, untested, conceptual model is sloppy systems engineering.

So if the engineering is sloppy we would be unwise to fully trust the conclusions.

And I share this feedback in the spirit of black box thinking because I believe that there are some valuable lessons to be learned here – by us all.

To vote for this topic please click here.
To subscribe to the blog newsletter please click here.
To email the author please click here.

Posted on

Early Warning System

radar_screen_anim_300_clr_11649The most useful tool that a busy operational manager can have is a reliable and responsive early warning system (EWS).

One that alerts when something is changing and that, if missed or ignored, will cause a big headache in the future.

Rather like the radar system on an aircraft that beeps if something else is approaching … like another aircraft or the ground!

Operational managers are responsible for delivering stuff on time.  So they need a radar that tells them if they are going to deliver-on-time … or not.

And their on-time-delivery EWS needs to alert them soon enough that they have time to diagnose the ‘threat’, design effective plans to avoid it, decide which plan to use, and deliver it.

So what might an effective EWS for a busy operational manager look like?

  1. It needs to be reliable. No missed threats or false alarms.
  2. It needs to be visible. No tomes of text and tables of numbers.
  3. It needs to be simple. Easy to learn and quick to use.

And what is on offer at the moment?

The RAG Chart
This is a table that is coloured red, amber and green. Red means ‘failing’, green means ‘not failing’ and amber means ‘not sure’.  So this meets the specification of visible and simple, but it is reliable?

It appears not.  RAG charts do not appear to have helped to solve the problem.

A RAG chart is generated using historic data … so it tells us where we are now, not how we got here, where we are going or what else is heading our way.  It is a snapshot. One frame from the movie.  Better than complete blindness perhaps, but not much.

The SPC Chart
This is a statistical process control chart and is a more complicated beast.  It is a chart of how some measure of performance has changed over time in the past.  So like the RAG chart it is generated using historic data.  The advantage is that it is not just a snapshot of where were are now, it is a picture of story of how we got to where we are, so it offers the promise of pointing to where we may be heading.  It meets the specification of visible, and while more complicated than a RAG chart, it is relatively easy to learn and quick to use.

Luton_A&E_4Hr_YieldHere is an example. It is the SPC  chart of the monthly A&E 4-hour target yield performance of an acute NHS Trust.  The blue lines are the ‘required’ range (95% to 100%), the green line is the average and the red lines are a measure of variation over time.  What this charts says is: “This hospital’s A&E 4-hour target yield performance is currently acceptable, has been so since April 2012, and is improving over time.”

So that is much more helpful than a RAG chart (which in this case would have been green every month because the average was above the minimum acceptable level).

So why haven’t SPC charts replaced RAG charts in every NHS Trust Board Report?

Could there be a fly-in-the-ointment?

The answer is “Yes” … there is.

SPC charts are a quality audit tool.  They were designed nearly 100 years ago for monitoring the output quality of a process that is already delivering to specification (like the one above).  They are designed to alert the operator to early signals of deterioration, called ‘assignable cause signals’, and they prompt the operator to pay closer attention and to investigate plausible causes.

SPC charts are not designed for predicting if there is a flow problem looming over the horizon.  They are not designed for flow metrics that exhibit expected cyclical patterns.  They are not designed for monitoring metrics that have very skewed distributions (such as length of stay).  They are not designed for metrics where small shifts generate big cumulative effects.  They are not designed for metrics that change more slowly than the frequency of measurement.

And these are exactly the sorts of metrics that a busy operational manager needs to monitor, in reality, and in real-time.

Demand and activity both show strong cyclical patterns.

Lead-times (e.g. length of stay) are often very skewed by variation in case-mix and task-priority.

Waiting lists are like bank accounts … they show the cumulative sum of the difference between inflow and outflow.  That simple fact invalidates the use of the SPC chart.

Small shifts in demand, activity, income and expenditure can lead to big cumulative effects.

So if we abandon our RAG charts and we replace them with SPC charts … then we climb out of the RAG frying pan and fall into the SPC fire.

Oops!  No wonder the operational managers and financial controllers have not embraced SPC.

So is there an alternative that works better?  A more reliable EWS that busy operational managers and financial controllers can use?

Yes, there is, and here is a clue …

… but tread carefully …

… building one of these Flow-Productivity Early Warning Systems is not as obvious as it might first appear.  There are counter-intuitive traps for the unwary and the untrained.

You may need the assistance of a health care systems engineer (HCSE).

Posted on

A Recipe for Chaos

growing_workload_anim_6858There is an easy and quick-to-cook recipe for chaos.

All we have to do is to ensure that the maximum number of jobs that we can do in a given time is set equal to the average number of jobs that we are required to do in the same period of time.

Eh?

That does not make sense.  Our intuition says that looks like the perfect recipe for a hyper-efficient, zero-waste, zero idle-time design which is what we want.

I know it does, but it isn’t.  Our intuition is tricking us.

It is the recipe for chaos – and to prove it all we will have to do a real world experiment – because to prove it using maths is really difficult. So difficult in fact that the formula was not revealed until 1962 – by a mathematician called John Kingman while a postgraduate student at Pembroke College, Cambridge.

The empirical experiment is very easy to do – all we need is a single step process – and a stream of jobs to do.

And we could do it for real, or we can simulate it using an Excel spreadsheet – which is much quicker.

So we set up our spreadsheet to simulate a new job arriving every X minutes and each job taking X minutes to complete.

Our operator can only do one job at a time so if a job arrives and the operator is busy the job joins the back of a queue of jobs and waits.

When the operator finishes a job it takes the next one from the front of the queue, the one that has been waiting longest.

And if there is no queue the operator will wait until the next job arrives.

Simple.

And when we run simulation the we see that there is indeed no queue, no jobs waiting and the operator is always busy (i.e. 100% utilised). Perfection!

BUT ….

This is not a realistic scenario.  In reality there is always some random variation.  Not all jobs require the same length of time, and jobs do not arrive at precisely the right intervals.

No matter, our confident intuition tells us. It will average out.  Swings-and-roundabouts. Give-and-take.

It doesn’t.

And if you do not believe me just build the simple Excel model outlined above, verify that it works, then add some random variation to the time it takes to do each job … and observe what happens to the average waiting time.

What you will discover is that as soon as we add even a small amount of random variation we get a queue, and waiting and idle resources as well!

But not a steady, stable, predictable queue … Oh No! … We get an unsteady, unstable and unpredictable queue … we get chaos.

Try it.

So what? How does this abstract ‘queue theory’ apply to the real world?

Well, suppose we have a single black box system called ‘a hospital’ – patients arrive and we work hard to diagnose and treat them.  And so long as we have enough resource-time to do all the jobs we are OK. No unstable queues. No unpredictable waiting.

But time-costs-money and we have an annual cost improvement target (CIP) that we are required to meet so we need to ‘trim’ resource-time capacity to push up resource utilisation.  And we will call that an ‘efficiency improvement’ which is good … yes?

It isn’t actually.  I can just as easily push up my ‘utilisation’ by working slower, or doing stuff I do not need to, or by making mistakes that I have to check for and then correct.  I can easily make myself busier and delude myself I am working harder.

And we are also a victim of our own success … the better we do our job … the longer people live and the more workload they put on the health and social care system.

So we have the perfect storm … the perfect recipe for chaos … slowly rising demand … slowly shrinking budgets … and an inefficient ‘business’ design.

And that in a nutshell is the reason the NHS is descending into chaos.

So what is the solution?

Reduce demand? Stop people getting sick? Or make them sicker so they die quicker?

Increase budgets? Where will the money come from? Beg? Borrow? Steal? Economic growth?

Improve the design?  Now there’s a thought. But how? By using the same beliefs and behaviours that have created the current chaos?

Maybe we need to challenge some invalid beliefs and behaviours … and replace those that fail the Reality Test with some more effective ones.

Posted on

The Magic Black Box

stick_figure_magic_carpet_150_wht_5040It was the appointed time for Bob and Leslie’s regular coaching session as part of the improvement science practitioner programme.

<Leslie> Hi Bob, I am feeling rather despondent today so please excuse me in advance if you hear a lot of “Yes, but …” language.

<Bob> I am sorry to hear that Leslie. Do you want to talk about it?

<Leslie> Yes, please.  The trigger for my gloom was being sent on a mandatory training workshop.

<Bob> OK. Training to do what?

<Leslie> Outpatient demand and capacity planning!

<Bob> But you know how to do that already, so what is the reason you were “sent”?

<Leslie> Well, I am no longer sure I know how to it.  That is why I am feeling so blue.  I went more out of curiosity and I came away utterly confused and with my confidence shattered.

<Bob> Oh dear! We had better start at the beginning.  What was the purpose of the workshop?

<Leslie> To train everyone in how to use an Outpatient Demand and Capacity planning model, an Excel one that we were told to download along with the User Guide.  I think it is part of a national push to improve waiting times for outpatients.

<Bob> OK. On the surface that sounds reasonable. You have designed and built your own Excel flow-models already; so where did the trouble start?

<Leslie> I will attempt to explain.  This was a paragraph in the instructions. I felt OK with this because my Improvement Science training has given me a very good understanding of basic demand and capacity theory.

IST_DandC_Model_01<Bob> OK.  I am guessing that other delegates may have felt less comfortable with this. Was that the case?

<Leslie> The training workshops are targeted at Operational Managers and the ones I spoke to actually felt that they had a good grasp of the basics.

<Bob> OK. That is encouraging, but a warning bell is ringing for me. So where did the trouble start?

<Leslie> Well, before going to the workshop I decided to read the User Guide so that I had some idea of how this magic tool worked.  This is where I started to wobble – this paragraph specifically …

IST_DandC_Model_02

<Bob> H’mm. What did you make of that?

<Leslie> It was complete gibberish to me and I felt like an idiot for not understanding it.  I went to the workshop in a bit of a panic and hoped that all would become clear. It didn’t.

<Bob> Did the User Guide explain what ‘percentile’ means in this context, ideally with some visual charts to assist?

<Leslie> No and the use of ‘th’ and ‘%’ was really confusing too.  After that I sort of went into a mental fog and none of the workshop made much sense.  It was all about practising using the tool without any understanding of how it worked. Like a black magic box.

<Bob> OK.  I can see why you were confused, and do not worry, you are not an idiot.  It looks like the author of the User Guide has unwittingly used some very confusing and ambiguous terminology here.  So can you talk me through what you have to do to use this magic box?

<Leslie> First we have to enter some of our historical data; the number of new referrals per week for a year; and the referral and appointment dates for all patients for the most recent three months.

<Bob> OK. That sounds very reasonable.  A run chart of historical demand and the raw event data for a Vitals Chart® is where I would start the measurement phase too – so long as the data creates a valid 3 month reporting window.

<Leslie> Yes, I though so too … but that is not how the black box model seems to work. The weekly demand is used to draw an SPC chart, but the event data seems to disappear into the innards of the black box, and recommendations pop out of it.

<Bob> Ah ha!  And let me guess the relationship between the term ‘percentile’ and the SPC chart of weekly new demand was not explained?

<Leslie> Spot on.  What does percentile mean?

<Bob> It is statistics jargon. Remember that we have talked about the distribution of the data around the average on a BaseLine chart; and how we use the histogram feature of BaseLine to show it visually.  Like this example.

IST_DandC_Model_03<Leslie> Yes. I recognise that. This chart shows a stable system of demand with an average of around 150 new referrals per week and the variation distributed above and below the average in a symmetrical pattern, falling off to zero around the upper and lower process limits.  I believe that you said that over 99% will fall within the limits.

<Bob> Good.  The blue histogram on this chart is called a probability distribution function, to use the terminology of a statistician.

<Leslie> OK.

<Bob> So, what would happen if we created a Pareto chart of demand using the number of patients per week as the categories and ignoring the time aspect? We are allowed to do that if the behaviour is stable, as this chart suggests.

<Leslie> Give me a minute, I will need to do a rough sketch. Does this look right?

IST_DandC_Model_04

<Bob> Perfect!  So if you now convert the Y-axis to a percentage scale so that 52 weeks is 100% then where does the average weekly demand of about 150 fall? Read up from the X-axis to the line then across to the Y-axis.

<Leslie> At about 26 weeks or 50% of 52 weeks.  Ah ha!  So that is what a percentile means!  The 50th percentile is the average, the zeroth percentile is around the lower process limit and the 100th percentile is around the upper process limit!

<Bob> In this case the 50th percentile is the average, it is not always the case though.  So where is the 85th percentile line?

<Leslie> Um, 52 times 0.85 is 44.2 which, reading across from the Y-axis then down to the X-axis gives a weekly demand of about 170 per week.  That is about the same as the average plus one sigma according to the run chart.

<Bob> Excellent. The Pareto chart that you have drawn is called a cumulative probability distribution function … and that is usually what percentiles refer to. Comparative Statisticians love these but often omit to explain their rationale to non-statisticians!

<Leslie> Phew!  So, now I can see that the 65th percentile is just above average demand, and 85th percentile is above that.  But in the confusing paragraph how does that relate to the phrase “65% and 85% of the time”?

<Bob> It doesn’t. That is the really, really confusing part of  that paragraph. I am not surprised that you looped out at that point!

<Leslie> OK. Let us leave that for another conversation.  If I ignore that bit then does the rest of it make sense?

<Bob> Not yet alas. We need to dig a bit deeper. What would you say are the implications of this message?

<Leslie> Well.  I know that if our flow-capacity is less than our average demand then we will guarantee to create an unstable queue and chaos. That is the Flaw of Averages trap.

<Bob> OK.  The creator of this tool seems to know that.

<Leslie> And my outpatient manager colleagues are always complaining that they do not have enough slots to book into, so I conclude that our current flow-capacity is just above the 50th percentile.

<Bob> A reasonable hypothesis.

<Leslie> So to calm the chaos the message is saying I will need to increase my flow capacity up to the 85th percentile of demand which is from about 150 slots per week to 170 slots per week. An increase of 7% which implies a 7% increase in costs.

<Bob> Good.  I am pleased that you did not fall into the intuitive trap that a increase from the 50th to the 85th percentile implies a 35/50 or 70% increase! Your estimate of 7% is a reasonable one.

<Leslie> Well it may be theoretically reasonable but it is not practically possible. We are exhorted to reduce costs by at least that amount.

<Bob> So we have a finance versus governance bun-fight with the operational managers caught in the middle: FOG. That is not the end of the litany of woes … is there anything about Did Not Attends in the model?

<Leslie> Yes indeed! We are required to enter the percentage of DNAs and what we do with them. Do we discharge them or re-book them.

<Bob> OK. Pragmatic reality is always much more interesting than academic rhetoric and this aspect of the real system rather complicates things, at least for a comparative statistician. This is where the smoke and mirrors will appear and they will be hidden inside the black magic box.  To solve this conundrum we need to understand the relationship between demand, capacity, variation and yield … and it is rather counter-intuitive.  So, how would you approach this problem?

<Leslie> I would use the 6M Design® framework and I would start with a map and not with a model; least of all a magic black box one that I did not design, build and verify myself.

<Bob> And how do you know that will work any better?

<Leslie> Because at the One Day ISP Workshop I saw it work with my own eyes. The queues, waits and chaos just evaporated.  And it cost nothing.  We already had more than enough “capacity”.

<Bob> Indeed you did.  So shall we do this one as an ISP-2 project?

<Leslie> An excellent suggestion.  I already feel my confidence flowing back and I am looking forward to this new challenge. Thank you again Bob.

Posted on

V.U.T.

figure_pointing_out_chart_data_150_wht_8005It was the appointed time for the ISP coaching session and both Bob and Leslie were logged on and chatting about their Easter breaks.

<Bob> OK Leslie, I suppose we had better do some actual work, which seems a shame on such a wonderful spring day.

<Leslie> Yes, I suppose so. There is actually something I would like to ask you about because I came across it by accident and it looked very pertinent to flow design … but you have never mentioned it.

<Bob> That sounds interesting. What is it?

<Leslie> V.U.T.

<Bob> Ah ha!  You have stumbled across the Queue Theorists and the Factory Physicists.  So, what was your take on it?

<Leslie> Well it all sounded very impressive. The context is I was having a chat with a colleague who is also getting into the improvement stuff and who had been to a course called “Factory Physics for Managers” – and he came away buzzing about the VUT equation … and claimed that it explained everything!

<Bob> OK. So what did you do next?

<Leslie> I looked it up of course and I have to say the more I read the more confused I got. Maybe I am just a bid dim and not up to understanding this stuff.

<Bob> Well you are certainly not dim so your confusion must be caused by something else. Did your colleague describe how the VUT equation is applied in practice?

<Leslie> Um. No, I do not remember him describing an example – just that it explained why we cannot expect to run resources at 100% utilisation.

<Bob> Well he is correct on that point … though there is a bit more to it than that.  A more accurate statement is “We cannot expect our system to be stable if there is variation and we run flow-resources at 100% utilisation”.

<Leslie> Well that sounds just like the sort of thing we have been talking about, what you call “resilient design”, so what is the problem with the VUT equation?

<Bob> The problem is that it gives an estimate of the average waiting time in a very simple system called a G/G/1 system.

<Leslie> Eh? What is a G/G/1 system?

<Bob> Arrgh … this is the can of queue theory worms that I was hoping to avoid … but as you brought it up let us grasp the nettle.  This is called Kendall’s Notation and it is a short cut notation for describing the system design. The first letter refers to the arrivals or demand and G means a general distribution of arrival times; the second G refers to the size of the jobs or the cycle time and again the distribution is general; and the last number refers to the number of parallel resources pulling from the queue.

<Leslie> OK, so that is a single queue feeding into a single resource … the simplest possible flow system.

<Bob> Yes. But that isn’t the problem.  The problem is that the VUT equation gives an approximation to the average waiting time. It tells us nothing about the variation in the waiting time.

<Leslie> Ah I see. So it tells us nothing about the variation in the size of the queue either … so does not help us plan the required space-capacity to hold the varying queue.

<Bob> Precisely.  There is another problem too.  The ‘U’ term in the VUT equation refers to utilisation of the resource … denoted by the symbol ? or rho.  The actual term is ? / (1-?) … so what happens when rho approaches one … or in practical terms the average utilisation of the resource approaches 100%?

<Leslie> Um … 1 divided by (1-1) is 1 divided by zero which is … infinity!  The average waiting time becomes infinitely long!

<Bob> Yes, but only if we wait forever – in reality we cannot and anyway – reality is always changing … we live in a dynamic, ever-changing, unstable system called Reality. The VUT equation may be academically appealing but in practice it is almost useless.

<Leslie> Ah ha! Now I see why you never mentioned it. So how do we design for resilience in practice? How do we get a handle on the behaviour of even the G/G/1 system over time?

<Bob> We use an Excel spreadsheet to simulate our G/G/1 system and we find a fit-for-purpose design using an empirical, experimental approach. It is actually quite straightforward and does not require any Queue Theory or VUT equations … just a bit of basic Excel know-how.

<Leslie> Phew!  That sounds more up my street. I would like to see an example.

<Bob> Welcome to the first exercise in ISP-2 (Flow).

Posted on

Righteous Indignation

NHS_Legal_CostsThis heading in the the newspaper today caught my eye.

Reading the rest of the story triggered a strong emotional response: anger.

My inner chimp was not happy. Not happy at all.

So I took my chimp for a walk and we had a long chat and this is the story that emerged.

The first trigger was the eye-watering fact that the NHS is facing something like a £26 billion litigation cost.  That is about a quarter of the total NHS annual budget!

The second was the fact that the litigation bill has increased by over £3 billion in the last year alone.

The third was that the extra money will just fall into a bottomless pit – the pockets of legal experts – not to where it is intended, to support overworked and demoralised front-line NHS staff. GPs, nurses, AHPs, consultants … the ones that deliver care.

That is why my chimp was so upset.  And it sounded like righteous indignation rather than irrational fear.

So what is the root cause of this massive bill? A more litigious society? Ambulance chasing lawyers trying to make a living? Dishonest people trying to make a quick buck out of a tax-funded system that cannot defend itself?

And what is the plan to reduce this cost?

Well in the article there are three parts to this:
“apologise and learn when you’re wrong,  explain and vigorously defend when we’re right, view court as a last resort.”

This sounds very plausible but to achieve it requires knowing when we are wrong or right.

How do we know?

Generally we all think we are right until we are proved wrong.

It is the way our brains are wired. We are more sure about our ‘rightness’ than the evidence suggests is justified. We are naturally optimistic about our view of ourselves.

So to be proved wrong is emotionally painful and to do it we need:
1) To make a mistake.
2) For that mistake to lead to psychological or physical harm.
3) For the harm to be identified.
4) For the cause of the harm to be traced back to the mistake we made.
5) For the evidence to be used to hold us to account, (to apologise and learn).

And that is all hunky-dory when we are individually inept and we make avoidable mistakes.

But what happens when the harm is the outcome of a combination of actions that individually are harmless but which together are not?  What if the contributory actions are sensible and are enforced as policies that we dutifully follow to the letter?

Who is held to account?  Who needs to apologise? Who needs to learn?  Someone? Anyone? Everyone? No one?

The person who wrote the policy?  The person who commissioned the policy to be written? The person who administers the policy? The person who follows the policy?

How can that happen if the policies are individually harmless but collectively lethal?

The error here is one of a different sort.

It is called an ‘error of omission’.  The harm is caused by what we did not do.  And notice the ‘we’.

What we did not do is to check the impact on others of the policies that we write for ourselves.

Example:

The governance department of a large hospital designs safety policies that if not followed lead to disciplinary action and possible dismissal.  That sounds like a reasonable way to weed out the ‘bad apples’ and the policies are adhered to.

At the same time the operations department designs flow policies (such as maximum waiting time targets and minimum resource utilisation) that if not followed lead to disciplinary action and possible dismissal.  That also sounds like a reasonable way to weed out the layabouts whose idleness cause queues and delays and the policies are adhered to.

And at the same time the finance department designs fiscal policies (such as fixed budgets and cost improvement targets) that if not followed lead to disciplinary action and possible dismissal. Again, that sounds like a reasonable way to weed out money wasters and the policies are adhered to.

What is the combined effect? The multiple safety checks take more time to complete, which puts extra workload on resources and forces up utilisation. As the budget ceiling is lowered the financial and operational pressures build, the system heats up, stress increases, corners are cut, errors slip through the safety checks. More safety checks are added and the already over-worked staff are forced into an impossible position.  Chaos ensues … more mistakes are made … patients are harmed and justifiably seek compensation by litigation.  Everyone loses (except perhaps the lawyers).

So why was my inner chimp really so unhappy?

Because none of this is necessary. This scenario is avoidable.

Reducing the pain of complaints and the cost of litigation requires setting realistic expectations to avoid disappointment and it requires not creating harm in the first place.

That implies creating healthcare systems that are inherently safe, not made not-unsafe by inspection-and-correction.

And it implies measuring and sharing intended and actual outcomes not  just compliance with policies and rates of failure to meet arbitrary and conflicting targets.

So if that is all possible and all that is required then why are we not doing it?

Simple. We never learned how. We never knew it is possible.

Posted on

Seeing and Believing

Flow_Science_Works[Beep] It was time again for the weekly Webex coaching session. Bob dialled into the teleconference to find Leslie already there … and very excited.

<Leslie> Hi Bob, I am so excited. I cannot wait to tell you about what has happened this week.

<Bob> Hi Leslie. You really do sound excited. I cannot wait to hear.

<Leslie> Well, let us go back a bit in the story.  You remember that I was really struggling to convince the teams I am working with to actually make changes.  I kept getting the ‘Yes … but‘ reaction from the sceptics.  It was as if they were more comfortable with complaining.

<Bob> That is the normal situation. We are all very able to delude ourselves that what we have is all we can expect.

<Leslie> Well, I listened to what you said and I asked them to work through what they predicted could happen if they did nothing.  Their healthy scepticism then worked to build their conviction that doing nothing was a very dangerous choice.

<Bob> OK. And I am guessing that insight was not enough.

<Leslie> Correct.  So then I shared some examples of what others had achieved and how they had done it, and I started to see some curiosity building, but no engagement still.  So I kept going, sharing stories of ‘what’, and ‘how’.  And eventually I got an email saying “We have thought about what you said about a one day experiment and we are prepared to give that a try“.

<Bob> Excellent. How long ago was that?

<Leslie> Three months. And I confess that I was part of the delay.  I was so surprised that they said ‘OK‘ that I was not ready to follow on.

<Bob> OK. It sounds like you did not really believe it was possible either. So what did you do next?

<Leslie> Well I knew for sure that we would only get one chance.  If the experiment failed then it would be Game Over. So I needed to know before the change what the effect would be.  I needed to be able to predict it accurately. I also needed to feel reassured enough to take the leap of faith.

<Bob> Very good, so did you use some of your ISP-2 skills?

<Leslie> Yes! And it was a bit of a struggle because doing it in theory is one thing; doing it in reality is a lot messier.

<Bob> So what did you focus on?

<Leslie> The top niggle of course!  At St Elsewhere® we have a call-centre that provides out-of-office-hours telephone advice and guidance – and it is especially busy at weekends.  We are required to answer all calls quickly, which we do, and then we categorise them into ‘urgent’  and ‘non-urgent’ and pass them on to the specialists.  They call the clients back and provide expert advice and guidance for their specific problem.

<Bob>So you do not use standard scripts?

<Leslie> No, that does not work. The variety of the problems we have to solve is too wide. And the specialist has to come to a decision quite quickly … solve the problem over the phone, arrange a visit to an out of hours clinic, or to dispatch a mobile specialist to the client immediately.

<Bob> OK. So what was the top niggle?

<Leslie> We have contractual performance specifications we have to meet for the maximum waiting time for our specialists to call clients back; and we were not meeting them.  That implied that we were at risk of losing the contract and that meant loss of revenue and jobs.

<Bob> So doing nothing was not an option.

<Leslie> Correct. And asking for more resources was not either … the contract was a fixed price one. We got it because we offered the lowest price. If we employed more staff we would go out of business.  It was a rock-and-a-hard-place problem.

<Bob> OK.  So if this was ranked as your top niggle then you must have had a solution in mind.

<Leslie> I had a diagnosis.  The Vitals Chart© showed that we already had enough resources to do the work. The performance failure was caused by a scheduling policy – one that we created – our intuitively-obvious policy.

<Bob> Ah ha! So you suggested doing something that felt counter-intuitive.

<Leslie> Yes. And that generated all the ‘Yes .. but‘  discussion.

<Bob> OK. Do you have the Vitals Chart© to hand? Can you send me the Wait-Time run chart?

<Leslie> Yes, I expected you would ask for that … here it is.

StE_CallCentre_Before<Bob> OK. So I am looking at the run chart of waiting time for the call backs for one Saturday, and it is in call arrival order, and the blue line is the maximum allowed waiting time is that correct?

<Leslie>Yup. Can you see the diagnosis?

<Bob> Yes. This chart shows the classic pattern of ‘prioritycarveoutosis’.  The upper border is the ‘non-urgents’ and the lower group are the ‘urgents’ … the queue jumpers.

<Leslie> Spot on.  It is the rising tide of non-urgent calls that spill over the specification limit.  And when I shared this chart the immediate reaction was ‘Well that proves we need more capacity!‘

<Bob> And the WIP chart did not support that assertion.

<Leslie> Correct. It showed we had enough total flow-capacity already.

<Bob> So you suggested a change in the scheduling policy would solve the problem without costing any money.

<Leslie> Yes. And the reaction to that was ‘That is impossible. We are already working flat out. We need more capacity because to work quicker will mean cutting corners and it is unsafe to cut-corners‘.

<Bob> So how did you get around that invalid but widely held belief?

<Leslie> I used one of the FISH techniques. I got a few of them to play a table top game where we simulated a much simpler process and demonstrated the same waiting time pattern on a hand-drawn run chart.

<Bob> Excellent.  Did that get you to the ‘OK, we will give it a go for one day‘ decision.

<Leslie>Yes. But then I had to come up with a new design and I had test it so I know it would work.

<Bob> Because that was a step too far for them. And It sounds like you achieved that.

<Leslie> Yes.  It was tough though because I knew I had to prove to myself I could do it. If I had asked you I know what you would have said – ‘I know you can do this‘.  And last Saturday we ran the ‘experiment’. I was pacing up and down like an expectant parent!

<Bob> I expect rather like the ESA team who have just landed Rosetta’s little probe-child on an asteroid travelling at 38,000 miles per hour, billions of miles from Earth after a 10 year journey through deep space!  Totally inspiring stuff!

<Leslie> Yes. And that is why I am so excited because OUR DESIGN WORKED!  Exactly as predicted.

<Bob> Three cheers for you!  You have experienced that wonderful feeling when you see the effect of improvement-by-design with your own eyes. When that happens then you really believe what opportunities become possible.

<Leslie> So I want to show you the ‘after’ chart …

StE_CallCentre_After

<Bob> Wow!  That is a spectacular result! The activity looks very similar, and other than a ‘blip’ between 15:00 and 19:00 the prioritycarveoutosis has gone. The spikes have assignable causes I assume?

<Leslie> Spot on again!  The activity was actually well above average for a Saturday.  The subjective feedback was that the new design felt calm and under-control. The chaos had evaporated.  The performance was easily achieved and everyone was very positive about the whole experience.  The sceptics were generous enough to say it had gone better than they expected.  And yes, I am now working through the ‘spikes’ and excluding them … but only once I have a root cause that explains them.

<Bob> Well done Leslie! I sense that you now believe what is possible whereas before you just hoped it would be.

<Leslie> Yes! And the most important thing to me is that we did it ourselves. Which means improvement-by-design can be learned. It is not obvious, it feels counter-intuitive, so it is not easy … but it works.

<Bob> Yes. That is the most important message. And you have now earned your ISP Certificate of Competency.

Posted on

Spring the Trap

trapped_in_question_PA_300_wht_3174[Beeeeeep] It was time for the weekly coaching chat.  Bob, a seasoned practitioner of flow science, dialled into the teleconference with Lesley.

<Bob> Good afternoon Lesley, can I suggest a topic today?

<Lesley> Hi Bob. That would be great, and I am sure you have a good reason for suggesting it.

<Bob> I would like to explore the concept of time-traps again because it something that many find confusing. Which is a shame because it is often the key to delivering surprisingly dramatic and rapid improvements; at no cost.

<Lesley> Well doing exactly that is what everyone seems to be clamouring for so it sounds like a good topic to me.  I confess that I am still not confident to teach others about time-traps.

<Bob> OK. Let us start there. Can you describe what happens when you try to teach it?

<Lesley> Well, it seems to be when I say that the essence of a time-trap is that the lead time and the flow are independent.  For example, the lead time stays the same even though the flow is changing.  That really seems to confuse people; and me too if I am brutally honest.

<Bob> OK.  Can you share the example that you use?

<Lesley> Well it depends on who I am talking to.  I prefer to use an example that they are familiar with.  If it is a doctor I might use the example of the ward round.  If it is a manager I might use the example of emails or meetings.

<Bob> Assume I am a doctor then – an urgent care physician.

<Lesley> OK.  Let us take it that I have done the 4N Chart and the  top niggle is ‘Frustration because the post-take ward round takes so long that it delays the discharge of patients who then often have to stay an extra night which then fills up the unit with waiting patients and we get blamed for blocking flow from A&E and causing A&E breaches‘.

<Bob> That sounds like a good example. What is the time-trap in that design?

<Lesley> The  post-take ward round.

<Bob> And what justification is usually offered for using that design?

<Lesley> That it is a more efficient use of the expensive doctor’s time if the whole team congregate once a day and work through all the patients admitted over the previous 24 hours.  They review the presentation, results of tests, diagnosis, management plans, response to treatment, decide the next steps and do the paperwork.

<Bob> And why is that a time-trap design?

<Lesley> Because  it does not matter if one patient is admitted or ten, the average lead time from the perspective of the patient is the same – about one day.

<Bob> Correct. So why is the doctor complaining that there are always lots of patients to see?

<Lesley> Because there are. The emergency short stay ward is usually full by the time the post take ward round happens.

<Bob> And how do you present the data that shows the lead time is independent of the flow?

<Lesley> I use a Gantt chart, but the problem I find is that there is so much variation and queue jumping it is not blindingly obvious from the Gantt chart that there is a time-trap. There is so much else clouding the picture.

<Bob>Is that where the ‘but I do not understand‘ conversation starts?

<Lesley> Yes. And that is where I get stuck too.

<Bob> OK.  The issue here is that a Gantt chart is not the ideal visualisation tool when there are lots of crossed-streams, frequently changing priorities, and many other sources of variation.  The Gantt chart gets ‘messy’.   The trick here is to use a Vitals Chart – and you can derive that from the same data you used for the Gantt chart.

<Lesley> You are right about the Gantt chart getting messy. I have seen massive wall-sized Gantt charts that are veritable works-of-art and that have taken hours to create; and everyone standing looking at it and saying ‘Wow! That is an impressive piece of work.  So what does it tell us? How does it help?‘

<Bob> Yes, I have experienced that too. I think what happens is that those who do the foundation training and discover the Gantt chart then try to use it to solve every flow problem – and in their enthusiasm they discount any warning advice.  Desperation drives over-inflated expectation which is often the pre-cursor to disappointment, and then disillusionment.  The Nerve Curve again.

<Lesley> But a Vitals Chart is an HCSE level technique and you said that we do not need to put everyone through HCSE training.

<Bob>That is correct. I am advocating an HCSE-in-training using a Vitals Chart to explain the concept of a time-trap so that everyone understands it well enough to see the flaw in the design.

<Lesley> Ah ha!  Yes, I see.  So what is my next step?

<Bob> I will let you answer that.

<Lesley> Um, let me think.

The outcome I want is everyone understands the concept of a time-trap well enough to feel comfortable with trying a time-trap-free design because they can see the benefits for them.

And to get that depth of understanding I need to design a table top exercise that starts with a time-trap design and generates raw data that we can use to build both a Gantt chart and the Vitals Chart; so I can point out and explain the characteristic finger-print of a time trap.

And then we can ‘test’ an alternative time-trap-free design and generate the prognostic Gantt and Vitals Chart and compare with the baseline diagnostic charts to reveal the improvement.

<Bob> That sounds like a good plan to me.  And if you do that, and your team apply it to a real improvement exercise, and you see the improvement and you share the story, then that will earn you a coveted HCSE Certificate of Competency.

<Lesley>Ah ha! Now I understand the reason you suggested this topic!  I am on the case!

Posted on

The Battle of the Chimps

Chimp_BattleImprovement implies change.
Change implies action.
Action implies decision.

So how is the decision made?
With Urgency?
With Understanding?

Bitter experience teaches us that often there is an argument about what to do and when to do it.  An argument between two factions. Both are motivated by a combination of anger and fear. One side is motivated more by anger than fear. They vote for action because of the urgency of the present problem. The other side is motivated more by fear than anger. They vote for inaction because of their fear of future failure.

The outcome is unhappiness for everyone.

If the ‘action’ party wins the vote and a failure results then there is blame and recrimination. If the ‘inaction’ party wins the vote and a failure results then there is blame and recrimination. If either party achieves a success then there is both gloating and resentment. Lose Lose.

The issue is not the decision and how it is achieved.The problem is the battle.

Dr Steve Peters is a psychiatrist with 30 years of clinical experience.  He knows how to help people succeed in life through understanding how the caveman wetware between their ears actually works.

In the run up to the 2012 Olympic games he was the sports psychologist for the multiple-gold-medal winning UK Cycling Team.  The World Champions. And what he taught them is described in his book – “The Chimp Paradox“.

Chimp_Paradox_SmallSteve brilliantly boils the current scientific understanding of the complexity of the human mind down into a simple metaphor.

One that is accessible to everyone.

The metaphor goes like this:

There are actually two ‘beings’ inside our heads. The Chimp and the Human. The Chimp is the older, stronger, more emotional and more irrational part of our psyche. The Human is the newer, weaker, logical and rational part.  Also inside there is the Computer. It is just a memory where both the Chimp and the Human store information for reference later. Beliefs, values, experience. Stuff like that. Stuff they use to help them make decisions.

And when some new information arrives through our senses – sight and sound for example – the Chimp gets first dibs and uses the Computer to look up what to do.  Long before the Human has had time to analyse the new information logically and rationally. By the time the Human has even started on solving the problem the Chimp has come to a decision and signaled it to the Human and associated it with a strong emotion. Anger, Fear, Excitement and so on. The Chimp operates on basic drives like survival-of-the-self and survival-of-the-species. So if the Chimp gets spooked or seduced then it takes control – and it is the stronger so it always wins the internal argument.

But the human is responsible for the actions of the Chimp. As Steve Peters says ‘If your dog bites someone you cannot blame the dog – you are responsible for the dog‘.  So it is with our inner Chimps. Very often we end up apologising for the bad behaviour of our inner Chimp.

Because our inner Chimp is the stronger we cannot ‘control’ it by force. We have to learn how to manage the animal. We need to learn how to soothe it and to nurture it. And we need to learn how to remove the Gremlins that it has programmed into the Computer. Our inner Chimp is not ‘bad’ or ‘mad’ it is just a Chimp and it is an essential part of us.

Real chimpanzees are social, tribal and territorial.  They live in family groups and the strongest male is the boss. And it is now well known that a troop of chimpanzees in the wild can plan and wage battles to acquire territory from neighbouring troops. With casualties on both sides.  And so it is with people when their inner Chimps are in control.

Which is most of the time.

Scenario:
A hospital is failing one of its performance targets – the 18 week referral-to-treatment one – and is being threatened with fines and potential loss of its autonomy. The fear at the top drives the threat downwards. Operational managers are forced into action and do so using strategies that have not worked in the past. But they do not have time to learn how to design and test new ones. They are bullied into Plan-Do mode. The hospital is also required to provide safe care and the Plan-Do knee-jerk triggers fear-of-failure in the minds of the clinicians who then angrily oppose the diktat or quietly sabotage it.

This lose-lose scenario is being played out  in  100’s if not 1000’s of hospitals across the globe as we speak.  The evidence is there for everyone to see.

The inner Chimps are in charge and the outcome is a turf war with casualties on all sides.

So how does The Chimp Paradox help dissolve this seemingly impossible challenge?

First it is necessary to appreciate that both sides are being controlled by their inner Chimps who are reacting from a position of irrational fear and anger. This means that everyone’s behaviour is irrational and their actions likely to be counter-productive.

What is needed is for everyone to be managing their inner Chimps so that the Humans are back in control of the decision making. That way we get wise decisions that lead to effective actions and win-win outcomes. Without chaos and casualties.

To do this we all need to learn how to manage our own inner Chimps … and that is what “The Chimp Paradox” is all about. That is what helped the UK cyclists to become gold medalists.

In the scenario painted above we might observe that the managers are more comfortable in the Pragmatist-Activist (PA) half of the learning cycle. The Plan-Do part of PDSA  – to translate into the language of improvement. The clinicians appear more comfortable in the Reflector-Theorist (RT) half. The Study-Act part of PDSA.  And that difference of preference is fueling the firestorm.

Improvement Science tells us that to achieve and sustain improvement we need all four parts of the learning cycle working  smoothly and in sequence.

So what at first sight looks like it must be pitched battle which will result in two losers; in reality is could be a three-legged race that will result in everyone winning. But only if synergy between the PA and the RT halves can be achieved.

And that synergy is achieved by learning to respect, understand and manage our inner Chimps.

Posted on

Software First

computer_power_display_glowing_150_wht_9646A healthcare system has two inter-dependent parts. Let us call them the ‘hardware’ and the ‘software’ – terms we are more familiar with when referring to computer systems.

In a computer the critical-to-success software is called the ‘operating system’ – and we know that by the brand labels such as Windows, Linux, MacOS, or Android. There are many.

It is the O/S that makes the hardware fit-for-purpose. Without the O/S the computer is just a box of hot chips. A rather expensive room heater.

All the programs and apps that we use to to deliver our particular information service require the O/S to manage the actual hardware. Without a coordinator there would be chaos.

In a healthcare system the ‘hardware’ is the buildings, the equipment, and the people.  They are all necessary – but they are not sufficient on their own.

The ‘operating system’ in a healthcare system are the management policies: the ‘instructions’ that guide the ‘hardware’ to do what is required, when it is required and sometimes how it is required.  These policies are created by managers – they are the healthcare operating system design engineers so-to-speak.

Change the O/S and you change the behaviour of the whole system – it may look exactly the same – but it will deliver a different performance. For better or for worse.

In 1953 the invention of the transistor led to the first commercially viable computers. They were faster, smaller, more reliable, cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain than their predecessors. They were also programmable.  And with many separate customer programs demanding hardware resources – an effective and efficient operating system was needed. So the understanding of “good” O/S design developed quickly.

In the 1960’s the first integrated circuits appeared and the computer world became dominated by mainframe computers. They filled air-conditioned rooms with gleaming cabinets tended lovingly by white-coated technicians carrying clipboards. Mainframes were, and still are, very expensive to build and to run! The valuable resource that was purchased by the customers was ‘CPU time’.  So the operating systems of these machines were designed to squeeze every microsecond of value out of the expensive-to-maintain CPU: for very good commercial reasons. Delivering the “data processing jobs” right, on-time and every-time was paramount.

The design of the operating system software was critical to the performance and to the profit.  So a lot of brain power was invested in learning how to schedule jobs; how to orchestrate the parts of the hardware system so that they worked in harmony; how to manage data buffers to smooth out flow and priority variation; how to design efficient algorithms for number crunching, sorting and searching; and how to switch from one task to the next quickly and without wasting time or making errors.

Every modern digital computer has inherited this legacy of learning.

In the 1970’s the first commercial microprocessors appeared – which reduced the size and cost of computers by orders of magnitude again – and increased their speed and reliability even further. Silicon Valley blossomed and although the first micro-chips were rather feeble in comparison with their mainframe equivalents they ushered in the modern era of the desktop-sized personal computer.

In the 1980’s players such as Microsoft and Apple appeared to exploit this vast new market. The only difference was that Microsoft only offered just the operating system for the new IBM-PC hardware (called MS-DOS); while Apple created both the hardware and software as a tightly integrated system – the Apple I.

The ergonomic-seamless-design philosophy at Apple led to the Apple Mac which revolutionised personal computing. It made them usable by people who had no interest in the innards or in programming. The Apple Macs were the “designer”computers and were reassuringly more expensive. The innovations that Apple designed into the Mac are now expected in all personal computers as well as the latest generations of smartphones and tablets.

Today we carry more computing power in our top pocket than a mainframe of the 1970’s could deliver! The design of the operating system has hardly changed though.

It was the O/S  design that leveraged the maximum potential of the very expensive hardware.  And that is still the case – but we take it for completely for granted.

Exactly the same principle applies to our healthcare systems.

The only difference is that the flow is not 1’s and 0’s – it is patients and all the things needed to deliver patient care. The ‘hardware’ is the expensive part to assemble and run – and the largest cost is the people.  Healthcare is a service delivered by people to people. Highly-trained nurses, doctors and allied healthcare professionals are expensive.

So the key to healthcare system performance is high quality management policy design – the healthcare operating system (HOS).

And here we hit a snag.

Our healthcare management policies have not been designed using the same rigor as the operating systems for our computers. They have not been designed using the well-understood principles of flow physics. The various parts of our healthcare system do not work well together. The flows are fractured. The silos work independently. And the ubiquitous symptom of this dysfunction is confusion, chaos and conflict.  The managers and the doctors are at each others throats. And this is because the management policies have evolved through a largely ineffective and very inefficient strategy called “burn-and-scrape”. Firefighting.

The root cause of the poor design is that neither healthcare managers nor the healthcare workers are trained in operational policy design. Design for Safety. Design for Quality. Design for Delivery. Design for Productivity.

And we are all left with a lose-lose-lose legacy: a system that is no longer fit-for-purpose and a generation of managers and clinicians who have never learned how to design the operational and clinical policies that ensure the system actually delivers what the ‘hardware’ is capable of delivering.

For example:

Suppose we have a simple healthcare system with three stages called A, B and C.  All the patients flow through A, then to B and then to C.  Let us assume these three parts are managed separately as departments with separate budgets and that they are free to use whatever policies they choose so long as they achieve their performance targets -which are (a) to do all the work and (b) to stay in budget and (c) to deliver on time.  So far so good.

Now suppose that the work that arrives at Department B from Department  A is not all the same and different tasks require different pathways and different resources. A Radiology, Pathology or Pharmacy Department for example.

Sorting the work into separate streams and having expensive special-purpose resources sitting idle waiting for work to arrive is inefficient and expensive. It will push up the unit cost – the total cost divided by the total activity. This is called ‘carve-out’.

Switching resources from one pathway to another takes time and that change-over time implies some resources are not able to do the work for a while.  These inefficiencies will contribute to the total cost and therefore push up the “unit-cost”. The total cost for the department divided by the total activity for the department.

So Department B decides to improve its “unit cost” by deploying a policy called ‘batching’.  It starts to sort the incoming work into different types of task and when a big enough batch has accumulated it then initiates the change-over. The cost of the change-over is shared by the whole batch. The “unit cost” falls because Department B is now able to deliver the same activity with fewer resources because they spend less time doing the change-overs. That is good. Isn’t it?

But what is the impact on Departments A and C and what effect does it have on delivery times and work in progress and the cost of storing the queues?

Department A notices that it can no longer pass work to B when it wants because B will only start the work when it has a full batch of requests. The queue of waiting work sits inside Department A.  That queue takes up space and that space costs money but the queue cost is incurred by Department A – not Department B.

What Department C sees is the order of the work changed by Department B to create a bigger variation in lead times for consecutive tasks. So if the whole system is required to achieve a delivery time specification – then Department C has to expedite the longest waiters and delay the shortest waiters – and that takes work,  time, space and money. That cost is incurred by Department C not by Department B.

The unit costs for Department B go down – and those for A and C both go up. The system is less productive as a whole.  The queues and delays caused by the policy change means that work can not be completed reliably on time. The blame for the failure falls on Department C.  Conflict between the parts of the system is inevitable. Lose-Lose-Lose.

And conflict is always expensive – on all dimensions – emotional, temporal and financial.

The policy design flaw here looks like it is ‘batching’ – but that policy is just a reaction to a deeper design flaw. It is a symptom.  The deeper flaw is not even the use of ‘unit costing’. That is a useful enough tool. The deeper flaw is the incorrect assumption that by improving the unit costs of the stages independently will always get an improvement in whole system productivity.

This is incorrect. This error is the result of ‘linear thinking’.

The Laws of Flow Physics do not work like this. Real systems are non-linear.

To design the management policies for a non-linear system using linear-thinking is guaranteed to fail. Disappointment and conflict is inevitable. And that is what we have. As system designers we need to use ‘systems-thinking’.

This discovery comes as a bit of a shock to management accountants. They feel rather challenged by the assertion that some of their cherished “cost improvement policies” are actually making the system less productive. Precisely the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.

And it is the senior management that decide the system-wide financial policies so that is where the linear-thinking needs to be challenged and the ‘software patch’ applied first.

It is not a major management software re-write. Just a minor tweak is all that is required.

And the numbers speak for themselves. It is not a difficult experiment to do.

So that is where we need to start.

We need to learn Healthcare Operating System design and we need to learn it at all levels in healthcare organisations.

And that system-thinking skill has another name – it is called Improvement Science.

The good news is that it is a lot easier to learn than most people believe.

And that is a big shock too – because how to do this has been known for 50 years.

So if you would like to see a real and current example of how poor policy design leads to falling productivity and then how to re-design the policies to reverse this effect have a look at Journal Of Improvement Science 2013:8;1-20.

And if you would like to learn how to design healthcare operating policies that deliver higher productivity with the same resources then the first step is FISH.

Posted on

Space-and-Time

line_figure_phone_400_wht_9858<Lesley>Hi Bob! How are you today?

<Bob>OK thanks Lesley. And you?

<Lesley>I am looking forward to our conversation. I have two questions this week.

<Bob>OK. What is the first one?

<Lesley>You have taught me that improvement-by-design starts with the “purpose” question and that makes sense to me. But when I ask that question in a session I get an “eh?” reaction and I get nowhere.

<Bob>Quod facere bonum opus et quomodo te cognovi unum?

<Lesley>Eh?

<Bob>I asked you a purpose question.

<Lesley>Did you? What language is that? Latin? I do not understand Latin.

<Bob>So although you recognize the language you do not understand what I asked, the words have no meaning. So you are unable to answer my question and your reaction is “eh?”. I suspect the same is happening with your audience. Who are they?

<Lesley>Front-line clinicians and managers who have come to me to ask how to solve their problems. There Niggles. They want a how-to-recipe and they want it yesterday!

<Bob>OK. Remember the Temperament Treacle conversation last week. What is the commonest Myers-Briggs Type preference in your audience?

<Lesley>It is xSTJ – tough minded Guardians.  We did that exercise. It was good fun! Lots of OMG moments!

<Bob>OK – is your “purpose” question framed in a language that the xSTJ preference will understand naturally?

<Lesley>Ah! Probably not! The “purpose” question is future-focused, conceptual , strategic, value-loaded and subjective.

<Bob>Indeed – it is an iNtuitor question. xNTx or xNFx. Pose that question to a roomful of academics or executives and they will debate it ad infinitum.

<Lesley>More Latin – but that phrase I understand. You are right.  And my own preference is xNTP so I need to translate my xNTP “purpose” question into their xSTJ language?

<Bob>Yes. And what language do they use?

<Lesley>The language of facts, figures, jobs-to-do, work-schedules, targets, budgets, rational, logical, problem-solving, tough-decisions, and action-plans. Objective, pragmatic, necessary stuff that keep the operational-wheels-turning.

<Bob>OK – so what would “purpose” look like in xSTJ language?

<Lesley>Um. Good question. Let me start at the beginning. They came to me in desperation because they are now scared enough to ask for help.

<Bob>Scared of what?

<Lesley>Unintentionally failing. They do not want to fail and they do not need beating with sticks. They are tough enough on themselves and each other.

<Bob>OK that is part of their purpose. The “Avoid” part. The bit they do not want. What do they want? What is the “Achieve” part? What is their “Nice If”?

<Lesley>To do a good job.

<Bob>Yes. And that is what I asked you – but in an unfamiliar language. Translated into English I asked “What is a good job and how do you know you are doing one?”

<Lesley>Ah ha! That is it! That is the question I need to ask. And that links in the first map – The 4N Chart®. And it links in measurement, time-series charts and BaseLine© too. Wow!

<Bob>OK. So what is your second question?

<Lesley>Oh yes! I keep getting asked “How do we work out how much extra capacity we need?” and I answer “I doubt that you need any more capacity.”

<Bob>And their response is?

<Lesley>Anger and frustration! They say “That is obvious rubbish! We have a constant stream of complaints from patients about waiting too long and we are all maxed out so of course we need more capacity! We just need to know the minimum we can get away with – the what, where and when so we can work out how much it will cost for the business case.”

<Bob>OK. So what do they mean by the word “capacity”. And what do you mean?

<Lesley>Capacity to do a good job?

<Bob>Very quick! Ho ho! That is a bit imprecise and subjective for a process designer though. The Laws of Physics need the terms “capacity”, “good” and “job” clearly defined – with units of measurement that are meaningful.

<Lesley>OK. Let us define “good” as “delivered on time” and “job” as “a patient with a health problem”.

<Bob>OK. So how do we define and measure capacity? What are the units of measurement?

<Lesley>Ah yes – I see what you mean. We touched on that in FISH but did not go into much depth.

<Bob>Now we dig deeper.

<Lesley>OK. FISH talks about three interdependent forms of capacity: flow-capacity, resource-capacity, and space-capacity.

<Bob>Yes. They are the space-and-time capacities. If we are too loose with our use of these and treat them as interchangeable then we will create the confusion and conflict that you have experienced. What are the units of measurement of each?

<Lesley>Um. Flow-capacity will be in the same units as flow, the same units as demand and activity – tasks per unit time.

<Bob>Yes. Good. And space-capacity?

<Lesley>That will be in the same units as work in progress or inventory – tasks.

<Bob>Good! And what about resource-capacity?

<Lesley>Um – Will that be resource-time – so time?

<Bob>Actually it is resource-time per unit time. So they have different units of measurement. It is invalid to mix them up any-old-way. It would be meaningless to add them for example.

<Lesley>OK. So I cannot see how to create a valid combination from these three! I cannot get the units of measurement to work.

<Bob>This is a critical insight. So what does that mean?

<Lesley>There is something missing?

<Bob>Yes. Excellent! Your homework this week is to work out what the missing pieces of the capacity-jigsaw are.

<Lesley>You are not going to tell me the answer?

<Bob>Nope. You are doing ISP training now. You already know enough to work it out.

<Lesley>OK. Now you have got me thinking. I like it. Until next week then.

<Bob>Have a good week.

Posted on

Step 6 – Maintain

Anyone with much experience of  change will testify that one of the hardest parts is sustaining the hard won improvement.

The typical story is all too familiar – a big push for improvement, a dramatic improvement, congratulations and presentations then six months later it is back where it was before but worse. The cynics are feeding on the corpse of the dead change effort.

The cause of this recurrent nightmare is a simple error of omission.

Failure to complete the change sequence. Missing out the last and most important step. Step 6 – Maintain.

Regular readers may remember the story of the pharmacy project – where a sceptical department were surprised and delighted to discover that zero-cost improvement was achievable and that a win-win-win outcome was not an impossible dream.

Enough time has now passed to ask the question: “Was the improvement sustained?”

TTO_Yield_Nov12_Jun13The BaseLine© chart above shows their daily performance data on their 2-hour turnaround target for to-take-out prescriptions (TTOs) . The weekends are excluded because the weekend system is different from the weekday system. The first split in the data in Jan 2013 is when the improvement-by-design change was made. Step 4 on the 6M Design® sequence – Modify.

There was an immediate and dramatic improvement in performance that was sustained for about six weeks – then it started to drift back. Bit by Bit.  The time-series chart flags it clearly.

So what happened next?

The 12-week review happened next – and it was done by the change leader – in this case the Inspector/Designer/Educator.  The review data plotted as a time-series chart revealed instability and that justified an investigation of the root cause – which was that the final and critical step had not been completed as recommended. The inner feedback loop was missing. Step 6 – Maintain was not in place.

The outer feedback loop had not been omitted. That was the responsibility of the experienced change leader.

And the effect of closing the outer-loop is clearly shown by the third segment – a restoration of stability and improved capability. The system is again delivering the improvement it was designed to deliver.

What does this lesson teach us?

The message here is that the sponsors of improvement have essential parts to play in the initiation and the maintenance of change and improvement. If they fail in their responsibility then the outcome is inevitable and predictable. Mediocrity and cynicism.

Part 1: Setting the clarity and constancy of common purpose.

Without a clear purpose then alignment, focus and effectiveness are thwarted.  Purpose that changes frequently is not a purpose – it is reactive knee-jerk politics.  Constancy of purpose is required because improvement takes time to achieve and to embed.  There is always a lag so moving the target while the arrow is in flight is both dangerous and leads to disengagement.  Establishing common ground is essential to avoiding the time-wasting discussion and negotiation that is inevitable when opinions differ – which they always do.

Part 2: Respectful challenge.

Effective change leadership requires an ability to challenge from a position of mutual respect.  Telling people what to do is not leadership – it is dictatorship.  Dodging the difficult conversations and passing the buck to others is not leadership – it is ineffective delegation. Asking people what they want to do is not leadership – it is abdication of responsibility.  People need their leaders to challenge them and to respect them at the same time.  It is not a contradiction.  It is possible to do both.

And one way that a leader of change can challenge with respect is to expose the need for change; to create the context for change; and then to commit to holding those charged with change to account – including themselves.  And to make it clear at the start what their expectation is as a leader – and what the consequences of disappointment are.

It is a delight to see individuals,  teams, departments and organisations blossom and grow when the context of change is conducive.  And it is disappointing to see them wither and shrink when the context of change is laced with cynicide – the toxic product of cynicism.

So what is the next step?

What could an aspirant change leader do to get this for themselves and their organisations?

One option is to become a Student of Improvementology® – and they can do that here.
Posted on

The Writing on the Wall – Part II

Who_Is_To_BlameThe retrospectoscope is the favourite instrument of the forensic cynic – the expert in the after-the-event-and-I-told-you-so rhetoric. The rabble-rouser for the lynch-mob.

It feels better to retrospectively nail-to-a-cross the person who committed the Cardinal Error of Omission, and leave them there in emotional and financial pain as a visible lesson to everyone else.

This form of public feedback has been used for centuries.

It is called barbarism, and it has no place in a modern civilised society.

A more constructive question to ask is:

“Could the evolving Mid-Staffordshire crisis have been detected earlier … and avoided?”

And this question exposes a tricky problem: it is much more difficult to predict the future than to explain the past.  And if it could have been detected and avoided earlier, then how is that done?  And if the how-is-known then is everyone else in the NHS using this know-how to detect and avoid their own evolving Mid-Staffs crisis?

To illustrate how it is currently done let us use the actual Mid-Staffs data. It is conveniently available in Figure 1 embedded in Figure 5 on Page 360 in Appendix G of Volume 1 of the first Francis Report.  If you do not have it at your fingertips I have put a copy of it below.

MS_RawData

The message does not exactly leap off the page and smack us between the eyes does it? Even with the benefit of hindsight.  So what is the problem here?

The problem is one of ergonomics. Tables of numbers like this are very difficult for most people to interpret, so they create a risk that we ignore the data or that we just jump to the bottom line and miss the real message. And It is very easy to miss the message when we compare the results for the current period with the previous one – a very bad habit that is spread by accountants.

This was a slowly emerging crisis so we need a way of seeing it evolving and the better way to present this data is as a time-series chart.

As we are most interested in safety and outcomes, then we would reasonably look at the outcome we do not want – i.e. mortality.  I think we will all agree that it is an easy enough one to measure.

MS_RawDeathsThis is the raw mortality data from the table above, plotted as a time-series chart.  The green line is the average and the red-lines are a measure of variation-over-time. We can all see that the raw mortality is increasing and the red flags say that this is a statistically significant increase. Oh dear!

But hang on just a minute – using raw mortality data like this is invalid because we all know that the people are getting older, demand on our hospitals is rising, A&Es are busier, older people have more illnesses, and more of them will not survive their visit to our hospital. This rise in mortality may actually just be because we are doing more work.

Good point! Let us plot the activity data and see if there has been an increase.

MS_Activity

Yes – indeed the activity has increased significantly too.

Told you so! And it looks like the activity has gone up more than the mortality. Does that mean we are actually doing a better job at keeping people alive? That sounds like a more positive message for the Board and the Annual Report. But how do we present that message? What about as a ratio of mortality to activity? That will make it easier to compare ourselves with other hospitals.

Good idea! Here is the Raw Mortality Ratio chart.

MS_RawMortality_RatioAh ha. See! The % mortality is falling significantly over time. Told you so.

Careful. There is an unstated assumption here. The assumption that the case mix is staying the same over time. This pattern could also be the impact of us doing a greater proportion of lower complexity and lower risk work.  So we need to correct this raw mortality data for case mix complexity – and we can do that by using data from all NHS hospitals to give us a frame of reference. Dr Foster can help us with that because it is quite a complicated statistical modelling process. What comes out of Dr Fosters black magic box is the Global Hospital Raw Mortality (GHRM) which is the expected number of deaths for our case mix if we were an ‘average’ NHS hospital.

MS_ExpectedMortality_Ratio

What this says is that the NHS-wide raw mortality risk appears to be falling over time (which may be for a wide variety of reasons but that is outside the scope of this conversation). So what we now need to do is compare this global raw mortality risk with our local raw mortality risk  … to give the Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio.

MS_HSMRThis gives us the Mid Staffordshire Hospital HSMR chart.  The blue line at 100 is the reference average – and what this chart says is that Mid Staffordshire hospital had a consistently higher risk than the average case-mix adjusted mortality risk for the whole NHS. And it says that it got even worse after 2001 and that it stayed consistently 20% higher after 2003.

Ah! Oh dear! That is not such a positive message for the Board and the Annual Report. But how did we miss this evolving safety catastrophe?  We had the Dr Foster data from 2001

This is not a new problem – a similar thing happened in Vienna between 1820 and 1850 with maternal deaths caused by Childbed Fever. The problem was detected by Dr Ignaz Semmelweis who also discovered a simple, pragmatic solution to the problem: hand washing.  He blew the whistle but unfortunately those in power did not like the implication that they had been the cause of thousands of avoidable mother and baby deaths.  Semmelweis was vilified and ignored, and he did not publish his data until 1861. And even then the story was buried in tables of numbers.  Semmelweis went mad trying to convince the World that there was a problem.  Here is the full story.

Also, time-series charts were not invented until 1924 – and it was not in healthcare – it was in manufacturing. These tried-and-tested safety and quality improvement tools are only slowly diffusing into healthcare because the barriers to innovation appear somewhat impervious.

And the pores have been clogged even more by the social poison called “cynicide” – the emotional and political toxin exuded by cynics.

So how could we detect a developing crisis earlier – in time to avoid a catastrophe?

The first step is to estimate the excess-death-equivalent. Dr Foster does this for you.MS_ExcessDeathsHere is the data from the table plotted as a time-series chart that shows that the estimated-excess-death-equivalent per year. It has an average of 100 (that is two per week) and the average should be close to zero. More worryingly the number was increasing steadily over time up to 200 per year in 2006 – that is about four excess deaths per week – on average.  It is important to remember that HSMR is a risk ratio and mortality is a multi-factorial outcome. So the excess-death-equivalent estimate does not imply that a clear causal chain will be evident in specific deaths. That is a complete misunderstanding of the method.

I am sorry – you are losing me with the statistical jargon here. Can you explain in plain English what you mean?

OK. Let us use an example.

Suppose we set up a tombola at the village fete and we sell 50 tickets with the expectation that the winner bags all the money. Each ticket holder has the same 1 in 50 risk of winning the wad-of-wonga and a 49 in 50 risk of losing their small stake. At the appointed time we spin the barrel to mix up the ticket stubs then we blindly draw one ticket out. At that instant the 50 people with an equal risk changes to one winner and 49 losers. It is as if the grey fog of risk instantly condenses into a precise, black-and-white, yes-or-no, winner-or-loser, reality.

Translating this concept back into HSMR and Mid Staffs – the estimated 1200 deaths are the just the “condensed risk of harm equivalent”.  So, to then conduct a retrospective case note analysis of specific deaths looking for the specific cause would be equivalent to trying to retrospectively work out the reason the particular winning ticket in the tombola was picked out. It is a search that is doomed to fail. To then conclude from this fruitless search that HSMR is invalid, is only to compound the delusion further.  The actual problem here is ignorance and misunderstanding of the basic Laws of Physics and Probability, because our brains are not good at solving these sort of problems.

But Mid Staffs is a particularly severe example and  it only shows up after years of data has accumulated. How would a hospital that was not as bad as this know they had a risk problem and know sooner? Waiting for years to accumulate enough data to prove there was a avoidable problem in the past is not much help. 

That is an excellent question. This type of time-series chart is not very sensitive to small changes when the data is noisy and sparse – such as when you plot the data on a month-by-month timescale and avoidable deaths are actually an uncommon outcome. Plotting the annual sum smooths out this variation and makes the trend easier to see, but it delays the diagnosis further. One way to increase the sensitivity is to plot the data as a cusum (cumulative sum) chart – which is conspicuous by its absence from the data table. It is the running total of the estimated excess deaths. Rather like the running total of swings in a game of golf.

MS_ExcessDeaths_CUSUMThis is the cusum chart of excess deaths and you will notice that it is not plotted with control limits. That is because it is invalid to use standard control limits for cumulative data.  The important feature of the cusum chart is the slope and the deviation from zero. What is usually done is an alert threshold is plotted on the cusum chart and if the measured cusum crosses this alert-line then the alarm bell should go off – and the search then focuses on the precursor events: the Near Misses, the Not Agains and the Niggles.

I see. You make it look easy when the data is presented as pictures. But aren’t we still missing the point? Isn’t this still after-the-avoidable-event analysis?

Yes! An avoidable death should be a Never-Event in a designed-to-be-safe healthcare system. It should never happen. There should be no coffins to count. To get to that stage we need to apply exactly the same approach to the Near-Misses, and then the Not-Agains, and eventually the Niggles.

You mean we have to use the SUI data and the IR1 data and the complaint data to do this – and also ask our staff and patients about their Niggles?

Yes. And it is not the number of complaints that is the most useful metric – it is the appearance of the cumulative sum of the complaint severity score. And we need a method for diagnosing and treating the cause of the Niggles too. We need to convert the feedback information into effective action.

Ah ha! Now I understand what the role of the Governance Department is: to apply the tools and techniques of Improvement Science proactively.  But our Governance Department have not been trained to do this!

Then that is one place to start – and their role needs to evolve from Inspectors and Supervisors to Demonstrators and Educators – ultimately everyone in the organisation needs to be a competent Healthcare Improvementologist.

OK – I now now what to do next. But wait a minute. This is going to cost a fortune!

This is just one small first step.  The next step is to redesign the processes so the errors do not happen in the first place. The cumulative cost saving from eliminating the repeated checking, correcting, box-ticking, documenting, investigating, compensating and insuring is much much more than the one-off investment in learning safe system design.

So the Finance Director should be a champion for safety and quality too.

Yup!

Brill. Thanks. And can I ask one more question? I do not want to appear to skeptical but how do we know we can trust that this risk-estimation system has been designed and implemented correctly? How do we know we are not being bamboozled by statisticians? It has happened before!

That is the best question yet.  It is important to remember that HSMR is counting deaths in hospital which means that it is not actually the risk of harm to the patient that is measured – it is the risk to the reputation of hospital! So the answer to your question is that you demonstrate your deep understanding of the rationle and method of risk-of-harm estimation by listing all the ways that such a system could be deliberately “gamed” to make the figures look better for the hospital. And then go out and look for hard evidence of all the “games” that you can invent. It is a sort of creative poacher-becomes-gamekeeper detective exercise.

OK – I sort of get what you mean. Can you give me some examples?

Yes. The HSMR method is based on deaths-in-hospital so discharging a patient from hospital before they die will make the figures look better. Suppose one hospital has more access to end-of-life care in the community than another: their HSMR figures would look better even though exactly the same number of people died. Another is that the HSMR method is weighted towards admissions classified as “emergencies” – so if a hospital admits more patients as “emergencies” who are not actually very sick and discharges them quickly then this will inflated their estimated deaths and make their actual mortality ratio look better – even though the risk-of-harm to patients has not changed.

OMG – so if we have pressure to meet 4 hour A&E targets and we get paid more for an emergency admission than an A&E attendance then admitting to an Assessmen Area and discharging within one day will actually reward the hospital financially, operationally and by apparently reducing their HSMR even though there has been no difference at all to the care that patients actually recieve?

Yes. It is an inevitable outcome of the current system design.

But that means that if I am gaming the system and my HSMR is not getting better then the risk-of-harm to patients is actually increasing and my HSMR system is giving me false reassurance that everything is OK.   Wow! I can see why some people might not want that realisation to be public knowledge. So what do we do?

Design the system so that the rewards are aligned with lower risk of harm to patients and improved outcomes.

Is that possible?

Yes. It is called a Win-Win-Win design.

How do we learn how to do that?

Improvement Science.

Footnote I:

The graphs tell a story but they may not create a useful sense of perspective. It has been said that there is a 1 in 300 chance that if you go to hospital you will not leave alive for avoidable causes. What! It cannot be as high as 1 in 300 surely?

OK – let us use the published Mid-Staffs data to test this hypothesis. Over 12 years there were about 150,000 admissions and an estimated 1,200 excess deaths (if all the risk were concentrated into the excess deaths which is not what actually happens). That means a 1 in 130 odds of an avoidable death for every admission! That is twice as bad as the estimated average.

The Mid Staffordshire statistics are bad enough; but the NHS-as-a-whole statistics are cumulatively worse because there are 100’s of other hospitals that are each generating not-as-obvious avoidable mortality. The data is very ‘noisy’ so it is difficult even for a statistical expert to separate the message from the morass.

And remember – that  the “expected” mortality is estimated from the average for the whole NHS – which means that if this average is higher than it could be then there is a statistical bias and we are being falsely reassured by being ‘not statistically significantly different’ from the pack.

And remember too – for every patient and family that suffers and avoidable death there are many more that have to live with the consequences of avoidable but non-fatal harm.  That is called avoidable morbidity.  This is what the risk really means – everyone has a higher risk of some degree of avoidable harm. Psychological and physical harm.

This challenge is not just about preventing another Mid Staffs – it is about preventing 1000’s of avoidable deaths and 100,000s of patients avoidably harmed every year in ‘average’ NHS trusts.

It is not a mass conspiracy of bad nurses, bad doctors, bad managers or bad policians that is the root cause.

It is poorly designed processes – and they are poorly designed because the nurses, doctors and managers have not learned how to design better ones.  And we do not know how because we were not trained to.  And that education gap was an accident – an unintended error of omission.  

Our urgently-improve-NHS-safety-challenge requires a system-wide safety-by-design educational and cultural transformation.

And that is possible because the knowledge of how to design, test and implement inherently safe processes exists. But it exists outside healthcare.

And that safety-by-design training is a worthwhile investment because safer-by-design processes cost less to run because they require less checking, less documenting, less correcting – and all the valuable nurse, doctor and manager time freed up by that can be reinvested in more care, better care and designing even better processes and systems.

Everyone Wins – except the cynics who have a choice: to eat humble pie or leave.

Footnote II:

In the debate that has followed the publication of the Francis Report a lot of scrutiny has been applied to the method by which an estimated excess mortality number is created and it is necessary to explore this in a bit more detail.

The HSMR is an estimate of relative risk – it does not say that a set of specific patients were the ones who came to harm and the rest were OK. So looking at individual deaths and looking for the specific causes is to completely misunderstand the method. So looking at the actual deaths individually and looking for identifiable cause-and-effect paths is an misuse of the message.  When very few if any are found to conclude that HSMR is flawed is an error of logic and exposes the ignorance of the analyst further.

HSMR is not perfect though – it has weaknesses.  It is a benchmarking process the”standard” of 100 is always moving because the collective goal posts are moving – the reference is always changing . HSMR is estimated using data submitted by hospitals themselves – the clinical coding data.  So the main weakness is that it is dependent on the quality of the clinicial coding – the errors of comission (wrong codes) and the errors of omission (missing codes). Garbage In Garbage Out.

Hospitals use clinically coded data for other reasons – payment. The way hospitals are now paid is based on the volume and complexity of that activity – Payment By Results (PbR) – using what are called Health Resource Groups (HRGs). This is a better and fairer design because hospitals with more complex (i.e. costly to manage) case loads get paid more per patient on average.  The HRG for each patient is determined by their clinical codes – including what are called the comorbidities – the other things that the patient has wrong with them. More comorbidites means more complex and more risky so more money and more risk of death – roughly speaking.  So when PbR came in it becamevery important to code fully in order to get paid “properly”.  The problem was that before PbR the coding errors went largely unnoticed – especially the comorbidity coding. And the errors were biassed – it is more likely to omit a code than to have an incorrect code. Errors of omission are harder to detect. This meant that by more complete coding (to attract more money) the estimated casemix complexity would have gone up compared with the historical reference. So as actual (not estimated) NHS mortality has gone down slightly then the HSMR yardstick becomes even more distorted.  Hospitals that did not keep up with the Coding Game would look worse even though  their actual risk and mortality may be unchanged.  This is the fundamental design flaw in all types of  benchmarking based on self-reported data.

The actual problem here is even more serious. PbR is actually a payment for activity – not a payment for outcomes. It is calculated from what it cost to run the average NHS hospital using a technique called Reference Costing which is the same method that manufacturing companies used to decide what price to charge for their products. It has another name – Absorption Costing.  The highest performers in the manufacturing world no longer use this out-of-date method. The implication of using Reference Costing and PbR in the NHS are profound and dangerous:

If NHS hospitals in general have poorly designed processes that create internal queues and require more bed days than actually necessary then the cost of that “waste” becomes built into the future PbR tariff. This means average length of stay (LOS) is financially rewarded. Above average LOS is financially penalised and below average LOS makes a profit.  There is no financial pressure to improve beyound average. This is called the Regression to the Mean effect.  Also LOS is not a measure of quality – so there is a to shorten length of stay for purely financial reasons – to generate a surplus to use to fund growth and capital investment.  That pressure is non-specific and indiscrimiate.  PbR is necessary but it is not sufficient – it requires an quality of outcome metric to complete it.    

So the PbR system is based on an out-of-date cost-allocation model and therefore leads to the very problems that are contributing to the MidStaffs crisis – financial pressure causing quality failures and increased risk of mortality.  MidStaffs may be a chance victim of a combination of factors coming together like a perfect storm – but those same factors are present throughout the NHS because they are built into the current design.

One solution is to move towards a more up-to-date financial model called stream costing. This uses the similar data to reference costing but it estimates the “ideal” cost of the “necessary” work to achieve the intended outcome. This stream cost becomes the focus for improvement – the streams where there is the biggest gap between the stream cost and the reference cost are the focus of the redesign activity. Very often the root cause is just poor operational policy design; sometimes it is quality and safety design problems. Both are solvable without investment in extra capacity. The result is a higher quality, quicker, lower-cost stream. Win-win-win. And in the short term that  is rewarded by a tariff income that exceeds cost and a lower HSMR.

Radically redesigning the financial model for healthcare is not a quick fix – and it requires a lot of other changes to happen first. So the sooner we start the sooner we will arrive. 

Posted on

The Writing On The Wall – Part I

writing_on_the_wallThe writing is on the wall for the NHS.

It is called the Francis Report and there is a lot of it. Just the 290 recommendations runs to 30 pages. It would need a very big wall and very small writing to put it all up there for all to see.

So predictably the speed-readers have latched onto specific words – such as “Inspectors“.

Recommendation 137 “Inspection should remain the central method for monitoring compliance with fundamental standards.”

And it goes further by recommending “A specialist cadre of hospital inspectors should be established …”

A predictable wail of anguish rose from the ranks “Not more inspectors! The last lot did not do much good!”

The word “cadre” is not one that is used in common parlance so I looked it up:

Cadre: 1. a core group of people at the center of an organization, especially military; 2. a small group of highly trained people, often part of a political movement.

So it has a military, centralist, specialist, political flavour. No wonder there was a wail of anguish! Perhaps this “cadre of inspectors” has been unconsciously labelled with another name? Persecutors.

Of more interest is the “highly trained” phrase. Trained to do what? Trained by whom? Clearly none of the existing schools of NHS management who have allowed the fiasco to happen in the first place. So who – exactly? Are these inspectors intended to be protectors, persecutors, or educators?

And what would they inspect?

And how would they use the output of such an inspection?

Would the fear of the inspection and its possible unpleasant consequences be the stick to motivate compliance?

Is the language of the Francis Report going to create another brick wall of resistance from the rubble of the ruins of the reputation of the NHS?  Many self-appointed experts are already saying that implementing 290 recommendations is impossible.

They are incorrect.

The number of recommendations is a measure of the breadth and depth of the rot. So the critical-to-success factor is to implement them in a well-designed order. Get the first few in place and working and the rest will follow naturally.  Get the order wrong and the radical cure will kill the patient.

So where do we start?

Let us look at the inspection question again.  Why would we fear an external inspection? What are we resisting? There are three facets to this: first we do not know what is expected of us;  second we do not know if we can satisfy the expectation; and third we fear being persecuted for failing to achieve the impossible.

W Edwards Deming used a very effective demonstration of the dangers of well-intended but badly-implemented quality improvement by inspection: it was called the Red Bead Game.  The purpose of the game was to illustrate how to design an inspection system that actually helps to achieve the intended goal. Sustained improvement.

This is applied Improvement Science and I will illustrate how it is done with a real and current example.

I am assisting a department in a large NHS hospital to improve the quality of their service. I have been sent in as an external inspector.  The specific quality metric they have been tasked to improve is the turnaround time of the specialist work that they do. This is a flow metric because a patient cannot leave hospital until this work is complete – and more importantly it is a flow and quality metric because when the hospital is full then another patient, one who urgently needs to be admitted, will be waiting for the bed to be vacated. One in one out.

The department have been set a standard to meet, a target, a specification, a goal. It is very clear and it is easily measurable. They have to turnaround each job of work in less than 2 hours.  This is called a lead time specification and it is arbitrary.  But it is not unreasonable from the perspective of the patient waiting to leave and for the patient waiting to be admitted. Neither want to wait.

The department has a sophisticated IT system that measures their performance. They use it to record when each job starts and when each job is finished and from those two events the software calculates the lead time for each job in real-time. At the end of each day the IT system counts how many jobs were completed in less than 2 hours and compares this with how many were done in total and calculates a ratio which it presents as a percentage in the range of 0 and 100. This is called the process yield.  The department are dedicated and they work hard and they do all the work that arrives each day the same day – no matter how long it takes. And at the end of each day they have their score for that day. And it is almost never 100%.  Not never. Almost never. But it is not good enough and they are being blamed for it. In turn they blame others for making their job more difficult. It is a blame-game and it has been going on for years.

So how does an experienced Improvement Science-trained Inspector approach this sort of “wicked” problem?

First we need to get the writing on the wall – we need to see the reality – we need to “plot the dots” – we need to see what the performance is doing over time – we need to see the voice of the process. And that requires only their data, a pencil, some paper and for the chart to be put on the on the wall where everyone can see it.

Chart_1This is what their daily % yield data for three consecutive weeks looked like as a time-series chart. The thin blue line is the 100% yield target.

The 100% target was only achieved on three days – and they were all Sundays. On the other Sunday it was zero (which may mean that there was no data to calculate a ratio from).

There is wide variation from one day to the next and it is the variation as well as the average that is of interest to an improvement scientist. What is the source of the variation it? If 100% yield can be achieved some days then what is different about those days?

Chart_2

So our Improvement science-trained Inspector will now re-plot the data in a different way – as rational groups. This exposes the issue clearly. The variation on Weekends is very wide and the performance during the Weekdays is much less variable.  What this says is that the weekend system and the weekday system are different. This means that it is invalid to combine the data for both.

It also raises the question of why there is such high variation in yield only at weekends?  The chart cannot answer the question, so our IS-trained Inspector digs a bit deeper and discovers that the volume of work done at the weekend is low, the staffing of the department is different, and that the recording of the events is less reliable. In short – we cannot even trust the weekend data – so we have two reasons to justify excluding it from our chart and just focusing on what happens during the week.

Chart_3We re-plot our chart, marking the excluded weekend data as not for analysis.

We can now see that the weekday performance of our system is visible, less variable, and the average is a long way from 100%.

The team are working hard and still only achieving mediocre performance. That must mean that they need something that is missing. Motivating maybe. More people maybe. More technology maybe.  But there is no more money for more people or technology and traditional JFDI motivation does not seem to have helped.

This looks like an impossible task!

Chart_4

So what does our Inspector do now? Mark their paper with a FAIL and put them on the “To Be Sacked for Failing to Meet an Externally Imposed Standard“ heap?

Nope.

Our IS-trained Inspector calculates the limits of expected performance from the data  and plots these limits on the chart – the red lines.  The computation is not difficult – it can be done with a calculator and the appropriate formula. It does not need a sophisticated IT system.

What this chart now says is “The current design of this process is capable of delivering between 40% and 85% yield. To expect it do do better is unrealistic”.  The implication for action is “If we want 100% yield then the process needs to be re-designed.” Persecution will not work. Blame will not work. Hoping-for-the-best will not work. The process must be redesigned.

Our improvement scientist then takes off the Inspector’s hat and dons the Designer’s overalls and gets to work. There is a method to this and it is called 6M Design®.

Chart_5

First we need to have a way of knowing if any future design changes have a statistically significant impact – for better or for worse. To do this the chart is extended into the future and the red lines are projected forwards in time as the black lines called locked-limits.  The new data is compared with this projected baseline as it comes in.  The weekends and bank holidays are excluded because we know that they are a different system. On one day (20/12/2012) the yield was surprisingly high. Not 100% but more than the expected upper limit of 85%.

Chart_6The alerts us to investigate and we found that it was a ‘hospital bed crisis’ and an ‘all hands to the pumps’ distress call went out.

Extra capacity was pulled to the process and less urgent work was delayed until later.  It is the habitual reaction-to-a-crisis behaviour called “expediting” or “firefighting”.  So after the crisis had waned and the excitement diminished the performance returned to the expected range. A week later the chart signals us again and we investigate but this time the cause was different. It was an unusually quiet day and there was more than enough hands on the pumps.

Both of these days are atypically good and we have an explanation for each of them. This is called an assignable cause. So we are justified in excluding these points from our measure of the typical baseline capability of our process – the performance the current design can be expected to deliver.

An inexperienced manager might conclude from these lessons that what is needed is more capacity. That sounds and feels intuitively obvious and it is correct that adding more capacity may improve the yield – but that does not prove that lack of capacity is the primary cause.  There are many other causes of long lead times  just as there are many causes of headaches other than brain tumours! So before we can decide the best treatment for our under-performing design we need to establish the design diagnosis. And that is done by inspecting the process in detail. And we need to know what we are looking for; the errors of design commission and the errors of design omission. The design flaws.

Only a trained and experienced process designer can spot the flaws in a process design. Intuition will trick the untrained and inexperienced.

Once the design diagnosis is established then the redesign stage can commence. Design always works to a specification and in this case it was clear – to significantly improve the yield to over 90% at no cost.  In other words without needing more people, more skills, more equipment, more space, more anything. The design assignment was made trickier by the fact that the department claimed that it was impossible to achieve significant improvement without adding extra capacity. That is why the Inspector had been sent in. To evaluate that claim.

The design inspection revealed a complex adaptive system – not a linear, deterministic, production-line that manufactures widgets.  The department had to cope with wide variation in demand, wide variation in quality of request, wide variation in job complexity, and wide variation in urgency – all at the same time.  But that is the nature of healthcare and acute hospital work. That is the expected context.

The analysis of the current design revealed that it was not well suited for this requirement – and the low yield was entirely predictable. The analysis also revealed that the root cause of the low yield was not lack of either flow-capacity or space-capacity.

This insight led to the suggestion that it would be possible to improve yield without increasing cost. The department were polite but they did not believe it was possible. They had never seen it, so why should they be expected to just accept this on faith?

Chart_7So, the next step was to develop, test and demonstrate a new design and that was done in three stages. The final stage was the Reality Test – the actual process design was changed for just one day – and the yield measured and compared with the predicted improvement.

This was the validity test – the proof of the design pudding. And to visualise the impact we used the same technique as before – extending the baseline of our time-series chart, locking the limits, and comparing the “after” with the “before”.

The yellow point marks the day of the design test. The measured yield was well above the upper limit which suggested that the design change had made a significant improvement. A statistically significant improvement.  There was no more capacity than usual and the day was not unusually quiet. At the end of the day we held a team huddle.

Our first question was “How did the new design feel?” The consensus was “Calmer, smoother, fewer interruptions” and best of all “We finished on time – there was no frantic catch up at the end of the day and no one had to stay late to complete the days work!”

The next question was “Do we want to continue tomorrow with this new design or revert back to the old one?” The answer was clear “Keep going with the new design. It feels better.”

The same chart was used to show what happened over the next few days – excluding the weekends as before. The improvement was sustained – it did not revert to the original because the process design had been changed. Same work, same capacity, different process – higher yield. The red flags on the charts mark the statistically significant evidence of change and the cluster of red flags is very strong statistical evidence that the improvement is not due to chance.

The next phase of the 6M Design® method is to continue to monitor the new process to establish the new baseline of expectation. That will require at least twelve data points and it is in progress. But we have enough evidence of a significant improvement. This means that we have no credible justification to return to the old design, and it also implies that it is no longer valid to compare the new data against the old projected limits. Our chart tells us that we need to split the data into before-and-after and to calculate new averages and limits for each segment separately. We have changed the voice of the process by changing the design.

Chart_8And when we split the data at the point-of-change then the red flags disappear – which means that our new design is stable. And it has a new capability – a better one. We have moved closer to our goal of 100% yield. It is still early days and we do not really have enough data to calculate the new capability.

What we can say is that we have improved average quality yield from 63% to about 90% at no cost using a sequence of process diagnose, design, deliver.  Study-Plan-Do.

And we have hard evidence that disproves the impossibility hypothesis.

And that was the goal of the first design change – it was not to achieve 100% yield in one jump. Our design simulation had predicted an improvement to about 90%.  And there are other design changes to follow that need this stable foundation to build on.  The order of implementation is critical – and each change needs time to bed in before the next change is made. That is the nature of the challenge of improving a complex adaptive system.

The cost to the department was zero but the benefit was huge.  The bigger benefit to the organisation was felt elsewhere – the ‘customers’ saw a higher quality, quicker process – and there will be a financial benefit for the whole system. It will be difficult to measure with our current financial monitoring systems but it will be real and it will be there – lurking in the data.

The improvement required a trained and experienced Inspector/Designer/Educator to start the wheel of change turning. There are not many of these in the NHS – but the good news is that the first level of this training is now available.

What this means for the post-Francis Report II NHS is that those who want to can choose to leap over the wall of resistance that is being erected by the massing legions of noisy cynics. It means we can all become our own inspectors. It means we can all become our own improvers. It means we can all learn to redesign our systems so that they deliver higher safety, better quality, more quickly and at no extra one-off or recurring cost.  We all can have nothing to fear from the Specialist Cadre of Hospital Inspectors.

The writing is on the wall.

15/02/2013 – Two weeks in and still going strong. The yield has improved from 63% to 92% and is stable. Improvement-by-design works.

10/03/2013 – Six weeks in and a good time to test if the improvement has been sustained.

TTO_Yield_WeeklyThe chart is the weekly performance plotted for 17 weeks before the change and for 5 weeks after. The advantage of weekly aggregated data is that it removes the weekend/weekday 7-day cycle and reduces the effect of day-to-day variation.

The improvement is obvious, significant and has been sustained. This is the objective improvement. More important is the subjective improvement.

Here is what Chris M (departmental operational manager) wrote in an email this week (quoted with permission):

Hi Simon

It is I who need to thank you for explaining to me how to turn our pharmacy performance around and ultimately improve the day to day work for the pharmacy team (and the trust staff). This will increase job satisfaction and make pharmacy a worthwhile career again instead of working in constant pressure with a lack of achievement that had made the team feel rather disheartened and depressed. I feel we can now move onwards and upwards so thanks for the confidence boost.

Best wishes and many thanks

Chris

This is what Improvement Science is all about!

Posted on

Kicking the Habit

no_smoking_400_wht_6805It is not easy to kick a habit. We all know that. And for some reason the ‘bad’ habits are harder to kick than the ‘good’ ones. So what is bad about a ‘bad habit’ and why is it harder to give up? Surely if it was really bad it would be easier to give up?

Improvement is all about giving up old ‘bad’ habits and replacing them with new ‘good’ habits – ones that will sustain the improvement. But there is an invisible barrier that resists us changing any habit – good or bad. And it is that barrier to habit-breaking that we need to understand to succeed. Luck is not a reliable ally.

What does that habit-breaking barrier look like?

The problem is that it is invisible – or rather it is emotional – or to be precise it is chemical.

Our emotions are the output of a fantastically complex chemical system – our brains. And influencing the chemical balance of our brains can have a profound effect on our emotions.  That is how anti-depressants work – they very slightly adjust the chemical balance of every part of our brains. The cumulative effect is that we feel happier.  Nicotine has a similar effect.

And we can achieve the same effect without resorting to drugs or fags – and we can do that by consciously practising some new mental habits until they become ingrained and unconscious. We literally overwrite the old mental habit.

So how do we do this?

First we need to make the mental barrier visible – and then we can focus our attention on eroding it. To do that we need to remove the psychological filter that we all use to exclude our emotions. It is rather like taking off our psychological sunglasses.

When we do that the invisible barrier jumps into view: illuminated by the glare of three negative emotions.  Sadness, fear, and anxiety.  So whenever we feel any of these we know there is a barrier to improvement hiding  the emotional smoke. This is the first stage: tune in to our emotions.

The next step is counter-intuitive. Instead of running away from the negative feeling we consciously flip into a different way of thinking.  We actively engage with our negative feelings – and in a very specific way. We engage in a detached, unemotional, logical, rational, analytical  ‘What caused that negative feeling?’ way.

We then focus on the causes of the negative emotions. And when we have the root causes of our Niggles we design around them, under them, and over them.  We literally design them out of our heads.

The effect is like magic.

And this week I witnessed a real example of this principle in action.

figure_pressing_power_button_150_wht_10080One team I am working with experienced the Power of Improvementology. They saw the effect with their own eyes.  There were no computers in the way, no delays, no distortion and no deletion of data to cloud the issue. They saw the performance of their process jump dramatically – from a success rate of 60% to 96%!  And not just the first day, the second day too.  “Surprised and delighted” sums up their reaction.

So how did we achieve this miracle?

We just looked at the process through a different lens – one not clouded and misshapen by old assumptions and blackened by ignorance of what is possible.  We used the 6M Design® lens – and with the clarity of insight it brings the barriers to improvement became obvious. And they were dissolved. In seconds.

Success then flowed as the Dam of Disbelief crumbled and was washed away.

figure_check_mark_celebrate_anim_150_wht_3617The chaos has gone. The interruptions have gone. The expediting has gone. The firefighting has gone. The complaining has gone.  These chronic Niggles have have been replaced by the Nuggets of calm efficiency, new hope and visible excitement.

And we know that others have noticed the knock-on effect because we got an email from our senior executive that said simply “No one has moaned about TTOs for two days … something has changed.”    

That is Improvementology-in-Action.

 

Posted on

Curing Chronic Carveoutosis

pin_marker_lighting_up_150_wht_6683Last week the Ray Of Hope briefly illuminated a very common system design disease called carveoutosis.  This week the RoH will tarry a little longer to illuminate an example that reveals the value of diagnosing and treating this endemic process ailment.

Do you remember the days when we used to have to visit the Central Post Office in our lunch hour to access a quality-of-life-critical service that only a Central Post Office could provide – like getting a new road tax disc for our car?  On walking through the impressive Victorian entrances of these stalwart high street institutions our primary challenge was to decide which queue to join.

In front of each gleaming mahogony, brass and glass counter was a queue of waiting customers. Behind was the Post Office operative. We knew from experience that to be in-and-out before our lunch hour expired required deep understanding of the ways of people and processes – and a savvy selection.  Some queues were longer than others. Was that because there was a particularly slow operative behind that counter? Or was it because there was a particularly complex postal problem being processed? Or was it because the customers who had been waiting longer had identified that queue was fast flowing and had defected to it from their more torpid streams? We know that size is not a reliable indicator of speed or quality.figure_juggling_time_150_wht_4437

The social pressure is now mounting … we must choose … dithering is a sign of weakness … and swapping queues later is another abhorrent behaviour. So we employ our most trusted heuristic – we join the end of the shortest queue. Sometimes it is a good choice, sometimes not so good!  But intuitively it feels like the best option.

Of course  if we choose wisely and we succeed in leap-frogging our fellow customers then we can swagger (just a bit) on the way out. And if not we can scowl and mutter oaths at others who (by sheer luck) leap frog us. The Post Office Game is fertile soil for the Aint’ It Awful game which we play when we arrive back at work.

single_file_line_PA_150_wht_3113But those days are past and now we are more likely to encounter a single-queue when we are forced by necessity to embark on a midday shopping sortie. As we enter we see the path of the snake thoughtfully marked out with rope barriers or with shelves hopefully stacked with just-what-we-need bargains to stock up on as we drift past.  We are processed FIFO (first-in-first-out) which is fairer-for-all and avoids the challenge of the dreaded choice-of-queue. But the single-queue snake brings a new challenge: when we reach the head of the snake we must identify which operative has become available first – and quickly!

Because if we falter then we will incur the shame of the finger-wagging or the flashing red neon arrow that is easily visible to the whole snake; and a painful jab in the ribs from the impatient snaker behind us; and a chorus of tuts from the tail of the snake. So as we frantically scan left and right along the line of bullet-proof glass cells looking for clues of imminent availability we run the risk of developing acute vertigo or a painful repetitive-strain neck injury!

stick_figure_sitting_confused_150_wht_2587So is the single-queue design better?  Do we actually wait less time, the same time or more time? Do we pay a fair price for fair-for-all queue design? The answer is not intuitively obvious because when we are forced to join a lone and long queue it goes against our gut instinct. We feel the urge to push.

The short answer is “Yes”.  A single-queue feeding tasks to parallel-servers is actually a better design. And if we ask the Queue Theorists then they will dazzle us with complex equations that prove it is a better design – in theory.  But the scary-maths does not help us to understand how it is a better design. Most of us are not able to convert equations into experience; academic rhetoric into pragmatic reality. We need to see it with our own eyes to know it and understand it. Because we know that reality is messier than theory.    

And if it is a better design then just how much better is it?

To illustrate the potential advantage of a single-queue design we need to push the competing candiates to their performance limits and then measure the difference. We need a real example and some real data. We are Improvementologists! 

First we need to map our Post Office process – and that reveals that we have a single step process – just the counter. That is about as simple as a process gets. Our map also shows that we have a row of counters of which five are manned by fully trained Post Office service operatives.

stick_figure_run_clock_150_wht_7094Now we can measure our process and when we do that we find that we get an average of 30 customers per hour walking in the entrance and and average of 30 cusomers an hour walking out. Flow-out equals flow-in. Activity equals demand. And the average flow is one every 2 minutes. So far so good. We then observe our five operatives and we find that the average time from starting to serve one customer to starting to serve the next is 10 minutes. We know from our IS training that this is the cycle time. Good.

So we do a quick napkin calculation to check and that the numbers make sense: our system of five operatives working in parallel, each with an average cycle time of 10 minutes can collectively process a customer on average every 2 minutes – that is 30 per hour on average. So it appears we have just enough capacity to keep up with the flow of work  – we are at the limit of efficiency.  Good.

CarveOut_00We also notice that there is variation in the cycle time from customer to customer – so we plot our individual measurements asa time-series chart. There does not seem to be an obvious pattern – it looks random – and BaseLine says that it is statistically stable. Our chart tells us that a range of 5 to 15 minutes is a reasonable expectation to set.

We also observe that there is always a queue of waiting customers somewhere – and although the queues fluctuate in size and location they are always there.

 So there is always a wait for some customers. A variable wait; an unpredictable wait. And that is a concern for us because when the queues are too numerous and too long then we see customers get agitated, look at their watches, shrug their shoulders and leave – taking their custom and our income with them and no doubt telling all their friends of their poor experience. Long queues and long waits are bad for business.

And we do not want zero queues either because if there is no queue and our operatives run out of work then they become under-utilised and our system efficiency and productivity falls.  That means we are incurring a cost but not generating an income. No queues and idle resources are bad for business too.

And we do not want a mixture of quick queues and slow queues because that causes complaints and conflict.  A high-conflict customer complaint experience is bad for business too! 

What we want is a design that creates small and stable queues; ones that are just big enough to keep our operatives busy and our customers not waiting too long.

So which is the better design and how much better is it? Five-queues or a single-queue? Carve-out or no-carve-out?

To find the answer we decide to conduct a week-long series of experiments on our system and use real data to reveal the answer. We choose the time from a customer arriving to the same customer leaving as our measure of quality and performance – and we know that the best we can expect is somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes.  We know from our IS training that is called the Lead Time.

time_moving_fast_150_wht_10108On day #1 we arrange our Post Office with five queues – clearly roped out – one for each manned counter.  We know from our mapping and measuring that customers do not arrive in a steady stream and we fear that may confound our experiment so we arrange to admit only one of our loyal and willing customers every 2 minutes. We also advise our loyal and willing customers which queue they must join before they enter to avoid the customer choice challenges.  We decide which queue using a random number generator – we toss a dice until we get a number between 1 and 5.  We record the time the customer enters on a slip of paper and we ask the customer to give it to the operative and we instruct our service operatives to record the time they completed their work on the same slip and keep it for us to analyse later. We run the experiment for only 1 hour so that we have a sample of 30 slips and then we collect the slips,  calculate the difference between the arrival and departure times and plot them on a time-series chart in the order of arrival.

CarveOut_01This is what we found.  Given that the time at the counter is an average of 10 minutes then some of these lead times seem quite long. Some customers spend more time waiting than being served. And we sense that the performance is getting worse over time.

So for the next experiment we decide to open a sixth counter and to rope off a sixth queue. We expect that increasing capacity will reduce waiting time and we confidently expect the performance to improve.

On day #2 we run our experiment again, letting customers in one every 2 minutes as before and this time we use all the numbers on the dice to decide which queue to direct each customer to.  At the end of the hour we collect the slips, calculate the lead times and plot the data – on the same chart.

CarveOut_02This is what we see.

It does not look much better and that is big surprise!

The wide variation from customer to customer looks about the same but with the Eye of Optimism we get a sense that the overall performance looks a bit more stable.

So we conclude that adding capacity (and cost) may make a small difference.

But then we remember that we still only served 30 customers – which means that our income stayed the same while our cost increased by 20%. That is definitely NOT good for business: it is not goiug to look good in a business case “possible marginally better quality and 20% increase in cost and therefore price!”

So on day #3 we change the layout. This time we go back to five counters but we re-arrange the ropes to create a single-queue so the customer at the front can be ‘pulled’ to the first available counter. Everything else stays the same – one customer arriving every 2 minutes, the dice, the slips of paper, everything.  At the end of the hour we collect the slips, do our sums and plot our chart.

CarveOut_03And this is what we get! The improvement is dramatic. Both the average and the variation has fallen – especially the variation. But surely this cannot be right. The improvement is too good to be true. We check our data again. Yes, our customers arrived and departed on average one every 2 minutes as before; and all our operatives did the work in an average of 10 minutes just as before. And we had the exactly the same capacity as we had on day #1. And we finished on time. It is correct. We are gobsmaked. It is like a magic wand has been waved over our process. We never would have predicted  that just moving the ropes around to could have such a big impact.  The Queue Theorists were correct after all!

But wait a minute! We are delivering a much better customer experience in terms of waiting time and at the same cost. So could we do even better with six counters open? What will happen if we keep the single-queue design and open the sixth desk?  Before it made little difference but now we doubt our ability to guess what will happen. Our intuition seems to keep tricking us. We are losing our confidence in predicting what the impact will be. We are in counter-intuitive land! We need to run the experiment for real.

So on day #4 we keep the single-queue and we open six desks. We await the data eagerly.

CarveOut_04And this is what happened. Increasing the capacity by 20% has made virtually no difference – again. So we now have two pieces of evidence that say – adding extra capacity did not make a difference to waiting times. The variation looks a bit less though but it is marginal.

It was changing the Queue Design that made the difference! And that change cost nothing. Rien. Nada. Zippo!

That will look much better in our report but now we have to face the emotional discomfort of having to re-evaluate one of our deepest held assumptions.

Reality is telling us that we are delivering a better quality experience using exactly the same resources and it cost nothing to achieve. Higher quality did NOT cost more. In fact we can see that with a carve-out design when we added capacity we just increased the cost we did NOT improve quality. Wow!  That is a shock. Everything we have been led to believe seems to be flawed.

Our senior managers are not going to like this message at all! We will be challening their dogma directly. And they do not like that. Oh dear! 

Now we can see how much better a no-carveout single-queue pull-design can work; and now we can explain why single-queue designs  are used; and now we can show others our experiment and our data and if they do not believe us they can repeat the experiment themselves.  And we can see that it does not need a real Post Office – a pad of Post It® Notes, a few stopwatches and some willing helpers is all we need.

And even though we have seen it with our own eyes we still struggle to explain how the single-queue design works better. What actually happens? And we still have that niggling feeling that the performance on day #1 was unstable.  We need to do some more exploring.

So we run the day#1 experiment again – the five queues – but this time we run it for a whole day, not just an hour.

CarveOut_06

Ah ha!   Our hunch was right.  It is an unstable design. Over time the variation gets bigger and bigger.

But how can that happen?

Then we remember. We told the customers that they could not choose the shortest queue or change queue after they had joined it.  In effect we said “do not look at the other queues“.

And that happens all the time on our systems when we jealously hide performance data from each other! If we are seen to have a smaller queue we get given extra work by the management or told to slow down by the union rep!  

So what do we do now?  All we are doing is trying to improve the service and all we seem to be achieving is annoying more and more people.

What if we apply a maximum waiting time target, say of 1 hour, and allow customers to jump to the front of their queue if they are at risk if breaching the target? That will smooth out spikes and give everyone a fair chance. Customers will understand. It is intuitively obvious and common sense. But our intuition has tricked us before … 

So we run the experiment again and this time we tell our customers that if they wait 50 minutes then they can jump to the front of their queue. They appreciate this because they now have a upper limit on the time they will wait.  

CarveOut_07And this is what we observe. It looks better than before, at least initially, and then it goes pear-shaped.

All we have done with our ‘carve-out and-expedite-the-long-waiters’ design is to defer the inevitable – the crunch. We cannot keep our promise. By the end everyone is pushing to the frontof the queue. It is a riot!  

And there is more. Look at the lead time for the last few customers – two hours. Not only have they waited a long time, but we have had to stay open for two hours longer. That is a BIG cost pessure in overtime payments.

So, whatever way we look at it: a single-queue design is better.  And no one loses out! The customers have a short and predictable waiting time; the operatives are kept occupied and go home on time; and the executives bask in the reflected glory of the excellent customer feedback.  It is a Three Wins® design.

Seeing is believing – and we now know that it is worth diagnosing and treating carveoutosis.

And the only thing left to do is to explain is how a single-queue design works better. It is not obvious is it? 

puzzle_lightbulb_build_PA_150_wht_4587And the best way to do that is to play the Post Office Game and see what actually happens. 

A big light-bulb moment awaits!

 

 

Update: My little Sylvanian friends have tried the Post Office Game and kindly sent me this video of the before  Sylvanian Post Office Before and the after Sylvanian Post Office After. They say they now know how the single-queue design works better. 

 

Posted on

A Ray Of Hope

stick_figure_shovel_snow_anim_150_wht_9579It does not seem to take much to bring a real system to an almost standstill.  Six inches of snow falling between 10 AM and 2 PM in a Friday in January seems to be enough!

It was not so much the amount of snow – it was the timing.  The decision to close many schools was not made until after the pupils had arrived – and it created a logistical nightmare for parents. 

Many people suddenly needed to get home before they expected which created an early rush hour and gridlocked the road system.

The same number of people travelled the same distance in the same way as they would normally – it just took them a lot longer.  And the queues created more problems as people tried to find work-arounds to bypass the traffic jams.

How many thousands of hours of life-time was wasted sitting in near-stationary queues of cars? How many millions of poundsworth of productivity was lost? How much will the catchup cost? 

And yet while we grumble we shrug our shoulders and say “It is just one of those things. We cannot control the weather. We just have to grin and bear it.”  

Actually we do not have to. And we do not need a weather machine to control the weather. Mother Nature is what it is.

Exactly the same behaviour happens in many systems – and our conclusion is the same.  We assume the chaos and queues are inevitable.

They are not.

They are symptoms of the system design – and specifically they are the inevitable outcomes of the time-design.

But it is tricky to visualise the time-design of a system.  We can see the manifestations of the poor time-design, the queues and chaos, but we do not so easily perceive the causes. So the poor time-design persists. We are not completely useless though; there are lots of obvious things we can do. We can devise ingenious ways to manage the queues; we can build warehouses to hold the queues; we can track the jobs in the queues using sophisticated and expensive information technology; we can identify the hot spots; we can recruit and deploy expediters, problem-solvers and fire-fighters to facilitate the flow through the hottest of them; and we can pump capacity and money into defences, drains and dramatics. And our efforts seem to work so we congratulate ourselves and conclude that these actions are the only ones that work.  And we keep clamouring for more and more resources. More capacity, MORE capacity, MORE CAPACITY.

Until we run out of money!

And then we have to stop asking for more. And then we start rationing. And then we start cost-cutting. And then the chaos and queues get worse. 

And all the time we are not aware that our initial assumptions were wrong.

The chaos and queues are not inevitable. They are a sign of the time-design of our system. So we do have other options.  We can improve the time-design of our system. We do not need to change the safety-design; nor the quality-design; nor the money-design.  Just improving the time-design will be enough. For now.

So the $64,000,000 question is “How?”

Before we explore that we need to demonstrate What is possible. How big is the prize?

The class of system design problem that cause particular angst are called mixed-priority mixed-complexity crossed-stream designs.  We encounter dozens of them in our daily life and we are not aware of it.  One of particular interest to many is called a hospital. The mixed-priority dimension is the need to manage some patients as emergencies, some as urgent and some as routine. The mixed-complexity dimension is that some patients are easy and some are complex. The crossed-stream dimension is the aggregation of specialised resources into departments. Expensive equipment and specific expertise.  We then attempt to push patients with different priorites long different paths through these different departments . And it is a management nightmare! 

BlueprintOur usual and “obvious” response to this challenge is called a carve-out design. And that means we chop up our available resource capacity into chunks.  And we do that in two ways: chunks of time and chunks of space.  We try to simplify the problem by dissecting it into bits that we can understand. We separate the emergency departments from the  planned-care facilities. We separate outpatients from inpatients. We separate medicine from surgery – and we then intellectually dissect our patients into organ systems: brains, lungs, hearts, guts, bones, skin, and so on – and we create separate departments for each one. Neurology, Respiratory, Cardiology, Gastroenterology, Orthopaedics, Dermatology to list just a few. And then we become locked into the carve-out design silos like prisoners in cages of our own making.

And so it is within the departments that are sub-systems of the bigger system. Simplification, dissection and separation. Ad absurdam.

The major drawback with our carve-up design strategy is that it actually makes the system more complicated.  The number of necessary links between the separate parts grows exponentially.  And each link can hold a small queue of waiting tasks – just as each side road can hold a queue of waiting cars. The collective complexity is incomprehensible. The cumulative queue is enormous. The opportunity for confusion and error grows exponentially. Safety and quality fall and cost rises. Carve-out is an inferior time-design.

But our goal is correct: we do need to simplify the system so that means simplifying the time-design.

To illustrate the potential of this ‘simplify the time-design’ approach we need a real example.

One way to do this is to create a real system with lots of carve-out time-design built into it and then we can observe how it behaves – in reality. A carefully designed Table Top Game is one way to do this – one where the players have defined Roles and by following the Rules they collectively create a real system that we can map, measure and modify. With our Table Top Team trained and ready to go we then pump realistic tasks into our realistic system and measure how long they take in reality to appear out of the other side. And we then use the real data to plot some real time-series charts. Not theoretical general ones – real specific ones. And then we use the actual charts to diagnose the actual causes of the actual queues and actual chaos.

TimeDesign_BeforeThis is the time-series chart of a real Time-Design Game that has been designed using an actual hospital department and real observation data.  Which department it was is not of importance because it could have been one of many. Carve-out is everywhere.

During one run of the Game the Team processed 186 tasks and the chart shows how long each task took from arriving to leaving (the game was designed to do the work in seconds when in the real department it took minutes – and this was done so that one working day could be condensed from 8 hours into 8 minutes!)

There was a mix of priority: some tasks were more urgent than others. There was a mix of complexity: some tasks required more steps that others. The paths crossed at separate steps where different people did defined work using different skills and special equipment.  There were handoffs between all of the steps on all of the streams. There were  lots of links. There were many queues. There were ample opportunities for confusion and errors.

But the design of the real process was such that the work was delivered to a high quality – there were very few output errors. The yield was very high. The design was effective. The resources required to achieve this quality were represented by the hours of people-time availability – the capacity. The cost. And the work was stressful, chaotic, pressured, and important – so it got done. Everyone was busy. Everyone pulled together. They helped each other out. They were not idle. They were a good team. The design was efficient.

The thin blue line on the time-series chart is the “time target” set by the Organisation.  But the effective and efficient system design only achieved it 77% of the time.  So the “obvious” solution was to clamour for more people and for more space and for more equipment so that the work can be done more quickly to deliver more jobs on-time.  Unfortunately the Rules of the Time-Design Game do not allow this more-money option. There is no more money.

To succeed at the Time-Design Game the team must find a way to improve their delivery time performance with the capacity they have and also to deliver the same quality.  But this is impossible! If it were possible then the solution would be obvious and they would be doing it already. No one can succeed on the Time-Design Game. 

Wrong. It is possible.  And the assumption that the solution is obvious is incorrect. The solution is not obvious – at least to the untrained eye.

To the trained eye the time-series chart shows the characteristic signals of a carve-out time-design. The high task-to-task variation is highly suggestive as is the pattern of some of the earlier arrivals having a longer lead time. An experienced system designer can diagnose a carve-out time-design from a set of time-series charts of a process just as a doctor can diagnose the disease from the vital signs chart for a patient.  And when the diagnosis is confirmed with a verification test then the time-Redesign phase can start. 

TimeDesign_AfterPhase1This chart shows what happened after the time-design of the system was changed – after some of the carve-out design was modified. The Y-axis scale is the same as before – and the delivery time improvement is dramatic. The Time-ReDesigned system is now delivering 98% achievement of the “on time target”.

The important thing to be aware of is that exactly the same work was done, using exactly the same steps, and exactly the same resources. No one had to be retrained, released or recruited.  The quality was not impaired. And the cost was actually less because less overtime was needed to mop up the spillover of work at the end of the day.

And the Time-ReDesigned system feels better to work in. It is not chaotic; flow is much smoother; and it is busy yet relaxed and even fun.  The same activity is achieved by the same people doing the same work in the same sequence. Only the Time-Design has changed. A change that delivered a win for the workers!

What was the impact of this cost-saving improvement on the customers of this service? They can now be 98% confident that they will get their task completed correctly in less than 120 minutes.  Before the Time-Redesign the 98% confidence limit was 470 minutes! So this is a win for the customers too!

And the Time-ReDesigned system is less expensive so it is a win for whoever is paying.

Same safety and quality, quicker with less variation, and at lower cost. Win-Win-Win.

And the usual reaction to playing the Time-ReDesign Game is incredulous disbelief.  Some describe it as a “light bulb” moment when they see how the diagnosis of the carve-out time-design is made and and how the Time-ReDesign is done. They say “If I had not seen it with my own eyes I would not have believed it.” And they say “The solutions are simple but not obvious!” And they say “I wish I had learned this years ago!”  And thay apologise for being so skeptical before.

And there are those who are too complacent, too careful or too cynical to play the Time-ReDesign Game (which is about 80% of people actually) – and who deny themselves the opportunity of a win-win-win outcome. And that is their choice. They can continue to grin and bear it – for a while longer.     

And for the 20% who want to learn how to do Time ReDesign for real in their actual systems there is now a Ray Of Hope.

And the Ray of Hope is illuminating a signpost on which is written “This Way to Improvementology“. 

Posted on

Quality First or Time First?

Before we explore this question we need to establish something. If the issue is Safety then that always goes First – and by safety we mean “a risk of harm that everyone agrees is unacceptable”.

figure_running_hamster_wheel_150_wht_4308Many Improvement Zealots state dogmatically that the only way reach the Nirvanah of “Right Thing – On Time – On Budget” is to focus on Quality First.

This is incorrect.  And what makes it incorrect is the word only.

Experience teaches us that it is impossible to divert people to focus on quality when everyone is too busy just keeping afloat. If they stop to do something else then they will drown. And they know it.

The critical word here is busy.

‘Busy’ means that everyone is spending all their time doing stuff – important stuff – the work, the checking, the correcting, the expediting, the problem solving, and the fire-fighting. They are all busy all of the time.

So when a Quality Zealot breezes in and proclaims ‘You should always focus on quality first … that will solve all the problems’ then the reaction they get is predictable. The weary workers listen with their arms-crossed, roll-their eyes, exchange knowing glances, sigh, shrug, shake their heads, grit their teeth, and trudge back to fire-fighting. Their scepticism and cynicism has been cut a notch deeper. And the weary workers get labelled as ‘Not Interested In Quality’ and ‘Resisting Change’  and ‘Laggards’ by the Quality Zealot who has spent more time studying and regurgitating rhetoric than investing time in observing and understanding reality.

The problem here is the seemingly innocuous word ‘always’. It is too absolute. Too black-and-white. Too dogmatic. Too simple.

Sometimes focussing on Quality First is a wise decision. And that situation is when there is low-quality and idle-time. There is some spare capacity to re-invest in understanding the root causes of the quality issues,  in designing them out of the process, and in implementing the design changes.

But when everyone is busy – when there is no idle-time – then focussing on quality first is not a wise decision because it can actually make the problem worse!

[The Quality Zealots will now be turning a strange red colour, steam will be erupting from their ears and sparks will be coming from their finger-tips as they reach for their keyboards to silence the heretical anti-quality lunatic. “Burn, burn, burn” they rant]. 

When everyone is busy then the first thing to focus on is Time.

And because everyone is busy then the person doing the Focus-on-Time stuff must be someone else. Someone like an Improvementologist.  The Quality Zealot is a liability at this stage – but they become an asset later when the chaos has calmed.

And what our Improvementologist is looking for are queues – also known as Work-in-Progress or WIP.

Why WIP?  Why not where the work is happening? Why not focus on resource utilisation? Isn’t that a time metric?

Yes, resource utilisation is a time-related metric but because everyone is busy then resource utilisation will be high. So looking at utilisation will only confirm what we already know.  And everyone is busy doing important stuff – they are not stupid – they are busy and they are doing their best given the constraints of their process design.        

The queue is where an Improvementologist will direct attention first.  And the specific focus of their attention is the cause of the queue.

This is because there is only one cause of a queue: a mismatch-over-time between demand and activity.

So, the critical first step to diagnosing the cause of a queue is to make the flow visible – to plot the time-series charts of demand, activity and WIP.  Until that is done then no progress will be made with understanding what is happening and it wil be impossible to decide what to do. We need a diagnosis before we can treat. And to get a diagnosis we need data from an examination of our process; and we need data on the history of how it has developed. And we need to know how to convert that data into information, and then into understanding, and then into design options, and then into a wise decision, and then into action, and then into improvement.

And we now know how to spot an experienced Improvementologist because the first thing they will look for are the Queues not the Quality.

But why bother with the flow and the queues at all? Customers are not interested in them! If time is the focus then surely it is turnaround times and waiting times that we need to measure! Then we can compare our performance with our ‘target’ and if it is out of range we can then apply the necessary ‘pressure’!

This is indeed what we observe. So let us explore the pros and cons of this approach with an example.

We are the manager of a support department that receives requests, processes them and delivers the output back to the sender. We could be one of many support departments in an organisation:  human resources, procurement, supplies, finance, IT, estates and so on. We are the Backroom Brigade. We are the unsung heros and heroines.

The requests for our service come in different flavours – some are easy to deal with, others are more complex.  They also come with different priorities – urgent, soon and routine. And they arrive as a mixture of dribbles and deluges.  Our job is to deliver high quality work (i.e. no errors) within the delivery time expected by the originator of the request (i.e. on time). If  we do that then we do not get complaints (but we do not get compliments either).

From the outside things look mostly OK.  We deliver mostly on quality and mostly on time. But on the inside our department is in chaos! Every day brings a new fire to fight. Everyone is busy and the pressure and chaos are relentless. We are keeping our head above water – but only just.  We do not enjoy our work-life. It is not fun. Our people are miserable too. Some leave – others complain – others just come to work, do stuff, take the money and go home – like Zombies. They comply.

three_wins_agreementOnce in the past we were were seduced by the sweet talk of a Quality Zealot. We were promised Nirvanah. We were advised to look at the quality of the requests that we get. And this suggestion resonated with us because we were very aware that the requests were of variable quality. Our people had to spend time checking-and-correcting them before we could process them.  The extra checking had improved the quality of what we deliver – but it had increased our costs too. So the Quality Zealot told us we should work more closely with our customers and to ‘swim upstream’ to prevent the quality problems getting to us in the first place. So we sent some of our most experienced and most expensive Inspectors to paddle upstream. But our customers were also very busy and, much as they would have liked, they did not have time to focus on quality either. So our Inspectors started doing the checking-and-correcting for our customers. Our people are now working for our customers but we still pay their wages. And we do not have enough Inspectors to check-and-correct all the requests at source so we still need to keep a skeleton crew of Inspectors in the department. And these stay-at-home Inspectors  are stretched too thin and their job is too pressured and too stressful. So no one wants to do it.And given the choice they would all rather paddle out to the customers first thing in the morning to give them as much time as possible to check-and-correct the requests so the days work can be completed on time.  It all sounds perfectly logical and rational – but it does not seem to have worked as promised. The stay-at-home Inspectors can only keep up with the more urgent work,  delivery of the less urgent work suffers and the chronic chaos and fire-fighting are now aggravated by a stream of interruptions from customers asking when their ‘non-urgent’ requests will be completed.

figure_talk_giant_phone_anim_150_wht_6767The Quality Zealot insisted we should always answer the phone to our customers – so we take the calls – we expedite the requests – we solve the problems – and we fight-the-fire.  Day, after day, after day.

We now know what Purgatory means. Retirement with a pension or voluntary redundancy with a package are looking more attractive – if only we can keep going long enough.

And the last thing we need is more external inspection, more targets, and more expensive Quality Zealots telling us what to do! 

And when we go and look we see a workplace that appears just as chaotic and stressful and angry as we feel. There are heaps of work in progress everywhere – the phone is always ringing – and our people are running around like headless chickens, expediting, fire-fighting and getting burned-out: physically and emotionally. And we feel powerless to stop it. So we hide.

Does this fictional fiasco feel familiar? It is called the Miserable Job Purgatory Vortex.

Now we know the characteristic pattern of symptoms and signs:  constant pressure of work, ever present threat of quality failure, everyone busy, just managing to cope, target-stick-and-carrot management, a miserable job, and demotivated people.

The issue here is that the queues are causing some of the low quality. It is not always low quality that causes all of the queues.

figure_juggling_time_150_wht_4437Queues create delays, which generate interruptions, which force investigation, which generates expediting, which takes time from doing the work, which consumes required capacity, which reduces activity, which increases the demand-activity mismatch, which increases the queue, which increases the delay – and so on. It is a vicious circle. And interruptions are a fertile source of internally generated errors which generates even more checking and correcting which uses up even more required capacity which makes the queues grow even faster and longer. Round and round.  The cries for ‘we need more capacity’ get louder. It is all hands to the pump – but even then eventually there is a crisis. A big mistake happens. Then Senior Management get named-blamed-and shamed,  money magically appears and is thrown at the problem, capacity increases,  the symptoms settle, the cries for more capacity go quiet – but productivity has dropped another notch. Eventually the financial crunch arrives.    

One symptom of this ‘reactive fire-fight design’ is that people get used to working late to catch up at the end of the day so that the next day they can start the whole rollercoaster ride again. And again. And again. At least that is a form of stability. We can expect tomorrow to be just a s miserable as today and yesterday and the day before that. But TOIL (Time Off In Lieu) costs money.

The way out of the Miserable Job Purgatory Vortex is to diagnose what is causing the queue – and to treat that first.

And that means focussing on Time first – and that means Focussing on Flow first.  And by doing that we will improve delivery, improve quality and improve cost because chaotic systems generate errors which need checking and correcting which costs more. Time first is a win-win-win strategy too.

And we already have everything we need to start. We can easily count what comes in and when and what goes out and when.

The first step is to plot the inflow over time (the demand), the outflow over time (the activity), and from that we work out and plot the Work-in-Progress over time. With these three charts we can start the diagnostic process and by that path we can calm the chaos.

And then we can set to work on the Quality Improvement.  

13/01/2013 – Newspapers report that 17 hospitals are “dangerously understaffed”  Sound familiar?

Next week we will explore how to diagnose the root cause of a queue using Time charts.

For an example to explore please play the SystemFlow Game by clicking here

 

Posted on

Defusing Trust Eroders – Part III

<Bing Bong>

laptop_mail_PA_150_wht_2109Leslie’s computer heralded the arrival of yet another email!  They were coming in faster and faster – now that the word had got out on the grapevine about Improvementology.

Leslie glanced at the sender.

It was from Bob.  That was a surprise.  Bob had never emailed out-of-the-blue before.  Leslie was too impatient to wait until later to read the email.

<Dear Leslie, could I trouble you to ask your advice on something.  It is not urgent.  A ten minute chat on the phone would be all I need.  If that is OK please let me know a good time is and I will ring you. Bob>

Leslie was consumed with curiosity.  What could Bob possibly want advice on?  It was Leslie who sought advice from Bob – not the other way around.

Leslie could not wait and emailed back immediately that it was OK to talk now.

<Ring Ring>

L: Hello Bob, what a pleasant surprise!  I am very curious to know what you need my advice about.

B: Thank you Leslie.  What I would like your counsel on is how to engage in learning the science of improvement.

L: Wow!  That is a surprising question. I am really confused now. You helped me to learn this new thinking and now you are asking me to teach you?

B: Yes.  On the surface it seems counter-intuitive.  It is a genuine request though.  I need to learn and understand what works for you and what does not.

L: OK.  I think I am getting an idea of what you are asking.  But I am only just getting grips with the basics.  I do not know how to engage others yet and I certainly would not be able to teach anyone!

B: I must apologise.  I was not clear in my request.  I need to understand how you engaged yourself in learning.  I only provided the germ of the idea – it was you who added what was needed for it to develop into something tangible and valuable for you.  I need to understand how that happened.

L: Ahhhh! I see what you mean.  Yes.  Let me think.  Would it help if I describe my current mental metaphor?

B: That sounds like an excellent idea.

L: OK.  Well your phrase ‘germ of an idea’ was a trigger.  I see the science of improvement as a seed of information that grows into a sturdy tree of understanding.  Just like the ‘tiny acorn into the mighty oak’ concept.  Using that seed-to-tree metaphor helped me to appreciate that the seed is necessary but it is not sufficient.  There are other things that are needed too.  Soil, water, air, sunlight, and protection from hazards and predators.

I then realised that the seed-to-tree metaphor goes deeper.  One insight that I had was when I realised that the first few leaves are critical to success – because they provide the ongoing energy and food to support the growth of more leaves, and the twigs, branches, trunk, and roots that support the leaves and supply them with water and nutrients.  I see the tree as synergistic system that has a common purpose: to become big enough and stable enough to be able to survive the inevitable ups-and-downs of reality.  To weather the winter storms and survive the summer droughts.

plant_metaphor_240x135It seemed to me that the first leaf needed to be labelled ‘safety’ because in our industry if we damage our customers or our staff we do not get a second chance!  The next leaf to grow is labelled ‘quality’ and that means quality-by-design.  Doing the right thing and doing it right first time without needing inspection-and-correction. The safety and quality leaves provide the resources needed to grow the next leaf which I labelled ‘delivery’.  Getting the work done in time, on time, every time.  Together these three leaves support the growth of the fourth – ‘economy’ which means using only what is necessary and also having just enough reserve to ride over the inevitable rocks and ruts in the road of reality.

I then reflected on what the water and the sunshine would represent when applying improvement science in the real world.

It occurred to me that the water in the tree is like money in a real system.  It is required for both growth and health; it must flow to where it is needed, when it is needed and as much as needed. Too little will prevent growth, and too much water at the wrong time and wrong place is just as unhealthy.  I did some reading about the biology of trees and I learned that the water is pulled up the tree!  The ‘suck’ is created by the water evaporating from the leaves.  The plant does not have a committee that decides where the available water should go!  It is a simple self-adjusting, auto-regulating system.

The sunshine for the tree is like feedback for people.  In a plant the suns energy provides the motive force for the whole system.  In our organisations we call it motivation and the feedback loop is critical to success.  Keeping people in the dark about what is required and how they are doing is demotivating.  Healthy organisations are feedback-fuelled!

B: I see the picture in my mind clearly.  That is a powerful metaphor.  How did it help overcome the natural resistance to change?

L: Well using the 6M Design method and taking the desire to create a ‘sturdy tree of understanding’ as the goal of the seed-to-tree process, I then considered what the possible ways it could fail – the failure modes and effects analysis method that you taught me.

B: OK. Yes I see how that approach would help – approaching the problem from the far side of the invisible barrier. What insights did that lead to?

poison_faucet_150_wht_9860L: Well it highlighted that just having enough water and enough sunshine was not sufficient – it had to be clean water and the right sort of sunshine.  The quality is as critical as the quantity.  A toxic environment will kill tender new shoots of improvement long before they can get established.  Cynicism is like cyanide!  Non-specific cost cutting is like blindly wielding a pair of sharp secateurs.  Ignoring the competition from wasteful weeds and political predators is a guaranteed recipe-for-failure too.

This seed-to-tree metaphor really helped because it allowed me to draw up a checklist of necessary conditions for successful growth of knowledge and understanding.  Rather like the shopping list that a gardener might have.  Viable seeds, fertile soil, clean water, enough sunlight, and protection from threats and hazards, especially in the early stages.  And patience and perseverance.  Growing from seed takes time.  Not all seeds will germinate.  Not all seeds can thrive in the context our gardener is able to create.  And the harsher the elements the fewer the types of seed that have any chance of survival.  The conditions select the successful seeds.  Deserts select plants that hoard water so the desert remains a desert.  If money is too tight the miserly will thrive at the expense of the charitable – and money remains hoarded and fought over as the rest of the organisation withers.  And the timing is crucial – the seeds need to be planted at the right time in the cycle of change.  Too early and they cannot germinate, too late and they do not have time to become strong enough to survive in the real world winter storms.

B: Yes.  I see. The deeper you dig into your seeds-to-trees metaphor, the more insightful it becomes.

L: Bob, you just said something really profound then that has unlocked something for me.

B: Did I?  What was it?

RainForestL: You said ‘seeds-to-trees’.  Up until you said that I was unconsciously limiting myself to one-seed-to-one-tree.  Of course!  If it works for the individual it can work for the collective.  Woods and forests are collectives.  The best example I can think of is a tropical rainforest.  With ample water and sunshine the plant-collective creates a synergistic system that has endured millions of years of global climate change.  And one of the striking features of the tropical rain forest is the diversity of species.  It is as if that diversity is an important part of the design.  Competition is ever present though – all the trees compete for sunlight – but it is healthy competition.  Trees do not succeed individually by hunting each other down.  And the diversity seems to be an important component of healthy competition too.  It is as if they are in a shared race to the sun and their differences are an asset rather than a liability. If all the trees were the same the forest would be at greater risk of all making the same biological blunder and suddenly becoming extinct if their environment changes unpredictably.  Uniformity only seems to work in harsh conditions.

B: That is a profound observation Leslie.  I had not consciously made that distinction.

L: So have I answered your question?  Have I helped you?  It has certainly helped me by being asked to putting my thoughts into words.  I see it clearer too now.

B: Yes.  You are a good teacher.  I believe others will resonate with your seeds-to-trees metaphor just as I have.

L: Thank you Bob.  I believe I am beginning to understand something you said in a previous conversation – “the teacher is the person who learns the most”.  I am going to test our seeds-to-trees metaphor on the real world!  And I will feedback what I learn – because in doing that I will amplify and clarify my own learning.

B: Thank you Leslie. I look forward to learning with you.

Posted on

The F Word

There is an F-word that organisations do not like to use – except maybe in conspiratorial corridor conversations.

What word might that be? What are good candidates for it?

Finance perhaps?

Certainly a word that many people do not want to utter – especially when the financial picture is not looking very rosy. And when the word finance is mentioned in meetings there is usually a groan of anguish. So yes, finance is a good candidate – but it is not the F-word.

Failure maybe?

Yes – definitely a word that is rarely uttered openly. The concept of failure is just not acceptable. Organisations must succeed, sustain and grow. Talk of failure is for losers not for winners. To talk about failure is tempting fate. So yes, another excellent candidate – but it is not the F-word.

OK – what about Fear?

That is definitely something no one likes to admit to.  Especially leaders. They are expected to be fearless. Fear is a sign of weakness! Once you start letting the fear take over then panic starts to set in – then rash decisions follow then you are really on the slippery slope. Your organisation fragments into warring factions and your fate is sealed. That must be the F-word!

Nope.  It is another very worthy candidate but it is not the F-word.

[reveal heading=”Click here to reveal the F-word“]

The dreaded F-word is Feedback.

We do not like feedback.  We do not like asking for it. We do not like giving it. We do not like talking about it. Our systems seem to be specifically designed to exclude it. Potentially useful feedback information is kept secret, confidential, for-our-eyes only.  And if it is shared it is emasculated and anonymized.

And the brave souls who are prepared to grasp the nettle – the 360 Feedback Zealots – are forced to cloak feedback with secrecy and confidentiality. We are expected to ask  for feedback, to take it on the chin, but not to know who or where it came from. So to ease the pain of anonymous feedback we are allowed to choose our accusers. So we choose those who we think will not point out our blindspot. Which renders the whole exercise worthless.

And when we actually want feedback we extract it mercilessly – like extracting blood from a reluctant stone. And if you do not believe me then consider this question: Have you ever been to a training course where your ‘certificate of attendance’ was with-held until you had completed the feedback form? The trainers do this for good reason. We just hate giving feedback. Any feedback. Positive or negative. So if they do not extract it from us before we leave they do not get any.

Unfortunately by extracting feedback from us under coercion is like acquiring a confession under torture – it distorts the message and renders it worthless.

What is the problem here?  What are we scared of?

We all know the answer to the question.  We just do not want to point at the elephant in the room.

We are all terrified of discovering that we have the organisational equivalent of body-odour. Something deeply unpleasant about our behaviour that we are blissfully unaware of but that everyone else can see as plain as day. Our behaviour blindspot. The thing we would cringe with embarrassment about if we knew. We are social animals – not solitary ones. We need on feedback yet we fear it too.

We lack the courage and humility to face our fear so we resort to denial. We avoid feedback like the plague. Feedback becomes the F-word.

But where did we learn this feedback phobia?

Maybe we remember the playground taunts from the Bullies and their Sychophants? From the poisonous Queen-Bees and their Wannabees?  Maybe we tried to protect ourselves with incantations that our well-meaning parents taught us. Spells like “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me“.  But being called names does hurt. Deeply. And it hurts because we are terrified that there might be some truth in the taunt.

Maybe we learned to turn a blind-eye and a deaf-ear; to cross the street at the first sign of trouble; to turn the other cheek? Maybe we just learned to adopt the Victim role? Maybe we were taught to fight back? To win at any cost? Maybe we were not taught how to defuse the school yard psycho-games right at the start?  Maybe our parents and teachers did not know how to teach us? Maybe they did not know themselves?  Maybe the ‘innocent’ schoolyard games are actually much more sinister?  Maybe we carry them with us as habitual behaviours into adult life and into our organisations? And maybe the bullies and Queen-Bees learned something too? Maybe they learned that they could get away with it? Maybe they got to like the Persecutor role and its seductive musk of power? If so then then maybe the very last thing the Bullies and Queen-Bees will want to do is to encourage open, honest feedback – especially about their behaviour. Maybe that is the root cause of the conspiracy of silence? Maybe?

But what is the big deal here?

The ‘big deal’ is that this cultural conspiracy of silence is toxic.  It is toxic to trust. It is toxic to teams. It is toxic to morale.  It is toxic to motivation. It is toxic to innovation. It is toxic to improvement. It is so toxic that it kills organisations – from the inside. Slowly.

Ouch! That feels uncomfortably realistic. So what is the problem again – exactly?

The problem is a deliberate error of omission – the active avoidance of feedback.

So ….. if it were that – how would we prove that is the root cause? Eh?

By correcting the error of omission and then observing what happens.

And this is where it gets dangerous for leaders. They are skating on politically thin ice and they know it.

Subjective feedback is very emotive.  If we ask ten people for their feedback on us we will get ten different replies – because no two people perceive the world (and therefore us) the same way.  So which is ‘right’? Which opinions do we take heed of and which ones do we discount? It is a psycho-socio-political minefield. So no wonder we avoid stepping onto the cultural barbed-wire!

There is an alternative.  Stick to reality and avoid rhetoric. Stick to facts and avoid feelings. Feed back the facts of how the organisational system is behaving to everyone in the organisation.

And the easiest way to do that is with three time-series charts that are updated and shared at regular and frequent intervals.

First – the count of safety and quality failure near-misses for each interval – for at least 50 intervals.

Second – the delivery time of our product or service for each customer over the same time period.

Third – the revenue generated and the cost incurred for each interval for the same 50 intervals.

No ratios, no targets, no balanced scorecard.

Just the three charts that paint the big picture of reality. And it might not be a very pretty picture.

But why at least 50 intervals?

So we can see the long term and short term variation over time. We need both … because …

Our Safety Chart shows that near misses keep happening despite all the burden of inspection and correction.

Our Delivery Chart shows that our performance is distorted by targets and the Horned Gaussian stalks us.

Our Viability Chart shows that our costs are increasing as we pay dearly for past mistakes and our revenue is decreasing as our customers protect their purses and their persons by staying away.

That is the not-so-good news.

The good news is that as soon as we have a multi-dimensional-frequent-feedback loop installed we will start to see improvement. It happens like magic. And the feedback accelerates the improvement.

And the news gets better.

To make best use of this frequent feedback we just need to include in our Constant Purpose – to improve safety, delivery and viability. And then the final step is to link the role of every person in the organisation to that single win-win-win goal. So that everyone can see how they contribute and how their job is worthwhile.

Shared Goals, Clear Roles and Frequent Feedback.

And if you resonate with this message then you will resonate with “The Three Signs of  Miserable Job” by Patrick Lencioni.

And if you want to improve your feedback-ability then a really simple and effective feedback tool is The 4N Chart

And please share your feedback.

[/reveal]

Posted on

The Three R’s

Processes are like people – they get poorly – sometimes very poorly.

Poorly processes present with symptoms. Symptoms such as criticism, complaints, and even catastrophes.

Poorly processes show signs. Signs such as fear, queues and deficits.

So when a process gets very poorly what do we do?

We follow the Three R’s

1-Resuscitate
2-Review
3-Repair

Resuscitate means to stabilize the process so that it is not getting sicker.

Review means to quickly and accurately diagnose the root cause of the process sickness.

Repair means to make changes that will return the process to a healthy and stable state.

So the concept of ‘stability’ is fundamental and we need to understand what that means in practice.

Stability means ‘predictable within limits’. It is not the same as ‘constant’. Constant is stable but stable is not necessarily constant.

Predictable implies time – so any measure of process health must be presented as time-series data.

We are now getting close to a working definition of stability: “a useful metric of system performance that is predictable within limits over time”.

So what is a ‘useful metric’?

There will be at least three useful metrics for every system: a quality metric, a time metric and a money metric.

Quality is subjective. Money is objective. Time is both.

Time is the one to start with – because it is the easiest to measure.

And if we treat our system as a ‘black box’ then from the outside there are three inter-dependent time-related metrics. These are external process metrics (EPMs) – sometimes called Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

Flow in – also called demand
Flow out – also called activity
Delivery time – which is the time a task spends inside our system – also called the lead time.

But this is all starting to sound like rather dry, conceptual, academic mumbo-jumbo … so let us add a bit of realism and drama – let us tell this as a story …

[reveal heading=”Click here to reveal the story …“] 

Picture yourself as the manager of a service that is poorly. Very poorly. You are getting a constant barrage of criticism and complaints and the occasional catastrophe. Your service is struggling to meet the required delivery time performance. Your service is struggling to stay in budget – let alone meet future cost improvement targets. Your life is a constant fire-fight and you are getting very tired and depressed. Nothing you try seems to make any difference. You are starting to think that anything is better than this – even unemployment! But you have a family to support and jobs are hard to come by in austere times so jumping is not an option. There is no way out. You feel you are going under. You feel are drowning. You feel terrified and helpless!

In desperation you type “Management fire-fighting” into your web search box and among the list of hits you see “Process Improvement Emergency Service”.  That looks hopeful. The link takes you to a website and a phone number. What have you got to lose? You dial the number.

It rings twice and a calm voice answers.

?“You are through to the Process Improvement Emergency Service – what is the nature of the process emergency?”

“Um – my service feels like it is on fire and I am drowning!”

The calm voice continues in a reassuring tone.

?“OK. Have you got a minute to answer three questions?”

“Yes – just about”.

?“OK. First question: Is your service safe?”

“Yes – for now. We have had some catastrophes but have put in lots of extra safety policies and checks which seems to be working. But they are creating a lot of extra work and pushing up our costs and even then we still have lots of criticism and complaints.”

?“OK. Second question: Is your service financially viable?”

“Yes, but not for long. Last year we just broke even, this year we are projecting a big deficit. The cost of maintaining safety is ‘killing’ us.”

?“OK. Third question: Is your service delivering on time?”

“Mostly but not all of the time, and that is what is causing us the most pain. We keep getting beaten up for missing our targets.  We constantly ask, argue and plead for more capacity and all we get back is ‘that is your problem and your job to fix – there is no more money’. The system feels chaotic. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason to when we have a good day or a bad day. All we can hope to do is to spot the jobs that are about to slip through the net in time; to expedite them; and to just avoid failing the target. We are fire-fighting all of the time and it is not getting better. In fact it feels like it is getting worse. And no one seems to be able to do anything other than blame each other.”

There is a short pause then the calm voice continues.

?“OK. Do not panic. We can help – and you need to do exactly what we say to put the fire out. Are you willing to do that?”

“I do not have any other options! That is why I am calling.”

The calm voice replied without hesitation. 

?“We all always have the option of walking away from the fire. We all need to be prepared to exercise that option at any time. To be able to help then you will need to understand that and you will need to commit to tackling the fire. Are you willing to commit to that?”

You are surprised and strangely reassured by the clarity and confidence of this response and you take a moment to compose yourself.

“I see. Yes, I agree that I do not need to get toasted personally and I understand that you cannot parachute in to rescue me. I do not want to run away from my responsibility – I will tackle the fire.”

?“OK. First we need to know how stable your process is on the delivery time dimension. Do you have historical data on demand, activity and delivery time?”

“Hey! Data is one thing I do have – I am drowning in the stuff! RAG charts that blink at me like evil demons! None of it seems to help though – the more data I get sent the more confused I become!”

?“OK. Do not panic.  The data you need is very specific. We need the start and finish events for the most recent one hundred completed jobs. Do you have that?”

“Yes – I have it right here on a spreadsheet – do I send the data to you to analyse?”

?“There is no need to do that. I will talk you through how to do it.”

“You mean I can do it now?”

?“Yes – it will only take a few minutes.”

“OK, I am ready – I have the spreadsheet open – what do I do?”

?“Step 1. Arrange the start and finish events into two columns with a start and finish event for each task on each row.

You copy and paste the data you need into a new worksheet. 

“OK – done that”.

?“Step 2. Sort the two columns into ascending order using the start event.”

“OK – that is easy”.

?“Step 3. Create a third column and for each row calculate the difference between the start and the finish event for that task. Please label it ‘Lead Time’”.

“OK – do you want me to calculate the average Lead Time next?”

There was a pause. Then the calm voice continued but with a slight tinge of irritation.

?“That will not help. First we need to see if your system is unstable. We need to avoid the Flaw of Averages trap. Please follow the instructions exactly. Are you OK with that?”

This response was a surprise and you are starting to feel a bit confused.    

“Yes – sorry. What is the next step?”

?“Step 4: Plot a graph. Put the Lead Time on the vertical axis and the start time on the horizontal axis”.

“OK – done that.”

?“Step 5: Please describe what you see?”

“Um – it looks to me like a cave full of stalagtites. The top is almost flat, there are some spikes, but the bottom is all jagged.”

?“OK. Step 6: Does the pattern on the left-side and on the right-side look similar?”

“Yes – it does not seem to be rising or falling over time. Do you want me to plot the smoothed average over time or a trend line? They are options on the spreadsheet software. I do that use all the time!”

The calm voice paused then continued with the irritated overtone again.

?“No. There is no value is doing that. Please stay with me here. A linear regression line is meaningless on a time series chart. You may be feeling a bit confused. It is common to feel confused at this point but the fog will clear soon. Are you OK to continue?”

An odd feeling starts to grow in you: a mixture of anger, sadness and excitement. You find yourself muttering “But I spent my own hard-earned cash on that expensive MBA where I learned how to do linear regression and data smoothing because I was told it would be good for my career progression!”

?“I am sorry I did not catch that? Could you repeat it for me?”

“Um – sorry. I was talking to myself. Can we proceed to the next step?”

?”OK. From what you say it sounds as if your process is stable – for now. That is good.  It means that you do not need to Resuscitate your process and we can move to the Review phase and start to look for the cause of the pain. Are you OK to continue?”

An uncomfortable feeling is starting to form – one that you cannot quite put your finger on.

“Yes – please”. 

?Step 7: What is the value of the Lead Time at the ‘cave roof’?”

“Um – about 42”

?“OK – Step 8: What is your delivery time target?”

“42”

?“OK – Step 9: How is your delivery time performance measured?”

“By the percentage of tasks that are delivered late each month. Our target is better than 95%. If we fail any month then we are named-and-shamed at the monthly performance review meeting and we have to explain why and what we are going to do about it. If we succeed then we are spared the ritual humiliation and we are rewarded by watching others else being mauled instead. There is always someone in the firing line and attendance at the meeting is not optional!”

You also wanted to say that the data you submit is not always completely accurate and that you often expedite tasks just to avoid missing the target – in full knowkedge that the work had not been competed to the required standard. But you hold that back. Someone might be listening.

There was a pause. Then the calm voice continued with no hint of surprise. 

?“OK. Step 10. The most likely diagnosis here is a DRAT. You have probably developed a Gaussian Horn that is creating the emotional pain and that is fuelling the fire-fighting. Do not panic. This is a common and curable process illness.”

You look at the clock. The conversation has taken only a few minutes. Your feeling of panic is starting to fade and a sense of relief and curiosity is growing. Who are these people?

“Can you tell me more about a DRAT? I am not familiar with that term.”

?“Yes.  Do you have two minutes to continue the conversation?”

“Yes indeed! You have my complete attention for as long as you need. The emails can wait.”

The calm voice continues.

?“OK. I may need to put you on hold or call you back if another emergency call comes in. Are you OK with that?”

“You mean I am not the only person feeling like this?”

?“You are not the only person feeling like this. The process improvement emergency service, or PIES as we call it, receives dozens of calls like this every day – from organisations of every size and type.”

“Wow! And what is the outcome?”

There was a pause. Then the calm voice continued with an unmistakeable hint of pride.

?“We have a 100% success rate to date – for those who commit. You can look at our performance charts and the client feedback on the website.”

“I certainly will! So can you explain what a DRAT is?” 

And as you ask this you are thinking to yourself ‘I wonder what happened to those who did not commit?’ 

The calm voice interrupts your train of thought with a well-practiced explanation.

?“DRAT stands for Delusional Ratio and Arbitrary Target. It is a very common management reaction to unintended negative outcomes such as customer complaints. The concept of metric-ratios-and-performance-specifications is not wrong; it is just applied indiscriminately. Using DRATs can drive short-term improvements but over a longer time-scale they always make the problem worse.”

One thought is now reverberating in your mind. “I knew that! I just could not explain why I felt so uneasy about how my service was being measured.” And now you have a new feeling growing – anger.  You control the urge to swear and instead you ask:

“And what is a Horned Gaussian?”

The calm voice was expecting this question.

?“It is easier to demonstrate than to explain. Do you still have your spreadsheet open and do you know how to draw a histogram?”

“Yes – what do I need to plot?”

?“Use the Lead Time data and set up ten bins in the range 0 to 50 with equal intervals. Please describe what you see”.

It takes you only a few seconds to do this.  You draw lots of histograms – most of them very colourful but meaningless. No one seems to mind though.

“OK. The histogram shows a sort of heap with a big spike on the right hand side – at 42.”

The calm voice continued – this time with a sense of satisfaction.

?“OK. You are looking at the Horned Gaussian. The hump is the Gaussian and the spike is the Horn. It is a sign that your complex adaptive system behaviour is being distorted by the DRAT. It is the Horn that causes the pain and the perpetual fire-fighting. It is the DRAT that causes the Horn.”

“Is it possible to remove the Horn and put out the fire?”

?“Yes.”

This is what you wanted to hear and you cannot help cutting to the closure question.

“Good. How long does that take and what does it involve?”

The calm voice was clearly expecting this question too.

?“The Gaussian Horn is a non-specific reaction – it is an effect – it is not the cause. To remove it and to ensure it does not come back requires treating the root cause. The DRAT is not the root cause – it is also a knee-jerk reaction to the symptoms – the complaints. Treating the symptoms requires learning how to diagnose the specific root cause of the lead time performance failure. There are many possible contributors to lead time and you need to know which are present because if you get the diagnosis wrong you will make an unwise decision, take the wrong action and exacerbate the problem.”

Something goes ‘click’ in your head and suddently your fog of confusion evaporates. It is like someone just switched a light on.

“Ah Ha! You have just explained why nothing we try seems to work for long – if at all.  How long does it take to learn how to diagnose and treat the specific root causes?”

The calm voice was expecting this question and seemed to switch to the next part of the script.

?“It depends on how committed the learner is and how much unlearning they have to do in the process. Our experience is that it takes a few hours of focussed effort over a few weeks. It is rather like learning any new skill. Guidance, practice and feedback are needed. Just about anyone can learn how to do it – but paradoxically it takes longer for the more experienced and, can I say, cynical managers. We believe they have more unlearning to do.”

You are now feeling a growing sense of urgency and excitement.

“So it is not something we can do now on the phone?”

?“No. This conversation is just the first step.”

You are eager now – sitting forward on the edge of your chair and completely focussed.

“OK. What is the next step?”

There is a pause. You sense that the calm voice is reviewing the conversation and coming to a decision.

?“Before I can answer your question I need to ask you something. I need to ask you how you are feeling.”

That was not the question you expected! You are not used to talking about your feelings – especially to a complete stranger on the phone – yet strangely you do not sense that you are being judged. You have is a growing feeling of trust in the calm voice.

You pause, collect your thoughts and attempt to put your feelings into words. 

“Er – well – a mixture of feelings actually – and they changed over time. First I had a feeling of surprise that this seems so familiar and straightforward to you; then a sense of resistance to the idea that my problem is fixable; and then a sense of confusion because what you have shown me challenges everything I have been taught; and then a feeling distrust that there must be a catch and then a feeling of fear of embarassement if I do not spot the trick. Then when I put my natural skepticism to one side and considered the possibility as real then there was a feeling of anger that I was not taught any of this before; and then a feeling of sadness for the years of wasted time and frustration from battling something I could not explain.  Eventually I started to started to feel that my cherished impossibility belief was being shaken to its roots. And then I felt a growing sense of curiosity, optimism and even excitement that is also tinged with a feeling of fear of disappointment and of having my hopes dashed – again.”

There was a pause – as if the calm voice was digesting this hearty meal of feelings. Then the calm voice stated:

?“You are experiencing the Nerve Curve. It is normal and expected. It is a healthy sign. It means that the healing process has already started. You are part of your system. You feel what it feels – it feels what you do. The sequence of negative feelings: the shock, denial, anger, sadness, depression and fear will subside with time and the positive feelings of confidence, curiosity and excitement will replace them. Do not worry. This is normal and it takes time. I can now suggest the next step.”

You now feel like you have just stepped off an emotional rollercoaster – scary yet exhilarating at the same time. A sense of relief sweeps over you. You have shared your private emotional pain with a stranger on the phone and the world did not end! There is hope.

“What is the next step?”

This time there was no pause.

?“To commit to learning how to diagnose and treat your process illnesses yourself.”

“You mean you do not sell me an expensive training course or send me a sharp-suited expert who will come tell me what to do and charge me a small fortune?”

There is an almost sarcastic tone to your reply that you regret as soon as you have spoken.

Another pause.  An uncomfortably long one this time. You sense the calm voice knows that you know the answer to your own question and is waiting for you to answer it yourself.

You answer your own question.  

“OK. I guess not. Sorry for that. Yes – I am definitely up for learning how! What do I need to do.”

?“Just email us. The address is on the website. We will outline the learning process. It is neither difficult nor expensive.”

The way this reply was delivered – calmly and matter-of-factly – was reassuring but it also promoted a new niggle – a flash of fear.

“How long have I got to learn this?”

This time the calm voice had an unmistakable sense of urgency that sent a cold prickles down your spine.

?”Delay will add no value. You are being stalked by the Horned Gaussian. This means your system is on the edge of a catastrophe cliff. It could tip over any time. You cannot afford to relax. You must maintain all your current defenses. It is a learning-by-doing process. The sooner you start to learn-by-doing the sooner the fire starts to fade and the sooner you move away from the edge of the cliff.”       

“OK – I understand – and I do not know why I did not seek help a long time ago.”

The calm voice replied simply.

?”Many people find seeking help difficult. Especially senior people”.

Sensing that the conversation is coming to an end you feel compelled to ask:

“I am curious. Where do the DRATs come from?”

?“Curiosity is a healthy attitude to nurture. We believe that DRATs originated in finance departments – where they were originally called Fiscal Averages, Ratios and Targets.  At some time in the past they were sucked into operations and governance departments by a knowledge vacuum created by an unintended error of omission.”

You are not quite sure what this unfamiliar language means and you sense that you have strayed outside the scope of the “emergency script” but the phrase ‘error of omission sounds interesting’ and pricks your curiosity. You ask: 

“What was the error of omission?”

?“We believe it was not investing in learning how to design complex adaptive value systems to deliver capable win-win-win performance. Not investing in learning the Science of Improvement.”

“I am not sure I understand everything you have said.”

?“That is OK. Do not worry. You will. We look forward to your email.  My name is Bob by the way.”

“Thank you so much Bob. I feel better just having talked to someone who understands what I am going through and I am grateful to learn that there is a way out of this dark pit of despair. I will look at the website and send the email immediately.”

?”I am happy to have been of assistance.”

[/reveal]

Posted on

A Recipe for Improvement PIE.

Most of us are realists. We have to solve problems in the real world so we prefer real examples and step-by-step how-to-do recipes.

A minority of us are theorists and are more comfortable with abstract models and solving rhetorical problems.

Many of these Improvement Science blog articles debate abstract concepts – because I am a strong iNtuitor by nature. Most realists are Sensors – so by popular request here is a “how-to-do” recipe for a Productivity Improvement Exercise (PIE)

Step 1 – Define Productivity.

There are many definitions we could choose because productivity means the results delivered divided by the resources used.  We could use any of the three currencies – quality, time or money – but the easiest is money. And that is because it is easier to measure and we have well established department for doing it – Finance – the guardians of the money.  There are two other departments who may need to be involved – Governance (the guardians of the safety) and Operations (the guardians of the delivery).

So the definition we will use is productivity = revenue generated divided cost incurred.

Step 2 – Draw a map of the process we want to make more productive.

This means creating a picture of the parts and their relationships to each other – in particular what the steps in the process are; who does what, where and when; what is done in parallel and what is done in sequence; what feeds into what and what depends on what. The output of this step is a diagram with boxes and arrows and annotations – called a process map. It tells us at a glance how complex our process is – the number of boxes and the number of arrows.  The simpler the process the easier it is to demonstrate a productivity improvement quickly and unambiguously.

Step 3 – Decide the objective metrics that will tell us our productivity.

We have chosen a finanical measure of productivity so we need to measure revenue and cost over time – and our Finance department do that already so we do not need to do anything new. We just ask them for the data. It will probably come as a monthly report because that is how Finance processes are designed – the calendar month accounting cycle is not negotiable.

We will also need some internal process metrics (IPMs) that will link to the end of month productivity report values because we need to be observing our process more often than monthly. Weekly, daily or even task-by-task may be necessary – and our monthly finance reports will not meet that time-granularity requirement.

These internal process metrics will be time metrics.

Start with objective metrics and avoid the subjective ones at this stage. They are necessary but they come later.

Step 4 – Measure the process.

There are three essential measures we usually need for each step in the process: A measure of quality, a measure of time and a measure of cost.  For the purposes of this example we will simplify by making three assumptions. Quality is 100% (no mistakes) and Predictability is 100% (no variation) and Necessity is 100% (no worthless steps). This means that we are considering a simplified and theoretical situation but we are novices and we need to start with the wood and not get lost in the trees.

The 100% Quality means that we do not need to worry about Governance for the purposes of this basic recipe.

The 100% Predictability means that we can use averages – so long as we are careful.

The 100% Necessity means that we must have all the steps in there or the process will not work.

The best way to measure the process is to observe it and record the events as they happen. There is no place for rhetoric here. Only reality is acceptable. And avoid computers getting in the way of the measurement. The place for computers is to assist the analysis – and only later may they be used to assist the maintenance – after the improvement has been achieved.

Many attempts at productivity improvement fail at this point – because there is a strong belief that the more computers we add the better. Experience shows the opposite is usually the case – adding computers adds complexity, cost and the opportunity for errors – so beware.

Step 5 – Identify the Constraint Step.

The meaning of the term constraint in this context is very specific – it means the step that controls the flow in the whole process.  The critical word here is flow. We need to identify the current flow constraint.

A tap or valve on a pipe is a good example of a flow constraint – we adjust the tap to control the flow in the whole pipe. It makes no difference how long or fat the pipe is or where the tap is, begining, middle or end. (So long as the pipe is not too long or too narrow or the fluid too gloopy because if they are then the pipe will become the flow constraint and we do not want that).

The way to identify the constraint in the system is to look at the time measurements. The step that shows the same flow as the output is the constraint step. (And remember we are using the simplified example of no errors and no variation – in real life there is a bit more to identifying the constraint step).

Step 6 – Identify the ideal place for the Constraint Step.

This is the critical-to-success step in the PIE recipe. Get this wrong and it will not work.

This step requires two pieces of measurement data for each step – the time data and the cost data. So the Operational team and the Finance team will need to collaborate here. Tricky I know but if we want improved productivity then there is no alternative.

Lots of productivity improvement initiatives fall at the Sixth Fence – so beware.  If our Finance and Operations departments are at war then we should not consider even starting the race. It will only make the bad situation even worse!

If they are able to maintain an adult and respectful face-to-face conversation then we can proceed.

The time measure for each step we need is called the cycle time – which is the time interval from starting one task to being ready to start the next one. Please note this is a precise definition and it should be used exactly as defined.

The money measure for each step we need is the fully absorbed cost of time of providing the resource.  Your Finance department will understand that – they are Masters of FACTs!

The magic number we need to identify the Ideal Constraint is the product of the Cycle Time and the FACT – the step with the highest magic number should be the constraint step. It should control the flow in the whole process. (In reality there is a bit more to it than this but I am trying hard to stay out of the trees).

Step 7 – Design the capacity so that the Ideal Constraint is the Actual Constraint.

We are using a precise definition of the term capacity here – the amount of resource-time available – not just the number of resources available. Again this is a precise definition and should be used as defined.

The capacity design sequence  means adding and removing capacity to and from steps so that the constraint moves to where we want it.

The sequence  is:
7a) Set the capacity of the Ideal Constraint so it is capable of delivering the required activity and revenue.
7b) Increase the capacity of the all the other steps so that the Ideal Constraint actually controls the flow.
7c) Reduce the capacity of each step in turn, a click at a time until it becomes the constraint then back off one click.

Step 8 – Model your whole design to predict the expected productivity improvement.

This is critical because we are not interested in suck-it-and-see incremental improvement. We need to be able to decide if the expected benefit is worth the effort before we authorise and action any changes.  And we will be asked for a business case. That necessity is not negotiable either.

Lots of productivity improvement projects try to dodge this particularly thorny fence behind a smoke screen of a plausible looking business case that is more fiction than fact. This happens when any of Steps 2 to 7 are omitted or done incorrectly.  What we need here is a model and if we are not prepared to learn how to build one then we should not start. It may only need a simple model – but it will need one. Intuition is too unreliable.

A model is defined as a simplified representation of reality used for making predictions.

All models are approximations of reality. That is OK.

The art of modeling is to define the questions the model needs to be designed to answer (and the precision and accuracy needed) and then design, build and test the model so that it is just simple enough and no simpler. Adding unnecessary complexity is difficult, time consuming, error prone and expensive. Using a computer model when a simple pen-and-paper model would suffice is a good example of over-complicating the recipe!

Many productivity improvement projects that get this far still fall at this fence.  There is a belief that modeling can only be done by Marvins with brains the size of planets. This is incorrect.  There is also a belief that just using a spreadsheet or modelling software is all that is needed. This is incorrect too. Competent modelling requires tools and training – and experience because it is as much art as science.

Step 9 – Modify your system as per the tested design.

Once you have demonstrated how the proposed design will deliver a valuable increase in productivity then get on with it.

Not by imposing it as a fait accompli – but by sharing the story along with the rationale, real data, explanation and results. Ask for balanced, reasoned and respectful feedback. The question to ask is “Can you think of any reasons why this would not work?” Very often the reply is “It all looks OK in theory but I bet it won’t work in practice but I can’t explain why”. This is an emotional reaction which may have some basis in fact. It may also just be habitual skepticism/cynicism. Further debate is usually  worthless – the only way to know for sure is by doing the experiment. As an experiment – as a small-scale and time-limited pilot. Set the date and do it. Waiting and debating will add no value. The proof of the pie is in the eating.

Step 10 – Measure and maintain your system productivity.

Keep measuring the same metrics that you need to calculate productivity and in addition monitor the old constraint step and the new constraint steps like a hawk – capturing their time metrics for every task – and tracking what you see against what the model predicted you should see.

The correct tool to use here is a system behaviour chart for each constraint metric.  The before-the-change data is the baseline from which improvement is measured over time;  and with a dot plotted for each task in real time and made visible to all the stakeholders. This is the voice of the process (VoP).

A review after three months with a retrospective financial analysis will not be enough. The feedback needs to be immediate. The voice of the process will dictate if and when to celebrate. (There is a bit more to this step too and the trees are clamoring for attention but we must stay out of the wood a bit longer).

And after the charts-on-the-wall have revealed the expected improvement has actually happened; and after the skeptics have deleted their ‘we told you so’ emails; and after the cynics have slunk off to sulk; and after the celebration party is over; and after the fame and glory has been snatched by the non-participants – after all of that expected change management stuff has happened …. there is a bit more work to do.

And that is to establish the new higher productivity design as business-as-usual which means tearing up all the old policies and writing new ones: New Policies that capture the New Reality. Bin the out-of-date rubbish.

This is an essential step because culture changes slowly.  If this step is omitted then out-of-date beliefs, attitudes, habits and behaviours will start to diffuse back in, poison the pond, and undo all the good work.  The New Policies are the reference – but they alone will not ensure the improvement is maintained. What is also needed is a PFL – a performance feedback loop.

And we have already demonstrated what that needs to be – the tactical system behaviour charts for the Intended Constraint step.

The finanical productivity metric is the strategic output and is reported monthly – as a system behaviour chart! Just comparing this month with last month is meaningless.  The tactical SBCs for the constraint step must be maintained continuously by the people who own the constraint step – because they control the productivity of the whole process.  They are the guardians of the productivity improvement and their SBCs are the Early Warning System (EWS).

If the tactical SBCs set off an alarm then investigate the root cause immediately – and address it. If they do not then leave it alone and do not meddle.

This is the simplified version of the recipe. The essential framework.

Reality is messier. More complicated. More fun!

Reality throws in lots of rusty spanners so we do also need to understand how to manage the complexity; the unnecessary steps; the errors; the meddlers; and the inevitable variation.  It is possible (though not trivial) to design real systems to deliver much higher productivity by using the framework above and by mastering a number of other tools and techniques.  And for that to succeed the Governance, Operations and Finance functions need to collaborate closely with the People and the Process – initially with guidance from an experienced and competent Improvement Scientist. But only initially. This is a learnable skill. And it takes practice to master – so start with easy ones and work up.

If any of these bits are missing or are dysfunctional the recipe will not work. So that is the first nettle the Executive must grasp. Get everyone who is necessary on the same bus going in the same direction – and show the cynics the exit. Skeptics are OK – they will counter-balance the Optimists. Cynics add no value and are a liability.

What you may have noticed is that 8 of the 10 steps happen before any change is made. 80% of the effort is in the design – only 20% is in the doing.

If we get the design wrong the the doing will be an ineffective and inefficient waste of effort, time and money.

The best complement to real Improvement PIE is a FISH course.

Posted on

Look Out For The Time Trap!

There is a common system ailment which every Improvement Scientist needs to know how to manage.

In fact, it is probably the commonest.

The Symptoms: Disappointingly long waiting times and all resources running flat out.

The Diagnosis?  90%+ of managers say “It is obvious – lack of capacity!”.

The Treatment? 90%+ of managers say “It is obvious – more capacity!!”

Intuitively obvious maybe – but unfortunately these are incorrect answers. Which implies that 90%+ of managers do not understand how their systems work. That is a bit of a worry.  Lament not though – misunderstanding is a treatable symptom of an endemic system disease called agnosia (=not knowing).

The correct answer is “I do not yet have enough information to make a diagnosis“.

This answer is more helpful than it looks because it prompts four other questions:

Q1. “What other possible system diagnoses are there that could cause this pattern of symptoms?”
Q2. “What do I need to know to distinguish these system diagnoses?”
Q3. “How would I treat the different ones?”
Q4. “What is the risk of making the wrong system diagnosis and applying the wrong treatment?”

Before we start on this list we need to set out a few ground rules that will protect us from more intuitive errors (see last week).

The first Rule is this:

Rule #1: Data without context is meaningless.

For example 130  is a number – it is data. 130 what? 130 mmHg. Ah ha! The “mmHg” is the units – it means millimetres of mercury and it tells us this data is a pressure. But what, where, when,who, how and why? We need more context.

“The systolic blood pressure measured in the left arm of Joe Bloggs, a 52 year old male, using an Omron M2 oscillometric manometer on Saturday 20th October 2012 at 09:00 is 130 mmHg”.

The extra context makes the data much more informative. The data has become information.

To understand what the information actually means requires some prior knowledge. We need to know what “systolic” means and what an “oscillometric manometer” is and the relevance of the “52 year old male”.  This ability to extract meaning from information has two parts – the ability to recognise the language – the syntax; and the ability to understand the concepts that the words are just labels for; the semantics.

To use this deeper understanding to make a wise decision to do something (or not) requires something else. Exploring that would  distract us from our current purpose. The point is made.

Rule #1: Data without context is meaningless.

In fact it is worse than meaningless – it is dangerous. And it is dangerous because when the context is missing we rarely stop and ask for it – we rush ahead and fill the context gaps with assumptions. We fill the context gaps with beliefs, prejudices, gossip, intuitive leaps, and sometimes even plain guesses.

This is dangerous – because the same data in a different context may have a completely different meaning.

To illustrate.  If we change one word in the context – if we change “systolic” to “diastolic” then the whole meaning changes from one of likely normality that probably needs no action; to one of serious abnormality that definitely does.  If we missed that critical word out then we are in danger of assuming that the data is systolic blood pressure – because that is the most likely given the number.  And we run the risk of missing a common, potentially fatal and completely treatable disease called Stage 2 hypertension.

There is a second rule that we must always apply when using data from systems. It is this:

Rule #2: Plot time-series data as a chart – a system behaviour chart (SBC).

The reason for the second rule is because the first question we always ask about any system must be “Is our system stable?”

Q: What do we mean by the word “stable”? What is the concept that this word is a label for?

A: Stable means predictable-within-limits.

Q: What limits?

A: The limits of natural variation over time.

Q: What does that mean?

A: Let me show you.

Joe Bloggs is disciplined. He measures his blood pressure almost every day and he plots the data on a chart together with some context .  The chart shows that his systolic blood pressure is stable. That does not mean that it is constant – it does vary from day to day. But over time a pattern emerges from which Joe Bloggs can see that, based on past behaviour, there is a range within which future behaviour is predicted to fall.  And Joe Bloggs has drawn these limits on his chart as two red lines and he has called them expectation lines. These are the limits of natural variation over time of his systolic blood pressure.

If one day he measured his blood pressure and it fell outside that expectation range  then he would say “I didn’t expect that!” and he could investigate further. Perhaps he made an error in the measurement? Perhaps something else has changed that could explain the unexpected result. Perhaps it is higher than expected because he is under a lot of emotional stress a work? Perhaps it is lower than expected because he is relaxing on holiday?

His chart does not tell him the cause – it just flags when to ask more “What might have caused that?” questions.

If you arrive at a hospital in an ambulance as an emergency then the first two questions the emergency care team will need to know the answer to are “How sick are you?” and “How stable are you?”. If you are sick and getting sicker then the first task is to stabilise you, and that process is called resuscitation.  There is no time to waste.

So how is all this relevant to the common pattern of symptoms from our sick system: disappointingly long waiting times and resources running flat out?

Using Rule#1 and Rule#2:  To start to establish the diagnosis we need to add the context to the data and then plot our waiting time information as a time series chart and ask the “Is our system stable?” question.

Suppose we do that and this is what we see. The context is that we are measuring the Referral-to-Treatment Time (RTT) for consecutive patients referred to a single service called X. We only know the actual RTT when the treatment happens and we want to be able to set the expectation for new patients when they are referred  – because we know that if patients know what to expect then they are less likely to be disappointed – so we plot our retrospective RTT information in the order of referral.  With the Mark I Eyeball Test (i.e. look at the chart) we form the subjective impression that our system is stable. It is delivering a predictable-within-limits RTT with an average of about 15 weeks and an expected range of about 10 to 20 weeks.

So far so good.

Unfortunately, the purchaser of our service has set a maximum limit for RTT of 18 weeks – a key performance indicator (KPI) target – and they have decided to “motivate” us by withholding payment for every patient that we do not deliver on time. We can now see from our chart that failures to meet the RTT target are expected, so to avoid the inevitable loss of income we have to come up with an improvement plan. Our jobs will depend on it!

Now we have a problem – because when we look at the resources that are delivering the service they are running flat out – 100% utilisation. They have no spare flow-capacity to do the extra work needed to reduce the waiting list. Efficiency drives and exhortation have got us this far but cannot take us any further. We conclude that our only option is “more capacity”. But we cannot afford it because we are operating very close to the edge. We are a not-for-profit organisation. The budgets are tight as a tick. Every penny is being spent. So spending more here will mean spending less somewhere else. And that will cause a big argument.

So the only obvious option left to us is to change the system – and the easiest thing to do is to monitor the waiting time closely on a patient-by-patient basis and if any patient starts to get close to the RTT Target then we bump them up the list so that they get priority. Obvious!

WARNING: We are now treating the symptoms before we have diagnosed the underlying disease!

In medicine that is a dangerous strategy.  Symptoms are often not-specific.  Different diseases can cause the same symptoms.  An early morning headache can be caused by a hangover after a long night on the town – it can also (much less commonly) be caused by a brain tumour. The risks are different and the treatment is different. Get that diagnosis wrong and disappointment will follow.  Do I need a hole in the head or will a paracetamol be enough?

Back to our list of questions.

What else can cause the same pattern of symptoms of a stable and disappointingly long waiting time and resources running at 100% utilisation?

There are several other process diseases that cause this symptom pattern and none of them are caused by lack of capacity.

Which is annoying because it challenges our assumption that this pattern is always caused by lack of capacity. Yes – that can sometimes be the cause – but not always.

But before we explore what these other system diseases are we need to understand why our current belief is so entrenched.

One reason is because we have learned, from experience, that if we throw flow-capacity at the problem then the waiting time will come down. When we do “waiting list initiatives” for example.  So if adding flow-capacity reduces the waiting time then the cause must be lack of capacity? Intuitively obvious.

Intuitively obvious it may be – but incorrect too.  We have been tricked again. This is flawed causal logic. It is called the illusion of causality.

To illustrate. If a patient complains of a headache and we give them paracetamol then the headache will usually get better.  That does not mean that the cause of headaches is a paracetamol deficiency.  The headache could be caused by lots of things and the response to treatment does not reliably tell us which possible cause is the actual cause. And by suppressing the symptoms we run the risk of missing the actual diagnosis while at the same time deluding ourselves that we are doing a good job.

If a system complains of  long waiting times and we add flow-capacity then the long waiting time will usually get better. That does not mean that the cause of long waiting time is lack of flow-capacity.  The long waiting time could be caused by lots of things. The response to treatment does not reliably tell us which possible cause is the actual cause – so by suppressing the symptoms we run the risk of missing the diagnosis while at the same time deluding ourselves that we are doing a good job.

The similarity is not a co-incidence. All systems behave in similar ways. Similar counter-intuitive ways.

So what other system diseases can cause a stable and disappointingly long waiting time and high resource utilisation?

The commonest system disease that is associated with these symptoms is a time trap – and they have nothing to do with capacity or flow.

They are part of the operational policy design of the system. And we actually design time traps into our systems deliberately! Oops!

We create a time trap when we deliberately delay doing something that we could do immediately – perhaps to give the impression that we are very busy or even overworked!  We create a time trap whenever we deferring until later something we could do today.

If the task does not seem important or urgent for us then it is a candidate for delaying with a time trap.

Unfortunately it may be very important and urgent for someone else – and a delay could be expensive for them.

Creating time traps gives us a sense of power – and it is for that reason they are much loved by bureaucrats.

To illustrate how time traps cause these symptoms consider the following scenario:

Suppose I have just enough resource-capacity to keep up with demand and flow is smooth and fault-free.  My resources are 100% utilised;  the flow-in equals the flow-out; and my waiting time is stable.  If I then add a time trap to my design then the waiting time will increase but over the long term nothing else will change: the flow-in,  the flow-out,  the resource-capacity, the cost and the utilisation of the resources will all remain stable.  I have increased waiting time without adding or removing capacity. So lack of resource-capacity is not always the cause of a longer waiting time.

This new insight creates a new problem; a BIG problem.

Suppose we are measuring flow-in (demand) and flow-out (activity) and time from-start-to-finish (lead time) and the resource usage (utilisation) and we are obeying Rule#1 and Rule#2 and plotting our data with its context as system behaviour charts.  If we have a time trap in our system then none of these charts will tell us that a time-trap is the cause of a longer-than-necessary lead time.

Aw Shucks!

And that is the primary reason why most systems are infested with time traps. The commonly reported performance metrics we use do not tell us that they are there.  We cannot improve what we cannot see.

Well actually the system behaviour charts do hold the clues we need – but we need to understand how systems work in order to know how to use the charts to make the time trap diagnosis.

Q: Why bother though?

A: Simple. It costs nothing to remove a time trap.  We just design it out of the process. Our flow-in will stay the same; our flow-out will stay the same; the capacity we need will stay the same; the cost will stay the same; the revenue will stay the same but the lead-time will fall.

Q: So how does that help me reduce my costs? That is what I’m being nailed to the floor with as well!

A: If a second process requires the output of the process that has a hidden time trap then the cost of the queue in the second process is the indirect cost of the time trap.  This is why time traps are such a fertile cause of excess cost – because they are hidden and because their impact is felt in a different part of the system – and usually in a different budget.

To illustrate. Suppose that 60 patients per day are discharged from our hospital and each one requires a prescription of to-take-out (TTO) medications to be completed before they can leave.  Suppose that there is a time trap in this drug dispensing and delivery process. The time trap is a policy where a porter is scheduled to collect and distribute all the prescriptions at 5 pm. The porter is busy for the whole day and this policy ensures that all the prescriptions for the day are ready before the porter arrives at 5 pm.  Suppose we get the event data from our electronic prescribing system (EPS) and we plot it as a system behaviour chart and it shows most of the sixty prescriptions are generated over a four hour period between 11 am and 3 pm. These prescriptions are delivered on paper (by our busy porter) and the pharmacy guarantees to complete each one within two hours of receipt although most take less than 30 minutes to complete. What is the cost of this one-delivery-per-day-porter-policy time trap? Suppose our hospital has 500 beds and the total annual expense is £182 million – that is £0.5 million per day.  So sixty patients are waiting for between 2 and 5 hours longer than necessary, because of the porter-policy-time-trap, and this adds up to about 5 bed-days per day – that is the cost of 5 beds – 1% of the total cost – about £1.8 million.  So the time trap is, indirectly, costing us the equivalent of £1.8 million per annum.  It would be much more cost-effective for the system to have a dedicated porter working from 12 am to 5 pm doing nothing else but delivering dispensed TTOs as soon as they are ready!  And assuming that there are no other time traps in the decision-to-discharge process;  such as the time trap created by batching all the TTO prescriptions to the end of the morning ward round; and the time trap created by the batch of delivered TTOs waiting for the nurses to distribute them to the queue of waiting patients!

Q: So how do we nail the diagnosis of a time trap and how do we differentiate it from a Batch or a Bottleneck or Carveout?

A: To learn how to do that will require a bit more explanation of the physics of processes.

And anyway if I just told you the answer you would know how but might not understand why it is the answer. Knowledge and understanding are not the same thing. Wise decisions do not follow from just knowledge – they require understanding. Especially when trying to make wise decisions in unfamiliar scenarios.

It is said that if we are shown we will understand 10%; if we can do we will understand 50%; and if we are able to teach then we will understand 90%.

So instead of showing how instead I will offer a hint. The first step of the path to knowing how and understanding why is in the following essay:

A Study of the Relative Value of Different Time-series Charts for Proactive Process Monitoring. JOIS 2012;3:1-18

Click here to visit JOIS

Posted on

Productivity Improvement Science

Very often there is a requirement to improve the productivity of a process and operational managers are usually measured and rewarded for how well they do that. Their primary focus is neither safety nor quality – it is productivity – because that is their job.

For-profit organisations see improved productivity as a path to increased profit. Not-for-profit organisations see improved productivity as a path to being able to grow through re-investment of savings.  The goal may be different but the path is the same – productivity improvement.

First we need to define what we mean by productivity: it is the ratio of a system output to a system input. There are many input and output metrics to choose from and a convenient one to use is the ratio of revenue to expenses for a defined period of time.  Any change that increases this ratio represents an improvement in productivity on this purely financial dimension and we know that this financial data is measured. We just need to look at the bank statement.

There are two ways to approach productivity improvement: by considering the forces that help productivity and the forces that hinder it. This force-field metaphor was described by the psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) and has been developed and applied extensively and successfully in many organisations and many scenarios in the context of change management.

Improvement results from either strengthening helpers or weakening hinderers or both – and experience shows that it is often quicker and easier to focus attention on the hinderers because that leads to both more improvement and to less stress in the system. Usually it is just a matter of alignment. Two strong forces in opposition results in high stress and low motion; but in alignment creates low stress and high acceleration.

So what hinders productivity?

Well, anything that reduces or delays workflow will reduce or delay revenue and therefore hinder productivity. Anything that increases resource requirement will increase cost and therefore hinder productivity. So looking for something that causes both and either removing or realigning it will have a Win-Win impact on productivity!

A common factor that reduces and delays workflow is the design of the process – in particular a design that has a lot of sequential steps performed by different people in different departments. The handoffs between the steps are a rich source of time-traps and bottlenecks and these both delay and limit the flow.  A common factor that increases resource requirement is making mistakes because errors generate extra work – to detect and to correct.  And there is a link between fragmentation and errors: in a multi-step process there are more opportunities for errors – particularly at the handoffs between steps.

So the most useful way to improve the productivity of a process is to simplify it by combining several, small, separate steps into single large ones.

A good example of this can be found in healthcare – and specifically in the outpatient department.

Traditionally visits to outpatients are defined as “new” – which implies the first visit for a particular problem – and “review” which implies the second and subsequent visits.  The first phase is the diagnostic work and this often requires special tests or investigations to be performed (such as blood tests, imaging, etc) which are usually done by different departments using specialised equipment and skills. The design of departmental work schedules requires a patient to visit on a separate occasion to a different department for each test. Each of these separate visits incurs a delay and a risk of a number of errors – the commonest of which is a failure to attend for the test on the appointed day and time. Such did-not-attend or DNA rates are surprisingly high – and values of 10% are typical in the NHS.

The cumulative productivity hindering effect of this multi-visit diagnostic process design is large.  Suppose there are three steps: New-Test-Review and each step has a 10% DNA rate and a 4 week wait. The quickest that a patient could complete the process is 12 weeks and the chance of getting through right first time (the yield) is about 90% x 90% x 90% = 73% which implies that 27% extra resource is needed to correct the failures.  Most attempts to improve productivity focus on forcing down the DNA rate – usually with limited success. A more effective approach is to redesign process by combining the three New-Test-Review steps into one visit.  Exactly the same resources are needed to do the work as before but now the minimum time would be 4 weeks, the right-first-time yield would increase to 90% and the extra resources required to manage the two handoffs, the two queues, and the two sources of DNAs would be unnecessary.  The result is a significant improvement in productivity at no cost.  It is also an improvement in the quality of the patient experience but that is a unintended bonus.

So if the solution is that obvious and that beneficial then why are we not doing this everywhere? The answer is that we do in some areas – in particular where quality and urgency is important such as fast-track one-stop clinics for suspected cancer. However – we are not doing it as widely as we could and one reason for that is a hidden hinderer: the way that the productivity is estimated in the business case and measured in the the day-to-day business.

Typically process productivity is estimated using the calculated unit price of the product or service. The unit price is arrived at by adding up the unit costs of the steps and adding an allocation of the overhead costs (how overhead is allocated is subject to a lot of heated debate by accountants!). The unit price is then multiplied by expected activity to get expected revenue and divided by the total cost (or budget) to get the productivity measure.  This approach is widely taught and used and is certainly better than guessing but it has a number of drawbacks. Firstly, it does not take into account the effects of the handoffs and the queues between the steps and secondly it drives step-optimisation behaviour. A departmental operational manager who is responsible and accountable for one step in the process will focus their attention on driving down costs and pushing up utilisation of their step because that is what they are performance managed on. This in itself is not wrong – but it can become counter-productive when it is done in isolation and independently of the other steps in the process.  Unfortunately our traditional management accounting methods do not prevent this unintentional productivity hindering behaviour – and very often they actually promote it – literally!

This insight is not new – it has been recognised by some for a long time – so we might ask ourselves why this is still the case? This is a very good question that opens another “can of worms” which for the sake of brevity will be deferred to a later conversation.

So, when applying Improvement Science in the domain of financial productivity improvement then the design of both the process and of the productivity modelling-and-monitoring method may need addressing at the same time.  Unfortunately this does not seem to be common knowledge and this insight may explain why productivity improvements do not happen more often – especially in publically funded not-for-profit service organisations such as the NHS.

Posted on

The Bucket Brigade Fire Fighting Service

Fire-fighting is a behaviour that has a long history, and before Fireman Sam arrived on the scene we had the Bucket Brigade.  This was a people-intensive process designed to deliver water from the nearest pump, pond or river with as little risk, delay and effort as possible. The principle of a bucket-brigade is that a chain of people forms between the pump and the fire and they pass buckets in two directions – full ones from the pump to the fire and empty ones from the fire back to the pump.

A bucket brigade is useful metaphor for many processes and an Improvement Science Practitioner (ISP) can learn a lot from exploring its behaviour.

First of all the number of steps in the process or stream is fixed because it is determined by the distance between the pump and the fire. The time it takes for a Bucket Passer to pass a bucket to the next person is predictable  too and it is this cycle-time that determines the rate at which a bucket will move along the line. The fixed step-number and fixed cycle-time implies that the time it takes for a bucket to pass from one end of the line to the other is fixed too. It does not matter if the bucket is empty, half empty or full – the delivery time per bucket is consistent from bucket to bucket. The outflow however is not fixed – it is determined by how full each bucket is when it reaches the end of the line: empty buckets means zero flow, full buckets means maximum flow.

This implies that the process is behaving like a time-trap because the delivery time and the delivery volume (i.e. flow) are independent. Having bigger buckets or fuller buckets makes no difference to the time it takes to traverse the line but it does influence the outflow.

Most systems have many processes that are structured just like a bucket brigade: each step in the process contributes to completing the task before handing the part-completed task on to the next step.

The four dimensions of improvement are Safety, Flow, Quality and Productivity and we can see that, if we are not dropping buckets, then the safety, flow and quality are fixed by the design of the process. So what can we do to improve productivity?

Well, it is evident that the time it takes to do the hand-off adds to the cycle-time of each step. So along comes the Fire Service Finance Department who sees time-as-money and they work out that the unit cost of each step of the process could be reduced by accumulating the jobs at each stage and then handing them off as a batch – because the time-is-money and the cost of the hand-off can now be shared across several buckets. They conclude that the unit cost for the steps will come down and productivity will go up – simple maths and intuitively obvious in theory – but does it actually work in reality?

Q1: Does it reduce the number of Bucket Passers? No. We need just as many as we did before. What we are doing is replacing the smaller buckets with bigger ones – and that will require capital investment.  So when our Finance Department use the lower unit cost as justification then the bigger, more expensive buckets start to look like a good financial option – on paper. But looking at the wage bills we can see that they are the same as before so this raises a question: have the bigger buckets increased the flow or reduced the delivery time? We will need a tangible, positive and measurable  improvement in productivity to justify our capital investment.

To summarise: we have the same number of Bucket Passers working at the same cycle time so there is no improvement in how long it takes for the water to reach the fire from the pump! The delivery time is unchanged. And using bigger buckets implies that the pump needs to be able to work faster to fill them in one cycle of the process – but to minimise cost when we created the Fire Service we bought a pump with just enough average flow capacity and it cannot be made to increase its flow. So, equipped with a bigger bucket the first Bucket Passer has to wait longer for their bigger bucket to be filled before passing it on down the line.  This implies a longer cycle-time for the first step, and therefore also for every step in the chain. So the delivery-time will actually get longer and the flow will stay the same – on average. All we have appear to have achieved is a higher cost and longer delivery time – which is precisely the opposite of what we intended. Productivity has actually fallen!

In a state of  near-panic the Fire Service Finance Department decide to measure the utilisation of the Bucket Passers and discover that it has fallen which must mean that they have become lazy! So a Push Policy is imposed to make them work faster – the Service cannot afford financial inducements – and threats cost nothing. The result is that in their haste to avoid penalties the bigger, fuller, heavier buckets get fumbled and some of the precious water is lost – so less reaches the fire.  The yield of the process falls and now we have a more expensive, longer delivery time, lower flow process. Productivity has fallen even further and now the Bucket Passers and Accountants are at war. How much worse can it get?

Where did we go wrong?

We made an error of omission. We omitted to learn the basics of process design before attempting to improve the productivity of our time-trap dominated process!  Our error of omission led us to confuse the step, stage, stream and system and we incorrectly used stage metrics (unit cost and utilisation) in an attempt to improve system performance (productivity). The outcome was the exact opposite of what we intended; a line of unhappy Bucket Passers; a frustrated Finance Department and an angry Customer whose house burned down because our Fire Service did not deliver enough water on time. Lose-Lose-Lose.

Q1: Is it possible to improve the productivity of a time-trap design?

Q1: Yes, it is.

Q2: How do we avoid making the same error?

A2: Follow the FISH .

Posted on

Single Sell System

In the pursuit of improvement it must be remembered that the system must remain viable: better but dead is not the intended outcome.  Viability of socioeconomic systems implies that money is flowing to where it is needed, when it is needed and in the amounts that are needed.

Money is like energy – it only does worthwhile work when it is moving: so the design of more effective money-streams is a critical part of socioeconomic system improvement.

But this is not easy or obvious because the devil is in the detail and complexity grows quicklyand obscures the picture. This lack of clear picture creates the temptation to clean, analyse, simplify and conceptualise and very often leads to analysis-paralysis and then over-simplification.

There is a useful metaphor for this challenge.

Biological systems use energy rather than money and the process of improvement has a different name – it is called evolution. Each of us is an evolution experiment. The viability requirement is the same though – the success of the experiment is measured by our viability. Do our genes and memes survive after we have gone?

It is only in recent times that the mechanism of this biological system has become better understood. It was not until the 19th Century that we realised that complex organisms were made of reproducing cells; and later that there were rules that governed how inherited characteristics passed from generation to generation; and that the vehicle of transmission was a chemical code molecule called DNA that is present in every copy of every cell capable of reproduction.

We learned that our chemical blueprint is stored in the nucleus of every cell (the dark spots in the picture of cells) and this led to the concept that the nucleus worked like a “brain” that issues chemical orders to the cell in the form of a very similar molecule called RNA.  This cellular command-and-control model is unfortunately more a projection of the rhetoric of society than the reality of the situation. The nucleus is not a “brain” – it is a gonad. The “brain” of a cell is the surface membrane – the sensitive interface between outside and inside; where the “sensor” molecules in the outer cell membrane connect to “effector” molecules on the inside.  Cells think with their skin – and their behaviour is guided by their  internal content and external context. Nature and nurture working as a system.

Cells have evolved to collaborate. Rogue cells that become “mentally” unstable and that break away, start to divide, and spread in an uncollaborative and selfish fashion threaten the viability of the whole: they are called malignant. The threat of malignant behaviour to long term viability is so great that we have evolved sophisticated mechanisms to detect and correct malignant behaviour. The fact that cancer is still a problem is because our malignancy defense mechanisms are not 100% effective. 

This realisation of the importance of the cell has led to a focus of medical research on understand how individual cells “sense”, “think”, “act” and “communicate” and has led to great leaps in our understanding of how multi-celled systems called animals and plants work; how they can go awry; and what can be done to prevent and correct these cellular niggles.  We are even learning how to “fix” bits of the the chemical blueprint to correct our chemical software glitches. We are no where near being able to design a cell from scratch though. We simply do not understand enough about how it works.

In comparison, the “single-sell” in an economic system could be considered to be a step in a process – the point where the stream and the silo meet – where expenses are converted to revenue for example.  I will wantonly bend the rules of grammar and use the word “sell” to distinguish it visually from “cell”. So before trying to understand the complex emergent behaviour of a multi-selled economic system we first need to understand better one sell works. How does work flow and time flow and money flow combined at the single sell?

When we do so we learn that the “economic mechanism” of a single sell can be described completely because it is a manfestation of the Laws of Physics – just as the mechanism of the weather can be describe using a small number of equations that combine to describe the flow, pressure, density, temperature etc of the atmospheric gases.  Our simplest single-selled economic system is described by a set of equations – there are about twenty of them in fact.

So, trying to work out in our heads how even a single sell in an economic system will behave amounts to mentally managing twenty simultanous equations – which is a bit of a problem because we’re not very good at that mental maths trick. The best we can do is to learn the patterns in the interdependent behaviour of the outputs of the equations; to recognise what they imply; and then how to use that understanding to craft wiser decisions.

No wonder the design of a viable socioeconomic multi-selled system seems to be eluding even the brightest economic minds at the moment!  It is a complicated system which exhibits complex behaviour.  Is there a better approach?  Our vastly more complex biological counterparts called “organisms” seem to have discovered one. So what can we learn from them?

One lesson might be that is is a good design to detect and correct malignant behaviour early; the unilateral, selfish, uncollaborative behaviour that multiplies, spreads, and becomes painful, incurable then lethal.

First we need to raise awareness and recognition of it … only then can we challenge and contain its toxic legacy.   

Posted on

The Three Faces of Improvement Science

There is always more than one way to look at something and each perspective is complementary to the others.

Improvement Science has three faces: the first is the Process Face; the second is the People face and the third is the System face – and is represented in the logo with a different colour for each face.

The process face is the easiest to start with because it is logical, objective and absolute.  It describes the process; the what, where, when and how. It is the combination of the hardware and the software; the structure and the function – and it is constrained by the Laws of Physics.

The people face is emotional, subjective and relative.  It describes the people and their perceptions and their purposes. Each person interacts both with the process and with each other and their individual beliefs and behaviours drive the web of relationships. This is the world of psychology and politics.

The system face is neither logical nor emotional – it has characteristics that are easy to describe but difficult to define. Characteritics such a self-organisation; emergent behaviour; and complexity.  Our brains do not appear to be able to comprehend systems as easily and intuitively and we might like to believe. This is one reason why systems often feel counter-intuitive, unpredictable and mysterious. We discover that we are unable to make intuitive decisions that result in whole system improvement  because our intuition tricks us.

Gaining confidence and capability in the practical application of Improvement Science requires starting from our zone of relative strength – our conscious, logical, rational, explanable, teachable, learnable, objective dependency on the physical world. From this solid foundation we can explore our zone of self-control – our internal unconscious, psychological and emotional world; and from there to our zone of relative weakness –  the systemic world of multiple interdependencies that, over time, determine our individual and collective fate.

The good news is that the knowledge and skills we need to handle the rational physical process face are easy and quick to learn.  It can be done with only a short period of focussed, learning-by-doing.  With that foundation in place we can then explore the more difficult areas of people and systems.

 

 

Posted on

The Devil and the Detail

There are two directions from which we can approach an improvement challenge. From the bottom up – starting with the real details and distilling the principle later; and from the top down – starting with the conceptual principle and doing the detail later.  Neither is better than the other – both are needed.

As individuals we have an innate preference for real detail or conceptual principle – and our preference is manifest by the way we think, talk and behave – it is part of our personality.  It is useful to have insight into our own personality and to recognise that when other people approach a problem in a different way then we may experience a difference of opinion, a conflict of styles, and possibly arguments.  

One very well established model of personality type was proposed by Carl Gustav Jung who was a psychologist and who approached the subject from the perspective of understanding psychological “illness”.  Jung’s “Psychological Types” was used as the foundation of the life-work of Isabel Briggs Myers who was not a psychologist and who was looking from the direction of understanding psychological “normality”. In her book Gifts Differing – Understanding Personality Type (ISBN 978-0891-060741) she demonstrates using empirical data that there is not one normal or ideal type that we are all deviate from – rather that there is a set of stable types that each represents a “different gift”. By this she means that different personality types are suited to different tasks and when the type resonantes with the task it results in high-performance and is seen an asset or “strength” and when it does not it results in low performance and is seen as a liability or “weakness”.

One of the multiple dimensions of the Jungian and Myers-Briggs personality type model is the Sensor – iNtuitor dimension the S-N dimension. This dimension represents where we hold our reference model that provides us with data – data that we convert to information – and informationa the we use to derive decisions and actions.

A person who is naturally inclined to the Sensor end of the S-N dimension prefers to use Reality and Actuality as their reference – and they access it via their senses – sight, sound, touch, smell and taste. They are often detail and data focussed; they trust their senses and their conscious awareness; and they are more comfortable with routine and structure.  

A person who is naturally inclined to the iNtuitor end of the S-N dimension prefers to use Rhetoric and Possibility as their reference and their internal conceptual model that they access via their intuition. They are often principle and concept focussed and discount what their senses tell them in favour their intuition. Intuitors feel uncomfortable with routine and structure which they see as barriers to improvement.  

So when a Sensor and an iNtuitor are working together to solve a problem they are approaching it from two different directions and even when they have a common purpose, common values and a common objective it is very likely that conflict will occur if they are unaware of their different gifts. 

Gaining this awareness is a key to success because the synergy of the two approaches is greater than either working alone – the sum is greater than the parts – but only if there is awareness and mutual respect for the different gifts.  If there is no awareness and low mutual respect then the sum will be less than the parts and the problem will not be dissolvable.

In her research, Isabel Briggs Myers found that about 60% of high school students have a preference for S and 40% have a preference for N – but when the “academic high flyers”  were surveyed the ratio was S=17%  and N=83% – and there was no difference between males and females.  When she looked at the S-N distribution in different training courses she discovered that there were a higher proportion of S-types in Administrators (59%), Police (80%), and Finance (72%) and a higher proportion of N-types in Liberal Arts (59%), Engineering (65%), Science (83%), Fine Arts (91%), Occupational Therapy (66%), Art Education (87%), Counselor Education (85%), and Law (59%).  Her observation suggested that individuals select subjects based on their “different gifts” and this throws an interesting light on why traditional professions may come into conflict and perhaps why large organisations tend to form departments of “like-minded individuals”.  Departments with names like Finance, Operations and Governance  – or FOG.

This insight also offers an explanation for the conflict between “strategists” who tend to be N-types and who naturally gravitate to the “manager” part of an organisation and the “tacticians” who tend to be S-types and who naturally gravitate to the “worker” part of the same organisation.

It  has also been shown that conventional “intelligence tests” favour the N-types over the S-types and suggests why highly intelligent academics my perform very poorly when asked to apply their concepts and principles in the real world. Effective action requires pragmatists – but academics tend to congregate in academic instituitions – often disrespectfully labelled by pragmatists as “Ivory Towers”.      

Unfortunately this innate tendency to seek-like-types is counter-productive because it re-inforces the differences, exacerbates the communication barriers,  and leads to “tribal” and “disrespectful” and “trust eroding” behaviour, and to the “organisational silos” that are often evident.

Complex real-world problems cannot be solved this way because they require the synergy of the gifts – each part playing to its strength when the time is right.

The first step to know-how is self-awareness.

If you would like to know your Jungian/MBTI® type you can do so by getting the app: HERE

Posted on

Argument-Free-Problem-Solving

I used to be puzzled when I reflected on the observation that we seem to be able to solve problems as individuals much more quickly and with greater certainty than we could as groups.

I used to believe that having many different perspectives of a problem would be an asset – but in reality it seems to be more of a liability.

Now when I receive an invitation to a meeting to discuss an issue of urgent importance my little heart sinks as I recall the endless hours of my limited life-time wasted in worthless, unproductive discussion.

But, not to be one to wallow in despair I have been busy applying the principles of Improvement Science to this ubiquitous and persistent niggle.  And I have discovered something called Argument Free Problem Solving (AFPS) – or rather that is my name for it because it does what it says on the tin – it solves problems without arguments.

The trick was to treat problem-solving as a process; to understand how we solve problems as individuals; what are the worthwhile bits; and how we scupper the process when we add-in more than one person; and then how to design-to-align the  problem-solving workflow so that it …. flows. So that it is effective and efficient.

The result is AFPS and I’ve been testing it out. Wow! Does it work or what!

I have also discovered that we do not need to create an artificial set of Rules or a Special Jargon – we can  apply the recipe to any situation in a very natural and unobtrusive way.  Just this week I have seen it work like magic several times: once in defusing what was looking like a big bust up looming; once t0 resolve a small niggle that had been magnified into a huge monster and a big battle – the smoke of which was obscuring the real win-win-win opportunity; and once in a collaborative process improvement exercise that demonstrated a 2000% improvement in system productivity – yes – two thousand percent!

So AFPS  has been added to the  Improvement Science treasure chest and (because I like to tease and have fun) I have hidden the key in cyberspace at coordinates  http://www.saasoft.com/moodle

Mwah ha ha ha – me hearties! 

Posted on

Cutting The Cost Cake

We are in now in cost cake cutting times! We are being forced by financial reality to tighten the fiscal belt until our eyeballs water – and then more so.

The cost cake is a mixture of three ingredients – the worthwhile, the necessary, and the rest – the stuff that is worthless and not wanted – the worthless stuff, the unhealthy stuff, the waste.  But it costs just as much per morsel as the rest. And there is a problem – all three ingredients are mixed up together and our weighing scales can not say how much of each is in there – it just tells us the total weight and cost.

If we are forced to cut the cost of the cake we have to cut all three. Our cake gets smaller – not better – which means that we all go a bit hungrier. Or as is more likely – the hand that weilds the knife will cut themselves a full slice and someone else will starve.

Would it not be better if we could separate out the ingredients and see them for what the are – worthy (green), necessary (yellow) and the worthless waste (red) – and then use the knife to slice off the waste?  Then we could mix up what is left and share out a smaller but healthier meal.  We might even re-invest our savings in buying more of the better ingredients and bake ourselves a healthier cake. We would have a choice. 

If we translate this culinary metaphor into the real world then we will see the need for a way of separating and counting the cost of time spent on worthy, necessary and worthless work. If we can do that then we can remove just the worthless stuff and either reduce the cost or  reinvest the resource in something more worthwhile.

The problem we find when we try to do this is that our financial accounting systems do not work this way.

The closed door to a healthier future is staring us in the face – it is barn-door obvious – we just need to design our accounting methods so that they can do what we need them to do.

What are we waiting for?  Let us work together to find a way to open that closed door. It is in all of our interests! 

 

Posted on

Three Blind Men and an Elephant

The Blind Men and the Elephant Story   – adapted from the poem by John Godfrey Saxe.

 “Three blind men were discussing exactly what they believed an elephant to be, since each had heard how strange the creature was, yet none had ever seen one before. So the blind men agreed to find an elephant and discover what the animal was really like. It did not take the blind men long to find an elephant at a nearby market. The first blind man approached the animal and felt the elephant’s firm flat side. “It seems to me that an elephant is just like a wall,” he said to his friends. The second blind man reached out and touched one of the elephant’s tusks. “No, this is round and smooth and sharp – an elephant is like a spear.” Intrigued, the third blind man stepped up to the elephant and touched its trunk. “Well, I can’t agree with either of you; I feel a squirming writhing thing – surely an elephant is just like a snake.” All three blind men continued to argue, based on their own individual experiences, as to what they thought an elephant was like. It was an argument that they were never able to resolve. Each of them was concerned only with their own experience. None of them could see the full picture, and none could appreciate any of the other points of view. Each man saw the elephant as something quite different, and while each blind man was correct they could not agree.”

The Elephant in this parable is the NHS and the three blind men are Governance, Operations and Finance. Each is blind because he does not see reality clearly – his perception is limited to assumptions and crippled by distorted data. The three blind men cannot agree because they do not share a common understanding of the system; its parts and its relationships. Each is looking at a multi-dimensional entity from one dimension only and for each there is no obvious way forward. So while they appear to be in conflict about the “how” they are paradoxically in agreement about the “why”. The outcome is a fruitless and wasteful series of acrimonious arguments, meaningless meetings and directionless discussions.  It is not until they declare their common purpose that their differences of opinion are seen in a realistic perspective and as an opportunity to share and to learn and to create an collective understanding that is greater than the sum of the parts.

Posted on

Focus-on-the-Flow

One of the foundations of Improvement Science is visualisation – presenting data in a visual format that we find easy to assimilate quickly – as pictures.

We derive deeper understanding from observing how things are changing over time – that is the reality of our everyday experience.

And we gain even deeper understanding of how the world behaves by acting on it and observing the effect of our actions. This is how we all learned-by-doing from day-one. Most of what we know about people, processes and systems we learned long before we went to school.

When I was at school the educational diet was dominated by rote learning of historical facts and tried-and-tested recipes for solving tame problems. It was all OK – but it did not teach me anything about how to improve – that was left to me.

More significantly it taught me more about how not to improve – it taught me that the delivered dogma was not to be questioned. Questions that challenged my older-and-better teachers’ understanding of the world were definitely not welcome.

Young children ask “why?” a lot – but as we get older we stop asking that question – not because we have had our questions answered but because we get the unhelpful answer “just because.”

When we stop asking ourselves “why?” then we stop learning, we close the door to improvement of our understanding, and we close the door to new wisdom.

So to open the door again let us leverage our inborn ability to gain understanding from interacting with the world and observing the effect using moving pictures.

Unfortunately our biology limits us to our immediate space-and-time, so to broaden our scope we need to have a way of projecting a bigger space-scale and longer time-scale into the constraints imposed by the caveman wetware between our ears.

Something like a video game that is realistic enough to teach us something about the real world.

If we want to understand better how a health care system behaves so that we can make wiser decisions of what to do (and what not to do) to improve it then a real-time, interactive, healthcare system video game might be a useful tool.

So, with this design specification I have created one.

The goal of the game is to defeat the enemy – and the enemy is intangible – it is the dark cloak of ignorance – literally “not knowing”.

Not knowing how to improve; not knowing how to ask the “why?” question in a respectful way.  A way that consolidates what we understand and challenges what we do not.

And there is an example of the Health Care System Flow Game being played here.

Posted on

Design-for-Productivity

One tangible output of process or system design exercise is a blueprint.

This is the set of Policies that define how the design is built and how it is operated so that it delivers the specified performance.

These are just like the blueprints for an architectural design, the latter being the tangible structure, the former being the intangible function.

A computer system has the same two interdependent components that must be co-designed at the same time: the hardware and the software.

The functional design of a system is manifest as the Seven Flows and one of these is Cash Flow, because if the cash does not flow to the right place at the right time in the right amount then the whole system can fail to meet its design requirement. That is one reason why we need accountants – to manage the money flow – so a critical component of the system design is the Budget Policy.

We employ accountants to police the Cash Flow Policies because that is what they are trained to do and that is what they are good at doing – they are the Guardians of the Cash.

Providing flow-capacity requires providing resource-capacity, which requires providing resource-time; and because resource-time-costs-money then the flow-capacity design is intimately linked to the budget design.

This raises some important questions:
Q: Who designs the budget policy?
Q: Is the budget design done as part of the system design?
Q: Are our accountants trained in system design?

The challenge for all organisations is to find ways to improve productivity, to provide more for the same in a not-for-profit organisation, or to deliver a healthy return on investment in the for-profit arena (and remember our pensions are dependent on our future collective productivity).

To achieve the maximum cash flow (i.e. revenue) at the minimum cash cost (i.e. expense) then both the flow scheduling policy and the resource capacity policy must be co-designed to deliver the maximum productivity performance.

If we have a single-step process it is relatively easy to estimate both the costs and the budget to generate the required activity and revenue; but how do we scale this up to the more realistic situation when the flow of work crosses many departments – each of which does different work and has different skills, resources and budgets?

Q: Does it matter that these departments and budgets are managed independently?
Q: If we optimise the performance of each department separately will we get the optimum overall system performance?

Our intuition suggests that to maximise the productivity of the whole system we need to maximise the productivity of the parts.  Yes – that is clearly necessary – but is it sufficient?

To answer this question we will consider a process where the stream flows though several separate steps – separate in the sense that that they have separate budgets – but not separate in that they are linked by the same flow.

The separate budgets are allocated from the total revenue generated by the outflow of the process. For the purposes of this exercise we will assume the goal is zero profit and we just need to calculate the price that needs to be charged the “customer” for us to break even.

The internal reports produced for each of our departments for each time period are:
1. Activity – the amount of work completed in the period.
2. Expenses – the cost of the resources made available in the period – the budget.
3. Utilisation – the ratio of the time spent using resources to the total time the resources were available.

We know that the theoretical maximum utilisation of resources is 100% and this can only be achieved when there is zero-variation. This is impossible in the real world but we will assume it is achievable for the purpose of this example.

There are three questions we need answers to:
Q1: What is the lowest price we can achieve and meet the required demand?
Q2: Will optimising each step independently step give us this lowest price?
Q3: How do we design our budgets to deliver maximum productivity?

To explore these questions let us play with a real example.

Let us assume we have a single stream of work that crosses six separate departments labelled A-F in that sequence. The department budgets have been allocated based on historical activity and utilisation and our required activity of 50 jobs per time period. We have already worked hard to remove all the errors, variation and “waste” within each department and we have achieved 100% observed utilisation of all our resources. We are very proud of our high effectiveness and our high efficiency.

Our current not-for-profit price is £202,000/50 = £4,040 and because our observed utilisation of resources at each step is 100% we conclude this is the most efficient design and that this is the lowest possible price.

Unfortunately our celebration is short-lived because the market for our product is growing bigger and more competitive and our market research department reports that to retain our market share we need to deliver 20% more activity at 80% of the current price!

A quick calculation shows that our productivity must increase by 50% (New Activity/New Price = 120%/80% = 150%) but as we already have a utilisation of 100% then this challenge looks hopelessly impossible.  To increase activity by 20% will require increasing flow-capacity by 20% which will imply a 20% increase in costs so a 20% increase in budget – just to maintain the current price.  If we no longer have customers who want to pay our current price then we are in trouble.

Fortunately our conclusion is incorrect – and it is incorrect because we are not using the data available to co-design the system such that cash flow and work flow are aligned.  And we do not do that because we have not learned how to design-for-productivity.  We are not even aware that this is possible.  It is, and it is called Value Stream Accounting.

The blacked out boxes in the table above hid the data that we need to do this – an we do not know what they are. Yet.

But if we apply the theory, techniques and tools of system design, and we use the data that is already available then we get this result …

 We can see that the total budget is less, the budget allocations are different, the activity is 20% up and the zero-profit price is 34% less – which is a 83% increase in productivity!

More than enough to stay in business.

Yet the observed resource utilisation is still 100%  and that is counter-intuitive and is a very surprising discovery for many. It is however the reality.

And it is important to be reminded that the work itself has not changed – the ONLY change here is the budget policy design – in other words the resource capacity available at each stage.  A zero-cost policy change.

The example answers our first two questions:
A1. We now have a price that meets our customers needs, offers worthwhile work, and we stay in business.
A2. We have disproved our assumption that 100% utilisation at each step implies maximum productivity.

Our third question “How to do it?” requires learning the tools, techniques and theory of System Engineering and Design.  It is not difficult and it is not intuitively obvious – if it were we would all be doing it.

Want to satisfy your curiosity?
Want to see how this was done?
Want to learn how to do it yourself?

You can do that here.

For more posts like this please vote here.
For more information please subscribe here.

Posted on

Low-Tech-Toc

Beware the Magicians who wave High Technology Wands and promise Miraculous Improvements if you buy their Black Magic Boxes!

If a Magician is not willing to open the box and show you the inner workings then run away – quickly.  Their story may be true, the Miracle may indeed be possible, but if they cannot or will not explain HOW the magic trick is done then you will be caught in their spell and will become their slave forever.

Not all Magicians have honourable intentions – those who have been seduced by the Dark Side will ensnare you and will bleed you dry like greedy leeches!

In the early 1980’s a brilliant innovator called Eli Goldratt created a Black Box called OPT that was the tangible manifestation of his intellectual brainchild called ToC – Theory of Constraints. OPT was a piece of complex computer software that was intended to rescue manufacturing from their ignorance and to miraculously deliver dramatic increases in profit. It didn’t.

Eli Goldratt was a physicist and his Black Box was built on strong foundations of Process Physics – it was not Snake Oil – it did work.  The problem was that it did not sell: Not enough people believed his claims and those who did discovered that the Black Box was not as easy to use as the Magician suggested.  So Eli Goldratt wrote a book called The Goal in which he explained, in parable form, the Principles of ToC and the theoretical foundations on which his Black Box was built.  The book was a big success but his Black Box still did not sell; just an explanation of how his Black Box worked was enough for people to apply the Principles of ToC and to get dramatic results. So, Eli abandoned his plan of making a fortune selling Black Boxes and set up the Goldratt Institute to disseminate the Principles of ToC – which he did with considerably more success. Eli Goldratt died in June 2011 after a short battle with cancer and the World has lost a great innovator and a founding father of Improvement Science. His legacy lives on in the books he wrote that chart his personal journey of discovery.

The Principles of ToC are central both to process improvement and to process design.  As Eli unintentionally demonstrated, it is more effective and much quicker to learn the Principles of ToC pragmatically and with low technology – such as a book – than with a complex, expensive, high technology Black Box.  As many people have discovered – adding complex technology to a complex problem does not create a simple solution! Many processes are relatively uncomplicated and do not require high technology solutions. An example is the challenge of designing a high productivity schedule when there is variation in both the content and the volume of the work.

If our required goal is to improve productivity (or profit) then we want to improve the throughput and/or to reduce the resources required. That is relatively easy when there is no variation in content and no variation in volume – such as when we are making just one product at a constant rate – like a Model-T Ford in Black! Add some content and volume variation and the challenge becomes a lot trickier! From the 1950’s the move from mass production to mass customisation in the automobile industry created this new challenge and spawned a series of  innovative approaches such as the Toyota Production System (Lean), Six Sigma and Theory of Constraints.  TPS focussed on small batches, fast changeovers and low technology (kanbans or cards) to keep inventory low and flow high; Six Sigma focussed on scientifically identifying and eliminating all sources of variation so that work flows smoothly and in “statistical control”; ToC focussed on identifying the “constraint steps” in the system and then on scheduling tasks so that the constraints never run out of work.

When applied to a complex system of interlinked and interdependent processes the ToC method requires a complicated Black Box to do the scheduling because we cannot do it in our heads. However, when applied to a simpler system or to a part of a complex system it can be done using a low technology method called “paper and pen”. The technique is called Template Scheduling and there is a real example in the “Three Wins” book where the template schedule design was tested using a computer simulation to measure the resilience of the design to natural variation – and the computer was not used to do the actual scheduling. There was no Black Box doiung the scheduling. The outcome of the design was a piece of paper that defined the designed-and-tested template schedule: and the design testing predicted a 40% increase in throughput using the same resources. This dramatic jump in productivity might be regarded as  “miraculous” or even “impossible” but only to someone who was not aware of the template scheduling method. The reality is that that the designed schedule worked just as predicted – there was no miracle, no magic, no Magician and no Black Box.

Posted on

What Is The Cost Of Reality?

It is often assumed that “high quality costs more” and there is certainly ample evidence to support this assertion: dinner in a high quality restaurant commands a high price. The usual justifications for the assumption are (a) quality ingredients and quality skills cost more to provide; and (b) if people want a high quality product or service that is in relatively short supply then it commands a higher price – the Law of Supply and Demand.  Together this creates a self-regulating system – it costs more to produce and so long as enough customers are prepared to pay the higher price the system works.  So what is the problem? The problem is that the model is incorrect. The assumption is incorrect.  Higher quality does not always cost more – it usually costs less. Convinced?  No. Of course not. To be convinced we need hard, rational evidence that disproves our assumption. OK. Here is the evidence.

Suppose we have a simple process that has been designed to deliver the Perfect Service – 100% quality, on time, first time and every time – 100% dependable and 100% predictable. We choose a Service for our example because the product is intangible and we cannot store it in a warehouse – so it must be produced as it is consumed.

To measure the Cost of Quality we first need to work out the minimum price we would need to charge to stay in business – the sum of all our costs divided by the number we produce: our Minimum Viable Price. When we examine our Perfect Service we find that it has three parts – Part 1 is the administrative work: receiving customers; scheduling the work; arranging for the necessary resources to be available; collecting the payment; having meetings; writing reports and so on. The list of expenses seems endless. It is the necessary work of management – but it is not what adds value for the customer. Part 3 is the work that actually adds the value – it is the part the customer wants – the Service that they are prepared to pay for. So what is Part 2 work? This is where our customers wait for their value – the queue. Each of the three parts will consume resources either directly or indirectly – each has a cost – and we want Part 3 to represent most of the cost; Part 2 the least and Part 1 somewhere in between. That feels realistic and reasonable. And in our Perfect Service there is no delay between the arrival of a customer and starting the value work; so there is  no queue; so no work in progress waiting to start, so the cost of Part 2 is zero.  

The second step is to work out the cost of our Perfect Service – and we could use algebra and equations to do that but we won’t because the language of abstract mathematics excludes too many people from the conversation – let us just pick some realistic numbers to play with and see what we discover. Let us assume Part 1 requires a total of 30 mins of work that uses resources which cost £12 per hour; and let us assume Part 3 requires 30 mins of work that uses resources which cost £60 per hour; and let us assume Part 2 uses resources that cost £6 per hour (if we were to need them). We can now work out the Minimum Viable Price for our Perfect Service:

Part 1 work: 30 mins @ £12 per hour = £6
Part 2 work:  = £0
Part 3 work: 30 mins at £60 per hour = £30
Total: £36 per customer.

Our Perfect Service has been designed to deliver at the rate of demand which is one job every 30 mins and this means that the Part 1 and Part 3 resources are working continuously at 100% utilisation. There is no waste, no waiting, and no wobble. This is our Perfect Service and £36 per job is our Minimum Viable Price.         

The third step is to tarnish our Perfect Service to make it more realistic – and then to do whatever is necessary to counter the necessary imperfections so that we still produce 100% quality. To the outside world the quality of the service has not changed but it is no longer perfect – they need to wait a bit longer, and they may need to pay a bit more. Quality costs remember!  The question is – how much longer and how much more? If we can work that out and compare it with our Minimim Viable Price we will get a measure of the Cost of Reality.

We know that variation is always present in real systems – so let the first Dose of Reality be the variation in the time it takes to do the value work. What effect does this have?  This apparently simple question is surprisingly difficult to answer in our heads – and we have chosen not to use “scarymatics” so let us run an empirical experiment and see what happens. We could do that with the real system, or we could do it on a model of the system.  As our Perfect Service is so simple we can use a model. There are lots of ways to do this simulation and the technique used in this example is called discrete event simulation (DES)  and I used a process simulation tool called CPS (www.SAASoft.com).

Let us see what happens when we add some random variation to the time it takes to do the Part 3 value work – the flow will not change, the average time will not change, we will just add some random noise – but not too much – something realistic like 10% say.

The chart shows the time from start to finish for each customer and to see the impact of adding the variation the first 48 customers are served by our Perfect Service and then we switch to the Realistic Service. See what happens – the time in the process increases then sort of stabilises. This means we must have created a queue (i.e. Part 2 work) and that will require space to store and capacity to clear. When we get the costs in we work out our new minimum viable price it comes out, in this case, to be £43.42 per task. That is an increase of over 20% and it gives us a measure of the Cost of the Variation. If we repeat the exercise many times we get a similar answer, not the same every time because the variation is random, but it is always an extra cost. It is never less that the perfect proce and it does not average out to zero. This may sound counter-intuitive until we understand the reason: when we add variation we need a bit of a queue to ensure there is always work for Part 3 to do; and that queue will form spontaneously when customers take longer than average. If there is no queue and a customer requires less than average time then the Part 3 resource will be idle for some of the time. That idle time cannot be stored and used later: time is not money.  So what happens is that a queue forms spontaneously, so long as there is space for it,  and it ensures there is always just enough work waiting to be done. It is a self-regulating system – the queue is called a buffer.

Let us see what happens when we take our Perfect Process and add a different form of variation – random errors. To prevent the error leaving the system and affecting our output quality we will repeat the work. If the errors are random and rare then the chance of getting it wrong twice for the same customer will be small so the rework will be a rough measure of the internal process quality. For a fair comparison let us use the same degree of variation as before – 10% of the Part 3 have an error and need to be reworked – which in our example means work going to the back of the queue.

Again, to see the effect of the change, the first 48 tasks are from the Perfect System and after that we introduce a 10% chance of a task failing the quality standard and needing to be reworked: in this example 5 tasks failed, which is the expected rate. The effect on the start to finish time is very different from before – the time for the reworked tasks are clearly longer as we would expect, but the time for the other tasks gets longer too. It implies that a Part 2 queue is building up and after each error we can see that the queue grows – and after a delay.  This is counter-intuitive. Why is this happening? It is because in our Perfect Service we had 100% utiliation – there was just enough capacity to do the work when it was done right-first-time, so if we make errors and we create extra demand and extra load, it will exceed our capacity; we have created a bottleneck and the queue will form and it will cointinue to grow as long as errors are made.  This queue needs space to store and capacity to clear. How much though? Well, in this example, when we add up all these extra costs we get a new minimum price of £62.81 – that is a massive 74% increase!  Wow! It looks like errors create much bigger problem for us than variation. There is another important learning point – random cycle-time variation is self-regulating and inherently stable; random errors are not self-regulating and they create inherently unstable processes.

Our empirical experiment has demonstrated three principles of process design for minimising the Cost of Reality:

1. Eliminate sources of errors by designing error-proofed right-first-time processes that prevent errors happening.
2. Ensure there is enough spare capacity at every stage to allow recovery from the inevitable random errors.
3. Ensure that all the steps can flow uninterrupted by allowing enough buffer space for the critical steps.

With these Three Principles of cost-effective design in mind we can now predict what will happen if we combine a not-for-profit process, with a rising demand, with a rising expectation, with a falling budget, and with an inspect-and-rework process design: we predict everyone will be unhappy. We will all be miserable because the only way to stay in budget is to cut the lower priority value work and reinvest the savings in the rising cost of checking and rework for the higher priority jobs. But we have a  problem – our activity will fall, so our revenue will fall, and despite the cost cutting the budget still doesn’t balance because of the increasing cost of inspection and rework – and we enter the death spiral of finanical decline.

The only way to avoid this fatal financial tailspin is to replace the inspection-and-rework habit with a right-first-time design; before it is too late. And to do that we need to learn how to design and deliver right-first-time processes.

Charts created using BaseLine

Posted on

Does More Efficient equal More Productive?

It is often assumed that efficiency and productivity are the same thing – and this assumption leads to the conclusion that if we use our resources more efficiently then we will automatically be more productive. This is incorrect. The definition of productivity is the ratio of what we expect to get out divided by what we put in – and the important caveat to remember is that only the output which meets expectation is counted – only output that passes the required quality specification.

This caveat has two important implications:

1. Not all activity contributes to productivity. Failures do not.
2. To measure productivity we must define a quality specification.

Efficiency is how resources are used and is often presented as metric called utilisation – the ratio of how much time a resource was used to how much time a resource was available.  So, utilisation includes time spent by resources detecting and correcting avoidable errors.

Increasing utilisation does not always imply increasing productivity: It is possible to become more efficient and less productive by making, checking, detecting and fixing more errors.

For example, if we make more mistakes we will have more output that fails to meet the expected quality, our customers complain and productivity has gone down. Our standard reaction to this situation is to put pressure on ourselves to do more checking and to correct the erros we find – which implies that our utilisation has gone up but our productivity has remained down: we are doing more work to achieve the same outcome.

However, if we remove the cause of the mistakes then more output will meet the quality specification and productivity will go up (better outcome with same resources); and we also have have less re-work to do so utilisation goes down which means productivity goes up even further (remember: productivity = success out divided by effort in). Fixing the root case of errors delivers a double-productivity-improvement.

In the UK we have become a victim of our own success – we have a population that is living longer (hurray) and that will present a greater demand for medical care in the future – however the resources that are available to provide healthcare cannot increase at the same pace (boo) – so we have a problem looming that is not going to go away just by ignoring it. Our healthcare system needs to become more productive. It needs to deliver more care with the same cash – and that implies three requirements:
1. We need to specify our expectation of required quality.
2. We need to measure productivity so that we can measure improvement over time.
3. We need to diagnose the root-causes of errors rather than just treat their effects.

Improved productivity requires improved quality and lower costs – which is good because we want both!