United States Capitol - west front

REINVENTING GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY SINCE 2005

Article 325. Government Departments Scrambling With Budget Cuts

Sequestration is the most recent incentive for Federal Bureaucracies to focus on how they do things. This is probably the only good thing that has come from sequestration. The first response from Federal Bureaucracies has been to protect their current budgets from being cut. They have been successful in the past by lobbying Congress, demonstrating the good things they are doing and how budget cuts would impact congressional districts in their home states. Now they are beginning to “really focus on how they do things” with new tools for fixing the department’s systems using Lean Six Sigma. The author has proposed a second tool the implementation of his “General Reform Model (GRM)” using Enterprise Lean in the first phase followed by the development of a bottoms-up budget for right sizing (making sure all employees have a full time job). The GRM corrects several problems which are responsible for waste including the Bureaucratic organization itself changing it to a Team Managed organization.

Nearly all Federal Bureaucracies have fat budgets. We know this when nearly all of them spend $millions on elaborate parties in Las Vegas and elsewhere. Even the GAO, the watchdog of government spending, has wasted $millions on what they call conferences but are actually boondoggles of bureaucratic waste. Now with the pressures of sequestration government departments are resurrecting old tools used in the past to convince Congress that they are doing a good job of managing.

“Fog Tools”
A technique used by Government Agencies to confuse Congressional oversight is the use of what I call “Fog Tools”. They are used by government agencies to make congress think they are managing well and saving money. The truth is that much of the savings produced is paper savings where no reduction in staffing actually occurs.

One of these Fog Tools is “Performance Based Budgeting (PBB)”. We know that this is a phony tool because the budgeting practices used by the Federal Government is a Top-Down Budget where no one really knows the actual cost of items in the budget. Any suggestion that PBB is based on real performance is absurd because without finite cost data from a bottoms-up budget you are using estimated costs with the results being a sham. The amazing thing is that PBB has been used for years with out anyone questioning its results.

There are many other examples of fog tools one of these is Zero Based Budgeting (ZBB). ZBB requires that budgets return to zero and are recalculated each budget period. Normally the budget would be tweaked for inflation and for any new reason that they can get Congress to buy. But this is still a top-down budget approach and no one knows the real cost of budget items.

The latest Fog Tool is the adaptation of “Big Data Analysis” to government organizations. Embarcadero Industries proposes that
“You Can Create an Enterprise Data Strategy”.

90% of organizations fail at data quality planning. U.S. companies waste more than $600bn every year on data quality-related issues.

Only 15% of organizations proactively use data to improve operational efficiencies and take control of data governance. These numbers should shock you.

Learn how you can deliver on critical data initiatives:
Embed data quality in to organizational processes
Share a common goal for your data strategy
Define agreed standards for data cleansing and sharing
Reconcile data differences
Quickly adapt to business changes
Embarcadero
emailquestions@embarcadero.com

The problem with the above Big Data proposal is that it won’t work without a bottoms-up budget where the actual cost of government operations is known. Collecting bad data and then trying to reconcile data differences is a costly mistake. I am not against the collection of data but it has to be good data and you must have a valid reason for collecting data.

Conclusions

The biggest problem is that Federal Bureaucracies do not have the proper tools to manage their organizations. They have never developed the proper bottoms-up budgeting practice where the actual cost of every item is known. Congress having voted a top-down budget originally has never required a follow up bottoms-up budget identifying the actual cost and staffing of each item in the budget. They have simply accepted the false premise that it would cost too much to do this. We now know that we can identify the actual costs to perform a department’s systems and correct any defects in the systems by using Lean Six Sigma and the authors General Reform Model.

See the following articles:
Article 113. Private Versus Public Budgeting Practices
Article 217. Proposal for Consolidation of Federal Government Duplicated Agencies
Article 217. Proposal for Consolidation of Federal Government Duplicated Agencies
Article 234. Using Lean As a Powerful Decision Making Tool for Consolidation
Article 241. Bureaucracy Versus Team Management
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up Budgeting
Article 297. Sequestration Suggestions for the Defense Department
Article 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable
Article 300. Approach for the Total Reform of the US Government
Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government
Article 305. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!
Article 311. Sequestration An Unnecessary Attack on Government Employees
Article 313. Lean: The Foundation for Entrepreneurial Spirit Leadership
Article 319. The Big Deception About Big Government
Article 320. Proposal for Pilot Demo of Government Agency Reform
Article 321. Estimating Savings From the Lawrence Rosier Approach
Article 324. Massive Savings Through Massive Simplification of Government

Article 324. Massive Savings Through Massive Simplification of Government

There is an incredible amount of savings in the Federal Government just by rethinking how we do government operations. In many cases simplification of government is difficult because of the requirements for maintaining public health and services and the prevention of fraud and abuse. But over the years regulation upon regulation compounds what could be a much simpler process. Lean Six Sigma is one of the best tools for simplifying existing government systems. But what I am suggesting is that we should start not by examining the current government systems but by encouraging Congress to examine and simplify how government operates.

This simplification idea came to me following the IRS’s action in preventing the formation of private organizations against Big Government. Surely they must have something to hide and indeed they do. For example a good place to start is by simplifying the present tax code. One way of doing this is by the implementation of a Flat Tax which greatly simplifies our Federal Income Tax structure. This simple reform could reduce the Internal Revenue Service staffing by as much as 80%. No amount of tweaking of the present IRS system could yield this kind of savings. This reform could also reduce the cost of preparing your individual and business income tax in the private sector by as much as 80%. This could also result in a boost to the economy creating more jobs in the private sector.

My approach at this website for reforming current government operations is to first eliminate as much waste as possible, this is the visible waste that anyone can see, then implement Lean Six Sigma to make high level government systems efficient and effective. This is followed by the implementation of the authors General Reform Model based on the implementation of Enterprise Lean in its first phase. The savings resulting from this approach is estimated to be as much as 20% or more, good but not as good as the 80% savings by simplifying government first.

Approach for Implementing Mass Simplification of Government Operations

Mass simplification starts with Congressional innovation rethinking where government can be simplified. This may be difficult because much of government spending is done in the states where government facilities and military bases are located. The key to avoiding infighting in Congress is to find a massive simplification project that nearly all can agree on. Hence my example of the Flat Tax in simplifying the IRS.

My recommended approach is to form a new organization for implementing the Flat Tax. This new organization starts from the ground up, building up the organization just like a private startup company. Each new system will be developed using Lean Six Sigma to create a cost efficient and effective system. The organization would grow slowly through the implementation of each new system. Staffing is provided for each new system after development. Personnel from the old IRS bureaucracy would be retrained in the new Team Management organization. Current IRS systems required in the new organization would under go review by a Lean Six Sigma Team. When the new IRS organization is completed it will be a Team Managed organization rather than a Bureaucracy with the management coming from the Lean Six Sigma Teams who built the new organization. After the new systems in the new organization have been proven we can pull the plug on the old IRS organization shutting it down.

This Approach differs significantly from the standard government organization building approach where Congress votes for funding the entire reform starting with the appointment of the head of the organization at the top of the bureaucracy. The organization is built downward with each department head hiring its employees. More attention is given to the selection of staffing than to the development of the systems which will run the organization.

See the Following Articles:
Article 113. Private Versus Public Budgeting Practices
Article 208. Downsizing the Federal Government Cato Institute
Article 215. How Many Government Agencies do We Really Need?
Article 216. Building Government Service Agencies From The Ground Up
Article 217. Proposal for Consolidation of Federal Government Duplicated Agencies
Article 234. Using Lean As a Powerful Decision Making Tool for Consolidation
Article 241. Bureaucracy Versus Team Management
Article 251. A False Assumption “Private and Public Jobs are Equal”
Article 252. How Elected Officials Can Make Government Work
Article 264. Private IT Innovation- How To Innovate Like A Startup
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up Budgeting
Article 297. Sequestration Suggestions for the Defense Department
Article 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable
Article 300. Approach for the Total Reform of the US Government
Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government
Article 305. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!
Article 306. WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED by Paul Ryan
Article 307. The US Government is in Need of Reform NOW!

Article 323. Surviving Obamacare By Congressman Blake Farenthold Texas

Surviving Obamacare By Congressman Blake Farenthold 27th District State of Texas
#1 Concern at This Week’s Town Hall Meetings At the Rockport, Texas, Sunday, June 2, 2013

I hosted Town Hall Meetings this week in Rockport, Texas one of the top concerns expressed at the meetings was how families, individuals, and businesses are going to survive ObamaCare.

I firmly support the FULL REPEAL of ObamaCare, and have voted almost 40 times to repeal or defund all or part of it. Unfortunately, there is little chance the Senate will pass a repeal and no chance President Obama sign legislation overturning it, so now we must look for ways to mitigate the damage until the President leaves the White House. The following are some frequently asked questions that I thought might be helpful for you to look over to determine how the President’s healthcare law is going to affect you and your family.

1. Does Obamacare increase taxes?

a. Yes. Obamacare includes 21 new or increased taxes that total $1.1 trillion. A dozen of these target low- and middle-income taxpayers, which goes against the President’s promise to protect them from tax hikes.

2. Will costs go up under Obamacare?

a. Yes. In some states, premiums are expected to rise up to 106%. Even the President’s chief health officer, Secretary Sebelius, admitted that premiums will increase under Obamacare.

b. Obamacare’s premium increases will hurt young people the most. Some will see their premiums increase by over 200%, and 80% of young adults earning more than the poverty line will see an increase in their healthcare costs.

c. Obamacare also raises taxes on plans, drugs, and medical devices by $165 billion, the cost of which will ultimately be passed on to consumers.

3. Will I be able to keep my current plan?

a. It depends. Many employees will lose their employer coverage. CBO estimates that 7 million will lose their employer coverage because of Obamacare, and up to 80% of small business plans will lose their grandfathered status.

4. Will I still be able to get the healthcare I need?

a. It depends. Medicare’s own actuaries estimate that 15% of hospitals will have to stop providing services to Medicare beneficiaries because of the costs associated with Obamacare. One report has also estimated that enrollment in employer sponsored drug plans for retirees will drop by nearly 90% by 2016 because of Obamacare’s tax increases.

5. What do I need to know to prepare?

a. The Obama administration has put together a website of information on the new healthcare law and how to prepare for it. If you’re a small business, you can find a checklist of things to do in preparation here. If you’re an individual or head of a family, you can find a checklist for you here.

Comments by Lawrence Rosier
All across the nation there is a growing concern about the cost of the Nations Healthcare initiative. The cost of President Obama’s Health Care plan as presented to the public is unsustainable. The American public wants affordable health care not what is being forced upon them. Attempts made to eliminate the massive waste in the current system have failed. Congress has not acted to prevent the waste and corruption found in our health care system. Americans simply can not afford or be expected to pay for a health care system that is the most wasteful and expensive in the world. The current health care waste from fraud and abuse has been passed to the public and not enough has been done to make the day to day health care processes themselves efficient and effective.

It does not have to be this way we can have affordable health care. We do not have to choose between raising taxes or cutting entitlements we can pursue a third alternative, eliminating the waste in our health care system and making health care efficient and effective. The Key is in providing an affordable alternative to private health care. To this end The US Government should pursue the development of a complete competitive Health Care alternative to private health care delivery systems. See Article 303. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us.

The Solution
The solution to making health care affordable is in recognizing that health care is not a naturally competitive business the public has no choice but to pay what ever private providers demand. Therefore the Federal Government must enter the health care field to provide the most efficient and effective health care system in direct competition with private health care providers. The federal Government must be a laboratory which shows the way for private health care organizations making all facets of healthcare as affordable as possible. This is a complete reversal of what the public envisions when it thinks of public health care. What is not known is that Medicare has actually held the line in keeping down costs in its published limits for what recipients pay for medical procedures. Without these guidelines there would be no limits to what private health care could cost.

The approach presented here borrows efficiency and effectiveness tools used in private industry to fix the entire healthcare delivery system from government bureaucracies all the way down to the detailed emergency and operating rooms practices. The health care industry is just beginning to implement the Lean tools found in industry yet Congress has demonstrated a lack of understanding of how these tools can be used for reforming government and for fixing the Nation’s health care systems. This new approach for health care delivery makes the Public Health Delivery System an exemplary affordable system using the approach presented in Article 299.The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable.

See the following articles on healthcare:
Article 271. Health Care The Cheesecake Factory and Lean Six Sigma
Article 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable
Article 303. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us
Article 304. Reducing the cost of Health Care Delivery
Article 316. Americans Will Never Have Affordable Health Care Under the Current System
Article 319. The Big Deception About Big Government
Article 320. Proposal for Pilot Demo of Government Agency Reform
Article 321. Estimating Savings From the Lawrence Rosier Approach

Article 322. WARNING to All Federal Government Employees

If Federal Government reform does not occur soon and the full force of Obamacare hit’s the American public nearly doubling their taxes the nation will respond with a tax revolt drastically reducing the size of government.

If you think that the American public is going to just stand by and let the most expensive health care costs in the world destroy their future and their children’s future then you are living in a dream world. If you think sequestration has been devastating you haven’t seen anything yet.

The forces supporting big government has just made the first shoot across the bow in the Internal Revenue scandal preventing those against big government from organizing. The American public will have to chose between the out of control Big Government like that found in Greece or a well managed government based sound employment and industrial jobs like that of Germany. The difference is in a well managed government which can only come about through reforms eliminating waste and providing the necessary management tools to make government efficient and effective.

The results of an all out tax revolt is going to be devastating drastically cutting public services first before the reduction of government employees ending in massive layoffs. The problem is that without reform we will end up with an even more dysfunctional and ineffective bureaucratic government even if it is smaller.

This does not have to happen we know how to implement reforms that can reduce the size of government by knowing exactly where government can be reduced. The reforms I have proposed will implement the best management methods found in private industry. Health care can be saved through the development of a reformed government health care system that competes directly with private health care. We can have smaller government and national healthcare but not without drastic reform.

How Government Reforms Will Benefit Government Employees
The reforms I recommend will save many important key operations from being eliminated by making all organizations efficient and effective. It does this by knowing the cost of doing each of the functions within an organization. The reform implements right-sizing, making sure each employee has a full time job. But more than that the reform method I propose identifies who is actually working on the function. Each employee is given credit for their contributions to all the functions they work on. This method of reform protects those valuable employees who make government work. The method also identifies those employees who do not have enough work to do. If you fall in this category I would be seeking employment outside of government. You can see how the Lean Team Functional data is collected on spreadsheets by clicking on the Link “Free Ebooks” and download an example Spreadsheet.

The reforms affect some jobs differently. For example if you have a job which requires you to be there regardless of the amount of work to be done. This is called a fill-in position where telephones must be answered with other office duties or emergency responders who wait for disasters to happen. These jobs are a direct result of the need to respond in communications and to threats of fire etc. and are treated differently from regular jobs. Another example is Flight Controllers who have a naturally efficient job required to attend to a computer and respond to aviation conditions in the skies.

By contrast downsizing government without government reform eliminates entire organizations some may be critical to the operation of government. This is followed by massive across the board cuts larger than sequestration devastating government organizations impairing some from fulfilling their reason for existing. Bureaucracies tend to protect their management by laying off newer younger employees regardless of their importance or contributions to government they will find themselves caught up in massive lay offs.

Again with or without reforms the future of Big Government is nearly over and now is the time for government employees who are not fully employed to get out of Government and get a job in the private sector.

See also:
Article 113. Private Versus Public Budgeting Practices
Article 210. The Stench of Bureaucracy And the end of Bureaucratic Complexity
Article 215. How Many Government Agencies do We Really Need?
Article 217. Proposal for Consolidation of Federal Government Duplicated Agencies
Article 247. GAO Report Identifies Billions in Waste
Article 251. A False Assumption “Private and Public Jobs are Equal”
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 271. Health Care The Cheesecake Factory and Lean Six Sigma
Article 274. Reducing Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Health Care through Lean
Article 283. Replacing Obamacare and Curing the Healthcare Crisis
Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency
Article 291. When Government Reaches The Point of Critical Mass
Article 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable
Article 303. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us
Article 304. Reducing the cost of Health Care Delivery
Article 305. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!
Article 307. The US Government is in Need of Reform NOW!
Article 319. The Big Deception About Big Government
Article 320. Proposal for Pilot Demo of Government Agency Reform
Article 321. Estimating Savings From the Lawrence Rosier Approach

Article 321. Estimating Savings From the Lawrence Rosier Approach

Most of the savings presented in this website comes as a result of implementations of my Reform Models which are largely based on Lean. Lean provides a vehicle for generating dollar savings and quality improvement over time through improvement of the processes used and or the services delivered. These savings deliver real value in reduced expenditure and in better service to the public. It is difficult to determine just how much savings is going to be found or even when it’s going to be found (savings may continue for years from innovation) but it is known that the Lean approach can make a significant difference in a government or a private organization.

Most of the current savings data comes from the implementation of individual Lean studies mostly using Lean Six Sigma made in government and industry. The main problem is that these implementations are aimed at the trees in a forest of waste which is occurring all around them. But there is a second problem much of the savings is never realized because bureaucracies are reluctant to reduce the staffing identified by the Lean implementations.
See the following lean implementations for savings from individual Lean implementations: Article 227. 25 Case Studies Using Lean in Government, Article 231. List of Lean Government Websites and Article 278. Many Lean Programs Are Failing to Achieve the Highest Efficiency.

Newt Gingrich and others sighting the implementation of Lean Six Sigma throughout the Federal Government estimate the annual savings to be $500 billion. I lean toward a more conservative estimate with Lean Six Sigma and my General reform Model fully implemented throughout the Federal Government to be Closer to $300 Billion. My estimate includes eliminating waste and getting the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible.

The savings from the General Reform Model comes first from the implementation of Enterprise Lean improving work place systems and second using the data from the Enterprise Lean Team studies to do Work Measurement where the work performed by each Function’s processes are measured and documented. The result is the known number of hours required to do each Function which also determines the staffing required. I use a general rule of thumb to define “over staffing” as 20% of the work force in all areas where work measurement is not done. This rule has been verified by data from Alexander Proudfoot implementations which found that from 17% to 20% over staffing occurring in private companies. I have also found that this over staffing number may be significantly higher than 20% in government. One of the reasons for this is that work assignments in a bureaucracy are usually made to individual employees (in an organization chart) regardless of the actual time required to do the job. This means that one employee may have a task that occupies 90% and another just 30% of his time. These inequalities show up during the process of Work Measurement. This problem goes away when a Lean Team is assigned these tasks because the Team has responsibility for finding the best way to get the task. These staffing problems are mostly found in government but are also found in the office and other overhead areas in private companies.
See Article 148. Where Less is More Efficient Atlanta’s four-day Workweek, Article 198. Milam County Texas was Found to be Over Staffed by fifty Percent, Article 253. Reinventing Industry for Maximum Competitiveness and Article 254. Right-Sizing Manufacturing’s Dead Zone.

The third area where staffing is reduced is during the final step of the General Reform Model where the Bureaucratic hierarchically structured organization is changed to a Team Managed organization. In this process many managers may become redundant during the elimination of the Bureaucratic hierarchical structure of government and industry.

The above savings from process improvements and over staffing is in addition to other savings from Consolidating State Services, Streamlining Government Boards and Commissions, and through implementation of an Information Technology Data Center using Integrated Relational DataBases. See my articles 101, 102, 113, 118, 120, 123, 152, 158, 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174.

Enough about savings what you really want to know is the return on investment. I have said in other places that the implementation of my Reform models could be done largely with the State’s own resources. That is the training for Lean could be done by the State’s Training Department. And the determination of staffing levels by auditors and budget analysts. The Federal Government and some states have put in place a hiring freeze making available HR personnel for training as Lean Facilitators.

My estimate for ROI from the General Reform Model is about $100 return for each $1 invested. The advantage of this is there are more options for decreasing staffing when implementation costs are low. See Article 137. Role of Lean Facilitator and Budget Analyst and Article 272. Options for Solving Bureaucratic Over Staffing.

Rule of Thumb for estimating State Savings
The following is the minimum expected savings only from staffing reductions for each state based on 20% of state payroll data from the US census bureau. The savings occurs from the application of the General Reform Model and additional savings from the Consolidation Model (for consolidating agencies). Proposals for the implementation of State reforms can be downloaded by clicking on the Link “Free Ebooks”.

Alabama________________ $181,800,000
Alaska_____________________ 45,460,000
Arizona___________________ 234,120,000
Arkansas__________________ 96,160,000
California______________ 1,901,380,000
Colorado_________________ 205,960,000
Connecticut______________ 171,580,000
Delaware___________________39,880,000
Florida____________________ 656,520,000
Georgia___________________ 340,800,000
Hawaii_____________________ 57,580,000
Idaho______________________ 51,540,000
Illinois____________________ 518,040,000
Indiana___________________ 224,520,000
Iowa______________________ 129,700,000
Kansas___________________ 120,060,000
Kentucky_________________ 147,560,000
Louisiana_________________ 162,400,000
Maine______________________ 50,480,000
Maryland_________________ 264,420,000
Massachusetts___________ 292,060,000
Michigan_________________ 397,280,000
Minnesota________________ 225,260,000
Mississippi_______________108,260,000
Missouri__________________202,440,000
Montana___________________35,520,000
Nebraska__________________76,660,000
Nevada____________________ 98,780,000
New Hampshire___________50,440,000
New Jersey______________501,520,000
New Mexico ______________82,840,000
New York ______________1,138,220,000
North Carolina ___________362,580,000
North Dakota ______________27,360,000
Ohio ______________________458,120,000
Oklahoma ________________130,220,000
Oregon ___________________147,240,000
Pennsylvania _____________454,340,000
Rhode Island ______________47,820,000
South Carolina ___________158,000,000
South Dakota ______________26,120,000
Tennessee ________________208,000,000
Texas _____________________899,380,000
Utah ________________________92,380,000
Vermont ____________________28,480,000
Virginia ___________________324,666,000
Washington _______________298,940,000
West Virginia _______________60,600,000
Wisconsin _________________216,840,000
Wyoming ____________________33,000,000

Article 321. Estimating Savings From the Lawrence Rosier Approach

Most of the savings presented in this website comes as a result of implementations of my Government Reform Models which are largely based on Lean. Lean provides a vehicle for generating dollar savings and quality improvement over time through improvement of the processes used and or the services delivered. These savings deliver real value in reduced expenditure and in better service to the public. It is difficult to determine just how much savings is going to be found or even when it’s going to be found (savings may continue for years from innovation) but it is known that the Lean approach can make a significant difference in a government or a private organization.

Most of the current savings data comes from the implementation of individual Lean studies made in government and industry. The main problem is that these implementations are aimed at the trees in a forest of waste which is occurring all around them But there is a second problem much of the savings is never realized because bureaucracies are reluctant to reduce the staffing identified by the Lean implementations. See the following lean implementations for savings from individual Lean implementations: Article 227. 25 Case Studies Using Lean in Government, Article 231. List of Lean Government Websites and Article 278. Many Lean Programs Are Failing to Achieve the Highest Efficiency.

The second area for savings from the General Reform Model is in using the data from the Enterprise Lean Team studies to do Work Measurement where the work performed by each Function’s processes are measured and documented. The result is the known number of hours required to do each Function which also determines the staffing required. I use a general rule of thumb to define “over staffing” as 20% of the work force in all areas where work measurement is not done. This rule has been verified by data from Alexander Proudfoot implementations which found that from 17% to 20% overstaffing occurring in private companies. I have also found that this over staffing number may be significantly higher than 20% in government.

One of the reasons for this is that work assignments in a bureaucracy are usually made to individual employees (in an organization chart) regardless of the actual time required to do the job. This means that one employee may have a task that occupies 90% and another just 30% of his time. These inequalities show up during the process of Work Measurement. This problem goes away when a Lean Team is assigned these tasks because the Team has responsibility for finding the best way to get the task completed with no time lost. These staffing problems are mostly found in government but are also found in the office and other overhead areas in private companies.
See Article 148. Where Less is More Efficient Atlanta’s four-day Workweek, Article 198. Milam County Texas was Found to be Over Staffed by fifty Percent, Article 253. Reinventing Industry for Maximum Competitiveness and Article 254. Right-Sizing Manufacturing’s Dead Zone.

The third area where staffing is reduced is during the final step of the General Reform Model where the Bureaucratic hierarchically structured organization is changed to a Team Managed organization. In this process many managers may become redundant during the elimination of the Bureaucratic hierarchical structure of government and industry.

The above savings from process improvements and over staffing is in addition to other savings from Consolidating State Services, Streamlining Government Boards and Commissions, and through implementation of an Information Technology Data Center using Integrated Data Bases. See my articles 101, 102, 118, 120, 123, 152, 158, 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174.

Enough about savings what you really want to know is the return on investment. I have said in other places that the implementation of my Reform models could be done largely by the State’s own resources. That is the training for Lean could be done by the State’s Training Department. And the determination of staffing by auditors and budget analysts. The Federal Government and some states have put in place a hiring freeze making available HR personnel for training as Lean Facilitators. My estimate for ROI is about $100 return for each $1 invested. See Article 137. Role of Lean Facilitator and Budget Analyst.

Rule of Thumb for estimating State Savings
The following is the minimum expected savings only from staffing reductions for each state based on 20% of state payroll data from the US census bureau. Actual savings may vary with the application of the General Reform Model and from additional savings from the Consolidation Model (for consolidating agencies).

Alabama $181,800,000
Alaska 45,460,000
Arizona 234,120,000
Arkansas 96,160,000
California 1,901,380,000
Colorado 205,960,000
Connecticut 171,580,000
Delaware 39,880,000
Florida 656,520,000
Georgia 340,800,000
Hawaii 57,580,000
Idaho 51,540,000
Illinois 518,040,000
Indiana 224,520,000
Iowa 129,700,000
Kansas 120,060,000
Kentucky 147,560,000
Louisiana 162,400,000
Maine 50,480,000
Maryland 264,420,000
Massachusetts 292,060,000
Michigan 397,280,000
Minnesota 225,260,000
Mississippi 108,260,000
Missouri 202,440,000
Montana 35,520,000
Nebraska 76,660,000
Nevada 98,780,000
New Hampshire 50,440,000
New Jersey 501,520,000
New Mexico 82,840,000
New York 1,138,220,000
North Carolina 362,580,000
North Dakota 27,360,000
Ohio 458,120,000
Oklahoma 130,220,000
Oregon 147,240,000
Pennsylvania 454,340,000
Rhode Island 47,820,000
South Carolina 158,000,000
South Dakota 26,120,000
Tennessee 208,000,000
Texas 899,380,000
Utah 92,380,000
Vermont 28,480,000
Virginia 324,666,000
Washington 298,940,000
West Virginia 60,600,000
Wisconsin 216,840,000
Wyoming 33,000,000

Article 320. Proposal for Pilot Demo of Government Agency Reform

Letter of Transmittal: May 15, 2013
To: Federal Government Client
From: Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant

Subject: Proposal for a Pilot Demonstration for the Reform of a Federal Government Agency.
This proposal is for a pilot demonstration and implementation of a unique method of using Enterprise Lean with Lean Teams to get the highest efficiency with the most effectiveness within a Federal agency by bringing reform to the entire agency.

The method builds upon the implementation of Toyota’s Enterprise Lean with both high level Management Lean Teams studying agency systems and document flows and work place Functional Lean Teams studying all of the agencies functions involving all agency employees. The Lean Training of employees is done by agency training staff after a train-the-trainer program provided by a certified Lean trainer. The primary purpose of the Lean Teams is find the best way to perform the agencies functions getting the highest efficiency possible while improving the agencies effectiveness. An added benefit of Lean training is to empower employees for innovation and continuous improvement of their functions.

Currently when solving systems problems the Federal Government uses Lean Six Sigma specially trained internal consultants with tested capabilities with rankings such as Black belts at the highest level. They have special authority to interact at all levels of the military organization with express purpose of having access to the free flow of information. They can interact within themselves and with others to solve high level systems problems. But this is only on a project by project basis fixing one major system at a time within the military bureaucracy and between agencies. While the Systems are improved and there is a significant cost reduction resulting from the elimination of waste the approach does little to reform an entire agency making it more efficient and effective. This is accomplished in this proposal by implementing the General Reform Model developed by Lawrence Rosier.

Please Review the following Proposal of a demo of a Federal agency reform. This document is intended to be used to promote understanding and to start discussion on consulting activities and may be altered to fit required situations. The Federal Government may modify the attached Proposal to fit its specific needs.

Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant
Lawrence Rosier & Associates

PROPOSAL May 15, 2013
By Lawrence Rosier & Associates

This a Proposal for a Pilot demonstration of Federal Agency Reform
By Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant

This proposal is for the implementation of a pilot reform using the General Reform Model developed by Lawrence Rosier Principal Consultant to be implemented by a Federal Reform Commission in a selected agency. The Method implements Functional Lean Teams throughout the Agency. The Lean concept was developed by Toyota to involve employees in increasing the efficiency and the continuous improvement of their jobs. The benefits to the Government are from efficient and effective operations but also the change in the way government employees view their jobs empowering them to innovate and make continuous improvements to their jobs. The General Reform Model uses the data developed by the Lean Teams for Work Measurement and from that staffing and budgeting is determined. The objective of the General reform model is to get the highest efficiency possible and improve the effectiveness of the agency and turn a difficult major reform into a relatively smooth operation.

Goals:
The main goal is to maintain the services of the agency while getting the highest productivity possible and improve the effectiveness of the agency by empowering its employees through Lean training to innovate and make continuous improvement to the systems in their jobs. This is followed by Right-sizing the agency‘s staffing, the development of a bottoms-up budget and the change to a Team Management organization

The developed Lean Team data is used for right-sizing and the development of a bottoms-up budget the result is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency which may result in the reduction of agency staffing. A major benefit is the transparency to the Departmental Reform Commission of the Agency’s staffing budget. The “General Reform Model” is a approach designed Lawrence Rosier to accomplish these Goals.

Proposal Details:
I suggest a meeting to allow DOD leaders and staff members to become fully familiar with the logic of the method I am proposing using my General Reform Model.

The first step is the formation of a Departmental Reform Commission with broad powers to lead and implement reforms. I suggest that the Departmental Reform Commission be co-chaired by a top level representative of the Department and the GAO. This is necessary for legitimacy and to make sure that data developed through all Lean VSM data is accumulated in GAO databases. This is followed by the selection of the Agency where the Pilot Demonstration is to be implemented.

I suggest that the day to day activities of the implementation be co-chaired by the Management Consultant and a high level Department representative. The Department representative will be tasked with providing those employees who will participate in the implementation and their expenses such as equipment offices and meeting rooms. The Department representative shall be given the authority to prevent attempts to block this reform implementation.

The Management Consultant will form an Implementation Team with Budget Analysts and or Auditors on loan from the GAO and the Department’s Audit Division. The required number is entirely dependent on those who can be made available and the size of the Agency. I do not bring any of my own staff to the job but chose to train current employees as Budget Analysts and Lean Facilitators to fill key jobs during the implementation. The advantage is that the knowledge they acquire in managing the new methods will stay within the Department and will be used for other continuing implementations.

The first act of the Departmental Reform Commission and the Principal Consultant is in planning for the implementation of Lean Teams throughout the Agency. The purpose is to resolve issues related to Lean training, Facilitators, Budget Analysts and specifically what the Lean Teams must do to meet the requirements for determining staffing and budgets. I suggest that a Certified Lean trainer be brought in to train the agency’s training staff. Lean training should begin immediately by the Agency’s training staff. I also suggest that the Agency’s normal training curriculum be suspended and an all out effort be made for Lean Training of all personnel. Training should be made for staff members first followed by management and then Lean Facilitators. Lean facilitators organize and train each employee Lean Team work group which usually meets for one hour on a weekly basis. There are three major Lean Team endeavors, a high-level Steering Lean Team, a mid-level Lean team made up of mid-level managers to make document flows efficient and at-the-work-place Functional Lean Teams those who do the basic work of the Agency. The Steering Lean Team will report to the Principal Consultant and will assist in the management of the implementation.

The Steering Team also has an alternate task when required to consolidate the Agency’s internal Services as described in Lawrence Rosier’s Consolidation Model. Mid level Lean Teams are tasked to study inter-department and agency document flows.

After a period of about three to six months most Functional Lean Teams, those that were organized and trained by Facilitators, should have their Value Stream Analyses completed. I have had success with doing the flow of the current method on long butcher or brown wrapping paper taped around a conference room on the walls. The proposed improved method is done directly under the current method to highlight the differences between the methods. I would now allow the Lean Team to present the improved method to management. After the presentation the Lean study data is given to a Budget Analyst to determine the savings from the proposal.

Activities of the Principal Consultant:
The management consultant will play a key role in being sure that the Lean teams are properly trained and in the selection and approach of the high-level Lean teams. The Principal consultant will insure that the activities of Analysts currently employed by the GAO and Department Auditors can determine the correct staffing level through Work Measurement and any expenses needed during the process. Some Analysts may find the proper staffing for variable processes difficult to determine. If so the Principal Consultant will make this determination. This data combined with the number of occurrences of the Function over time, obtained from a daily log kept by each Lean Team, provides the basis for an accurate Functional budget. The data from the Lean study should be Transferred to a spreadsheet by the Budget Analysts and summarized in a database where all of the Agency’s Functional Data is stored. The activities of Budget Analysts are important and will be followed closely by the Principal Consultant.

The Consultant will make a final review of the data to determine the actual staffing required. Note that in most cases this is not a simple calculation due to variations in the times required to do some processes. Consolidation of Agency employees is required meaning most employees who currently do not have a full time job will have to be trained to also do a second job while other employees will become redundant. A Special skill is required in balancing the work load to give the remaining employees a full time job. This may be further complicated by jobs which continually change which will require the training of a Work Planner to balance the work load assignments for each employee on a weekly basis using six sigma as a management tool. This is also the period of time for Right-sizing the entire Agency once it is known where staffing can be reduced. Layoffs should be completed within three months.

Current knowledge about Bureaucratic staffing has shown that nearly all bureaucracies are overstaffed by at least 10% and most are overstaffed by as much as 20%. Savings to the Federal Government for this implementation is largely from the salaries and benefits of redundant employees. Long term benefits continue from employee empowerment to innovate and make continuous improvement to their jobs. Other benefits are from the simplification of government processes. The Return On Investment is expected to be significant and may reach as much as $100 for every $ 1 invested. After three months with the Pilot Demo projections for actual savings can be made.

Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant
Lawrence Rosier & Associates
Management Consultants Government Reform
12143 Cedar Grove Rd. Rolla, Missouri
Phone 573-364-8789 Cell 573-578-4716
http://managementconsultant.blogsome.com

Article 319. The Big Deception About Big Government

Reference: Issa on IRS Scandal: “Deliberate” Ideological Attacks
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, weighs in on allegations that the agency targeted conservative groups.

Comment by Lawrence Rosier
Regardless of what you think of the Tea Party movement and the IRS targeting them. The IRS targeted many groups which want smaller government. This is big government doing anything it can to prevent the public from knowing the truth about a gigantic bureaucratic wasteful and inefficient government.

There is an all out effort to deceive the public into thinking the government is operating efficiently and is not too large. Sequestration was a bad idea because it implemented across the board cuts including Air Traffic Controllers probably one of the few truly efficient government organizations. The Air Traffic Controller organization is naturally efficient. We know this because unmanned computers caused an instant shut down of domestic air traffic.

The problem is that the Federal Government lacks the tools for managing its bureaucracies. This is just starting to change with the implementation of Lean Six Sigma. But it has not yet implemented my recommendation for reform using my General Reform Model (GRM) which has as its first phase Enterprise Lean making government efficient and resulting in the development of management tools currently used in private industry.

What is happening is that the administration wants to prove to the public that when you cut services there exists an immediate decrease in services. What you are seeing across the nation is cuts in early childhood services, support for fire fighters and many other services which the public has grown to expect from the government. I believe that the targeting of “public visible services” is an orchestration of the administration to protect the bureaucratic big government.

Departmental organizations are known to be over staffed from 20% to 30% or more. We also know that it is nearly impossible to fire a government employee. The GAO has asked Congress to pass legislation enabling federal employees to be fired for committing fraud. If this is true then the statement that “government employees are rarely ever fired for any reason including for incompetence” is also true. I believe the IRS’s action to be an all out fight by big government to protect itself.
See articles:
Article 113. Private Versus Public Budgeting Practices
Article 121. Setting Standards and developing a Staffing Base
Article 133. Government Waste, Fraud, Abuse and Misspent Tax Dollars

Article 318. How Radical Connectivity Is Changing the Way Government Operates


“You hear people talk about the impact of the internet or mobile phones or social media but none of those words really capture what is going on. People today have enormous amounts of power in their phones, they are also connected to the internet at all times and that has real cascade ramifications in a lot of ways,” said Nicco Mele.

Mele is the author of the new book, The End of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goaliath. He told Chris Dorobek on the DorobekINSIDER program that right now we don’t have good ways of talking about what is going on with technology.
By Emily Jarvis on May 10, 2013.

Comments by Lawrence Rosier
The downsizing pressure on government is sparking a new revolution of innovation in government. This revolution is in the new technology of always being connected to your fellow workers and always being connected to the internet. Some government employees are making innovative changes rethinking how government does things which at times result in major changes to government. But for the most part government employees are changing the way government operates but the changes are isolated individual changes that are slow to be widely incorporated in government.

The problem with this type of innovation it is being done largely within a stuffy bureaucratic organization that is slow to adopt new ways of doing things. What is happening here is, as these innovations get incorporated and efficiency increases there is virtually no incentive for the bureaucratic organization to reduce employees. Government organizations almost never lay off employees for any reason even for criminal activity. Which means that over staffing is out of control with as much as 30% or more in office areas and the savings generated by innovation is lost.

The main problem is that government is budgeted from the Top-Down meaning that departmental bureaucracies do not known what its functions actual cost and there is no method to manage the organization on a cost basis at the functional level. Granted each individual innovation must prove itself by showing how it can save funds by the calculation of an R.O.I. these are isolated cost savings that are lost in the bureaucratic fog of the larger organization.

My recommended solution is in my General Reform Model
The implementation of my General Reform Model (GRM) is done in two major phases. The first is the Implementation of Toyota’s (TPS) aka Enterprise Lean. Enterprise Lean provides the cultural change that impacts the entire bureaucratic organization empowering employees to innovate and make continuous changes to their jobs. This process legitimizes the process for employee innovation.

The second phase uses the data developed in the first phase for: Right-Sizing (making sure each employee has a full time job) the organization and the implementation of a bottoms-up budget with proper management tools followed by the conversion of the Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization. The bottoms-up budget is built by adding the cost of each function of the organization to spreadsheets on i pads collected by a team of auditors. The i pads are all connected to a Google AP which adds the data to the summary spreadsheet which is always up to date in the collection and totaling of data. You may download an example data collection spreadsheet by clicking on the Link “Free Ebooks”.
Note that the above problem and solution also applies to the offices and overhead departments found in industry.
See the following articles:
Article 62. Enhanced Auditing a Tool for Government Reform
Article 64. Getting Efficient Government Through Enhanced Auditing
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 241. Bureaucracy Versus Team Management
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 253. Reinventing Industry for Maximum Competitiveness
Article 254. Right-Sizing Manufacturing’s Dead Zone
Article 257. Overview of Lean Application Environments
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 272. Options for Solving Bureaucratic Over Staffing
Article 278. Many Lean Programs Are Failing to Achieve the Highest Efficiency
Article 282. We are Entering the Age of Competitiveness
Article 284. Bureaucracies Manage Their Public Image Not the Peoples Business
Article 295. About Lawrence Rosier’s General Reform Model
Article 317. Adapting Enterprise Lean to American Companies and Governments

Article 317. Adapting Enterprise Lean to American Companies and Governments

The implementation of my General Reform Model (GRM) is done in two major phases. The first is the Implementation of Toyota’s (TPS) aka Enterprise Lean. The second phase uses the data developed in the first phase for: Right-Sizing (making sure each employee has a full time job) the organization, the implementation of a bottoms-up budget and proper management tools, followed by the conversion of the Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization. The result is a highly competitive organization. In the case of government no private organization will be able to compete with the productivity of the reformed public organization and still make a profit.

Failure to properly adapt Enterprise Lean

Most businesses and governments are taking Toyota’s successful use of Enterprise Lean just as Toyota uses it and directly copying it into their American company or government touting enormous claims of increased productivity. While there is much improvement in operations there remains a significant failure in achieving the full capability that Toyota has had. There are two main reasons for this, the first is that Toyota is a well managed company that probably has less than 5% overstaffing while over staffing in American companies may be as high as 15% to 20% or more. Since Toyota does not have this problem of overstaffing its TPS does not need to address this problem found mostly in company and government environments outside of Japan. The second reason is that American Companies and governments either are unaware of this problem or they completely ignore it.

A prime example of ignoring the problem is the implementation Enterprise Lean in the state of Minnesota and Iowa where Enterprise Lean was implemented a few years ago. The leaders of Minnesota’s Lean project and in Iowa have publicly stated that they will not reduce staffing based on the results of their Lean implementation. This makes the savings claims a complete hoax. Because at some point when you cannot find new jobs to place redundant employees the myth of bottom line savings becomes a fraud cheating taxpayers.

To correct this problem the second phase of my General Reform Model is necessary. Note that while the first phase of my GFM can be implemented by employees with the authorization of top management the second phase will require implementers lead from outside the organization either as consultants or a corporate level audit group. In the case of government I recommend that a high level Government Reform Committee be placed in charge of the GRM implementation. This is necessary because of something I call “the Long Arm of Revenge”. those involved in the second phase must be protected from retaliation from remaining employees after staffing reductions by being from outside of the organization either as consultants or audit employees. This leads to my recommendation that the budget data be stored in databases under the management of the corporate auditing group of a company or in the case of state government the state auditor’s office.

I further recommend that the state Auditor’s official mandate be expanded from auditing the expense of the state’s monetary resources to include the monitoring of the state’s efficiency including the maintenance of the state’s bottoms-up budget databases. This function in the Federal Government should be done by the GAO.
See the following Articles:
Article 62. Enhanced Auditing a Tool for Government Reform
Article 64. Getting Efficient Government Through Enhanced Auditing
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 241. Bureaucracy Versus Team Management
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 253. Reinventing Industry for Maximum Competitiveness
Article 254. Right-Sizing Manufacturing’s Dead Zone
Article 257. Overview of Lean Application Environments
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 272. Options for Solving Bureaucratic Over Staffing
Article 278. Many Lean Programs Are Failing to Achieve the Highest Efficiency
Article 282. We are Entering the Age of Competitiveness
Article 284. Bureaucracies Manage Their Public Image Not the Peoples Business
Article 295. About Lawrence Rosier’s General Reform Model

Article 316. Americans Will NEVER Have Affordable Health Care Under the Current System

Americans Will NEVER Have Affordable Health Care Under the Current System. The following is Senator McCaskill’s Reply.

Email from Senator McCaskill of Missouri
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) includes numerous provisions to keep health care costs down, promote prevention, and hold health insurance companies accountable. For example, the Affordable Care Act requires health insurance companies to cover Missourians with preexisting conditions, prohibits plans from putting annual or lifetime dollar limits on health insurance benefits, ensures that insurance companies justify double-digit premium increases, and requires insurers to spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on healthcare. The Affordable Care Act also allows young people to stay on their parents’ health coverage and provides for certain free preventive care services, including mammograms for women and wellness visits for seniors. In addition, the Affordable Care Act addresses the issue of “free riders” who show up in emergency rooms without healthcare coverage by requiring them to get coverage. Without coverage, free riders show up in emergency rooms, receive care and the rest of us end up paying their costs.

As you may know, on June 28, 2012, the United State Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for Americans to maintain minimum essential health coverage, or the “individual mandate,” was constitutional. The deciding vote in the matter and the author of the Supreme Court’s opinion was Chief Justice John Roberts, who is considered one of the most conservative justices in Supreme Court history.
Importantly, the mandate, as well as penalties that will be assessed on those who choose not to get insurance, will impact an extremely small number of Americans. Most Americans receive healthcare coverage either from their employer, Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Others already purchase insurance on their own. In fact, 94 percent of the total population of the United States would not have any requirement to newly purchase insurance or pay a fine. The majority of the remaining six percent of Americans want to purchase health insurance but have not been able to because of its cost or because they have preexisting health conditions that have caused insurance companies to discriminate against them. The Affordable Care Act, by providing assistance to these Americans and blocking discrimination based on preexisting conditions, will mean these Americans can finally access health care and won’t face any penalty. This means that the only people who will be assessed the “free rider penalty” will be the very small percentage of Americans, estimated at one percent, who can afford insurance but choose to let others — like you and me — bear the burden of paying for their healthcare when they get sick.

Comment by Lawrence Rosier
The main problem is that there is virtually no limits to what the cost of the Affordable Health Care will grow to be. This may not be obvious for the first year or too but when small businesses which have provided health care in the past start opting out due to the added costs. The burden will fall on those low paid employees to pay the health care tax. They will have no option but to pay or go the jail. I predict that the anger over having to pay or go to jail will cause a major tax revolt from all citizens in both political parties forcing cut backs in big government. If you review some of my articles over the years you will find that I am usually not wrong. But I have an approach which will avoid the growth in health care costs but must be implemented by the Federal Government along with The Affordable Health Care Act. See my Article 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable.


How to Get Affordable Healthcare

We should think of healthcare as a delivery system. We cannot afford to let excessive profits enter into any part of the delivery system or it will drive the cost of healthcare out of reach for Americans. I advocate a no frills public healthcare system in direct competition with private health care providers. As the system exists now private health care has no competition and will continue to inflate heath care costs to the point where no one can afford it. See Article 303. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us.

Focusing on Preventive Care

Preventive care focuses on public practices which cause diseases in the young and in later life. A healthier nation lowers the cost of health care more than any other cause.

Drug Profits
The balance between the development of new drugs and excessive drug profits must be addressed. One key factor in lowering drug costs is in preventing advertising of prescription drugs on TV. This is the source of as much as half of the drug’s cost.

Hospitals as Buildings

We need to separate health care from buildings, health care is more than just buildings. Elaborate hospitals with enormous atriums and waiting rooms with fish tanks makes health care so expensive we will all be immediately poverty stricken if we have to seek medical treatment in them. These are hospitals which specialize in diseases of the rich. And even the rich will be poor after a short stay. They should focus on providing the best health care and reduce the cost of the buildings.
See the following article on modular hospitals: Article 304. Reducing the cost of Health Care Delivery.

Health Specialization

When all hospitals have to have the latest equipment to treat all comers for all ailments and diseases we lose. No hospital can afford to provide the best treatment in all health areas for all people. Medical expertise with specialization will be part of the answer.

Doctor Training
We should open the doors for training of doctors from all over the world. We need more doctors in rural areas foreign doctors could fill this need.

Nurses Become Doctors
We should let experienced Nurses become General Practitioner Doctors by taking a special state board examination. See Article 56. Innovation in Health Care Nurses Become Doctors.

The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable
Americans simply can not afford or be expected to pay for a health care system that is the most wasteful and expensive in the world. The current health care waste from fraud and abuse has been passed to the public and not enough has been done to make the day to day health care processes themselves efficient and effective.

It does not have to be this way we can have affordable health care. We do not have to choose between raising taxes or cutting entitlements we can pursue a third alternative, eliminating the waste in our health care system and making health care efficient and effective. The Key is in providing an affordable alternative to private health care. To this end The US Government should pursue the development of a complete competitive Health Care alternative to private health care delivery systems.

My Solution For Affordable Health Care
The solution to making health care affordable is in recognizing that health care is not a naturally competitive business the public has no choice but to pay what ever private providers demand. Health Care may resemble a free market in large urban areas but for the rest of the country health care is controlled by large health care providers in localized areas with out any competition they can charge any thing they want only medicare limits what they can charge patients.

Therefore I recommend that a reformed Federal Government health care system must be developed to enter the health care field providing the most efficient and effective health care system in direct competition with private health care providers. The federal Government must be a laboratory which shows the way for private health care organizations making all facets of healthcare as affordable as possible. This is a complete reversal of what the public envisions when it thinks of public health care. What is not known is that Medicare has actually held the line in keeping down costs in its published limits for what recipients pay for medical procedures. Without these guidelines there would be no limits to what private health care could cost. See also Article 304. Reducing the cost of Health Care Delivery.

The approach presented here borrows efficiency and effectiveness tools used in private industry to fix the entire healthcare delivery system from government bureaucracies all the way down to the detailed emergency and operating rooms practices. The health care industry is just beginning to implement the Lean tools found in industry yet Congress has demonstrated a lack of understanding of how these tools can be used for reforming government and for fixing the Nation’s health care systems. This new approach for health care delivery makes the Public Health Delivery System an exemplary affordable system using the approach presented below.
See following articles.
Article 271. Health Care The Cheesecake Factory and Lean Six Sigma
Article 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable.

Article 303. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us
Article 304. Reducing the cost of Health Care Delivery

Article 315. Finding Where to Cut Government and Ending Sequestration

The Federal Government once again has proven itself to be inept with the implementation of sequestration across the board cuts. The reason across the board cuts were initiated is that the federal government refuses to acknowledge that it does not know where spending cuts can be made and still maintain services. The recent cuts to Air Traffic Controllers and subsequent refunding to avoid furloughing demonstrates this point. Air Traffic Controllers is precisely where you don’t want to make cuts because as anyone can see when computers are left unmanned services are unavailable and endangers the public. It is one of the few places in government where efficiency is easily seen and is probably one of the best managed parts of the Federal Government. Where inefficiency can not be seen is found mostly in the Federal Government’s Departmental bureaucratic office areas.

Alexander Proudfoot International Consulting firm, the leader in downsizing, has shown that private companies are overstaffed in their offices and other unmeasured areas by as much as 17% to 20%. Proudfoot brings in as many as one hundred consultants to time study all the activities in a company and determine the proper staffing required. Most manufacturing companies only time study their production lines and not support areas such as Production Control and office areas. Mismanagement resulting from over staffing can make a company noncompetitive the main reason for becoming a client of Alexander Proudfoot for downsizing. The Proudfoot alternative is much too costly for government agencies and there are better and less expensive ways of achieving the same goal.

What this means is that the Federal Government is probably over staffed by as much as 20% or more. The problem is that the government does not have a clue as to where this over staffing is occurring. And it does not use the Work Measurement tools needed for proper management. The best tool for improving enterprise wide efficiency was developed by Toyota.

The Use of Enterprise Lean

Toyota has over the years implemented its TPS (aka Enterprise Lean) throughout its manufacturing organization in its offices and its production lines. All of Toyota’s employees have received training in Lean and apply its principals daily. Enterprise Lean solves all of the inefficiency problems found at Toyota by empowering its employees to innovate and make continuous improvements in their jobs. This is why Toyota has become a major competitor for US automotive manufacturers. One can only imagine how competitive that Toyota can be when you consider that thousands of employees are making improvements to their jobs daily while US manufacturers use only a few industrial engineers to make improvements to their production systems.

There is a problem when adapting Enterprise Lean to government. When Enterprise Lean was implemented by Minnesota’s state government they overlooked the fact that over staffing at Toyota was virtually nonexistent probably less than 5% while Minnesota’s bureaucracies are most likely more than 20%. This difference must be adjusted to achieve any level of success with Enterprise Lean. This problem is solved by the implementation of Lawrence Rosier’s General Reform Model.

The General Reform Model

The goal of my General Reform Model is to get the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible by correcting the following problems:

Phase 1.
Implement Enterprise Lean Teams in all government agencies to empower personnel to innovate and make continuous improvement to their jobs this fixes all government functional systems getting the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible.

Phase 2.
Uses specially trained Budget Analysts (trained by the Principal Consultant) to review the Lean Team VSM data developed in Phase 1. for Right-Sizing (making sure all employees have a full time job) and for the development of a Bottoms-up Budget. This corrects the problem of not knowing where to make cuts by making all government function’s costs transparent to DOD Budgeting personnel.

Phase 3.
This phase changes the Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization further increasing productivity and eliminating a source of fraud and waste. Annual savings for the General Reform Model is estimated to be $300 billion with an implementation cost of less than one percent of the annual savings.

The implementation of the General Reform Model can be done at minimum expense using the Government’s own personnel. I Recommend that a pilot implementation of my General Reform Model be done first. The pilot would be co-chaired by the Principal Consultant and a Representative from the GAO. See Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency.

See also the following articles:
Article 137. Role of Lean Facilitator and Budget Analyst
Article 170. Four Government Reform Models
Article 219. Proposal for Federal Government Reform Agency by Agency,
Article 224. How the Book “Banishing Bureaucracy” Can be Improved Using Lean
Article 232. Proposal for Defense Contractor Office Reform
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 269. The REINS Act- Part 1. of Three Major Federal Government Reforms
Article 285. The Military Bureaucracy and Enterprise Lean
Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up Budgeting
Article 295. About Lawrence Rosier’s General Reform Model

Article 314. The World is Looking to America for Leadership

Despite all the hatred of Americans the world is waiting for America to give it direction and lead it to a new prosperity. What happened with the “Arab Spring” was not without cause young people in these countries through television had tasted freedom from poverty and dictatorial rule. And with a vision of prosperity and freedom rose up to reclaim their future only to find the realities of historical hatreds blocking their vision of freedom. But the desire for a better life is not just happening in Arab countries it is happening throughout the world everywhere poverty and oppression is occurring. The key problem is how do you maintain a stable economy, it doesn’t have to be a thriving economy, during and after political change.

Europe and the Western world countries are looking for the American economy to pull the world out of its economic problems and bring back the good times of peace and prosperity. The question for American is how can we fix our own economy, bolster the European economy and then stabilize the economies in the rest of the world.

The major lesson to be learned from the recession is that when there is a world wide recession normally stable European and other nations are in jeopardy if they are not being managed properly. The best example of this is when we compare the German economy with that of other mismanaged governments such as Greece and Spain. In comparison we have Germany with a stable exporting market for its goods and Greece and Spain with economies based on big government existing largely on the influx of funds from tourism. Clearly for America with a big centralized government makes it more like Greece and Spain and yet it has the manufacturing capabilities of a Germany.

The key problem with the US government is that it is poorly managed. Congress has not dealt with the massive waste identified by the GAO and the bureaucracies do not have the proper tools found in private business to manage government. Clearly government reform is needed to reduce the waste and inefficiency found in our government.

The solution to the problem of rebuilding the US economy that the world is looking for can be found in making our industries and governments both state and Federal less wasteful and more efficient.

The Reforms which I have proposed using my General Reform Model can be adapted to any special requirements found in industry and government to make them more efficient. Please read this key article: Article 282. We are Entering the Age of Competitiveness.

See also the following articles:
Article 207. Changing the Budgeting Balance to Get the Highest Government Efficiency
Article 216. Building Government Service Agencies From The Ground Up
Article 217. Proposal for Consolidation of Federal Government Duplicated Agencies
Article 218. Proposal for Florida and California State Government Reform
Article 219. Proposal for Federal Government Reform Agency by Agency
Article 220. The Most Costly False Assumption Made by Government Leaders
Article 223. Example Consolidation of County and Local Governments in Missouri
Article 234. Using Lean As a Powerful Decision Making Tool for Consolidation
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 240. Reinventing City and County Governments
Article 241. Bureaucracy Versus Team Management
Article 243. Using Lean to Dramatically Improve City Government
Article 253. Reinventing Industry for Maximum Competitiveness
Article 254. Right-Sizing Manufacturing’s Dead Zone
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 272. Options for Solving Bureaucratic Over Staffing
Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency
Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up Budgeting
Article 291. When Government Reaches The Point of Critical Mass
Article 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable
Article 300. Approach for the Total Reform of the US Government
Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government
Article 307. The US Government is in Need of Reform NOW!

Article 313. Lean: The Foundation for Entrepreneurial Spirit Leadership

Lean provides the foundation for the Entrepreneurial Spirit by making industry and government systems and processes efficient and effective. This leaves a firm foundation for the Entrepreneurial Leader to make the right management decisions for the future of industry and government organizations. But Lean can also be used in examining alternatives as a part of the Entrepreneurial Spirit decision making process.

The Entrepreneurial Spirit leadership was big in the 1980’s and 1990’s in the nation’s industries motivating the nation’s industrial leaders to think outside of the box and lead their companies to profits and success. The objective of the Entrepreneurial spirit was to recapture the innovative competitive leadership found in startup companies.

The Entrepreneurial Spirit soon found its way into government with Margret Thatcher as its champion in the UK. Her style of leadership was in privatizing UK industry and making the companies competitive in world markets. Many credit her for saving the UK from disaster others on the side of the unions have an entirely different opinion of her. The following book was meant to show how the Entrepreneurial Spirit could be adapted to government.

“Banishing Bureaucracy -The Five Strategies For Reinventing Government” by David Osborne and Peter Plastrik published by the Plume Group 1998. The book was written to provide insight into how to implement the entrepreneurial spirit found in his previous important book: “Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector” by Osborne and Gaebler. Apparently Osborne’s first book left readers trying to invent ways of getting to the desired outcome. To fill this need he came up with the Five Strategies. I recommend that those interested in reinventing government read these two excellent books.

Comments by Lawrence Rosier
The details for implementing the authors’ strategies were subjective and depended to a large extent on the unique culture of the organization. Therefore the book is lacking in a common single set of steps which can be followed. But the book does give examples of how implementation was approached by differing implementers such as Margaret Thatcher.

From the book in regard to the strategies:
“There were many things the civil servants would never have done on their own, and there was an equal number of things the politicians would never have done on their own.” “By strategy, we do not mean detailed plans. There is no recipe you can follow to reinvent government, no step by step progression you must adhere to.”

Obviously the authors had never heard about Enterprise Lean the first phase of my General Reform Model and the foundation for the Entrepreneurial Spirit. The General Reform Model provides the guidance for Civil Servants and Politicians to follow by providing the missing “step by step progression you can adhere to”. Lean provides the foundation for the Entrepreneurial Siprit by making industry and government systems and processes efficient and effective. This leaves a firm foundation for the Entrepreneurial Leader to make the right management decisions in the future of industry and government organizations.
See Article 224. How the Book “Banishing Bureaucracy” Can be Improved Using Lean.

Using Lean to Solve Complex Systems problems
The Lean process can be used as a decision making tool for solving complex systems problems. By using Lean to examine possible alternatives it can help in selecting the best alternative. Lean makes sure that the systems being examined are at the highest efficiency possible. This is a bottoms-up process based on the results of previous cost effective decisions as elements of the final main decision.

Using Lean in the Author’s Consolidation Model
Lean can be used as a powerful decision making tool when it is necessary to consolidate government bureaucratic organizations. The major problem in any consolidation is that you have heavily invested bureaucratic organizations that have similar activities and in some cases duplicated activities. In the past these organizations where thrown together causing significant animosity and bitter turf battles resulting in even greater inefficiency. The real problem is that reformers do not have detailed knowledge of how each organization’s functions actually work. Without this knowledge they are unable to make the necessary comparison decisions for evaluation of organization functions. Using Lean as a decision making tool solves this problem.
See the following articles for the Step by Step Implementation of the Consolidation Model:
Article 234. Using Lean As a Powerful Decision Making Tool for Consolidation
Article 235. Using Six Sigma a Powerful Quality Tool
Article 236. Leveraging Enterprise Lean Throughout Government


How to Make Decision Making Efficient

All work involves continuous decision making it is just that we are so unaware of the routine decisions that we make that we don’t recognize them as decisions. Even first time decisions can have a preset approach that can lead to more efficiency. When others are involved in making open broad decisions consider the following process:

1. Prepare for the meeting by visualizing possible alternatives then write down the key impact items for each alternative. Try to assess the size of each impact item and determine where more information is required.

2. In the meeting bring up each of the possible alternatives and call for other alternatives. Review the key impact items for each alternative and quickly eliminate nonviable alternatives. Try to narrow the alternatives to two or three and end the meeting by identifying all the key items where background data is required. The final decision will be based on the results of the background data which may be the results of a Lean study. In the above approach you should allow time for first time decisions but you should never try to put a time limit on them because the quality of the decision outweighs the time spent in making the decision.

Routine decisions are entirely a different matter they can be efficiently made. The following is an example of routine decision making:

A roofing company that replaces asphalt shingles on homes provides estimates to customers. The estimates involve mostly routine decisions. When rare first time decisions are made they quickly become another routine decision. The key impact items in each decision are: driving distance; one story or two story; roof slope, low or high; number of gables; and type of shingles, simple or special. Estimates can be calculated using a simple matrix chart format allowing the estimate to be simply picked off the charts and totaled during a phone call with a customer. Note that all first time decisions are added to the matrix charts and become routine in future estimates. You can think of most first time decisions as simply a routine decision with some new added element.

Lower level decision making, those made by Lean Teams focused on improving their work processes, are another example of first time decisions. Decisions should be pushed down in the organization as far as practical.

Article 312. The Hole in the Boston Marathon Defenses

I hate Monday morning quarterbacks but some things need to be pointed out lest we make the same mistake again. by Lawrence Rosier

A critical mistake was made in the defenses against a terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon. Remember the surveillance camera showing the two brothers walking casually into the public viewing areas. Each of them leaden with a backpack carrying bombs. This would not have been possible if every person entering had been screened by bomb sniffing dogs. Police used bomb sniffing dogs to search and clear the public viewing areas before the race began but apparently not with the crowd itself after the front runners had crossed the finish line and the race was nearly over. Terrorists casing the previous races would have noted this flaw in the defenses. All they had to do is walk in when the race was nearly over, deposit the bombs in pre-selected places, leave making a cell phone call to set off the bombs and escape during the turmoil after the bombs exploded. This violates a known rule of terrorists to kill as many Americans as possible but opportunity prevailed just as the race was nearly over.

A note about the 9,000 law enforcement officers at the scene making a slow methodical search for bomber number two and after hours not finding him. If the bomber had not left blood on the boat cover he could have eluded police after night fall.

A recent study has shown that twenty bomb sniffing dogs can be as effective as one surveillance officer. If this is the case then about one thousand police with dogs would have been more effective than the 9,000 law enforcement officers and the bomber would probably have been found within a couple of hours.

If dogs are so effective then why not train dogs in wolf packs a natural hunting instinct. The pack can be trained to respond to commands from high pitched whistles silent to human ears. The pack should be trained well enough to be handled by a single human. Dog packs could cut the time to find a suspect by hours using the scent of the suspect. In the case of bomb sniffing dogs a single human handler would probably be a better choice. In this instance several dog packs could probably have found the suspect within an hour.
See also:
Article 94. Reforming FEMA and Homeland Security
Article 120. Collaborative Innovation between States and Federal Government

Article 311. Sequestration An Unnecessary Attack on Government Employees

The US Congress has demonstrated their highest incompetence by the implementation of sequestration a completely unnecessary attack on government employees and the American public by cutting services. The across the board cuts affecting all of government does almost nothing to alleviate government problems and instead it compounds government problems obscuring solutions that are vitally needed to fix the government and achieve a balanced budget.

Now Congress has passed a bill providing funds to prevent the furlough of Air Controllers. The intent was to punish the public for not increasing taxes by creating chaos and delays in flight schedules. This was done while ignoring gross over-staffing in administrative offices known to be as much as 20% or more. The action may have been intended to embarrass House Republicans but will probably backfire when the public becomes aware that they are being held hostage for an increase in taxes.

The sequestration was to cut $58 billion from the budget while the GAO has identified more than $100 billion in waste. If an all out focus on the elimination of waste had been pursued rather than sequestration none of the pain and misery resulting from the implementation of sequestration would exist. Congress has ignored GAO recommendations for years now it is time to acknowledge the GAO’s role in the Reform of the US Government. See Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal.

The present big bureaucratic government is not the fault of current government employees they are victims of an obsolete inefficient bureaucratic system long in need of reform by Congress. The reason that reforms are difficult to implement is that the bureaucratic leaders would not only lose their power but many would vary likely lose their jobs. When budget cuts occur with the top bureaucratic leaders firmly in control layoffs will mostly occur at the bottom of the organization starting with the newly hired while those at the top of the organization retain their jobs.

Recommendations the Federal Government Should Follow

The way to achieve a balanced budget is to recognize that it is a part of a much larger problem requiring the implementation of government reforms which eliminate waste and makes government efficient. Reforms are necessary because the Federal Government has never been properly managed it needs the tools used private industry. The two Key tools I recommend are Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean (as a part of my General Reform Model). See the following articles: Article 297. Sequestration Suggestions for the Defense Department.

Recommendation One:
Implement an all out program to eliminate fraud and waste. I suggest that the Federal Government implement a Two Pronged approach. Congress should implement laws curtailing all waste with stiff punishment by firing and jail time, most fraud and waste goes unpunished today.

The second thrust should be to eliminate duplicated responsibility and duplicated activities by the implementation of the author’s “Consolidation Reform Model” using Enterprise Lean. See articles:
Article 215. How Many Government Agencies do We Really Need?
Article 216. Building Government Service Agencies From The Ground Up Article 217. Proposal for Consolidation of Federal Government Duplicated Agencies.
Article 210. The Stench of Bureaucracy And the end of Bureaucratic Complexity
Article 296. Top 50 Government Fraud and Waste Report


Recommendation Two:

The second is to make high level government systems more efficient by implementing Lean Six Sigma on a massive scale throughout the Federal Government. This approach has been proposed by Strongamericanow.com to bring in Lean Six Sigma Consultants to make systems like “Hardware Delivery Systems” more efficient. I also recommend that the DOD use its own trained US Army Lean Six Sigma internal consultants in an all out effort to fix High Level government Systems. Lean Six Sigma is implemented to make high level systems more efficient and is applied to selected individual systems.
See articles:
Article 266. Strong America Now’s Plan
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 269. The REINS Act- Part 1. of Three Major Federal Government Reforms

Recommendation Three:
After the US Government agencies have as been made smaller and Leaner we are ready to implement Lawrence Rosier’s “General Reform Model”. The General Reform Model should be implemented after most waste and duplicated activities have been eliminated to avoid making the production of waste more efficient. Enterprise Lean is the first phase of the author’s General Reform Model. The Federal Government can save nearly all of its priority programs from cuts those that have been deemed necessary by implementing Enterprise Lean where relevant throughout government agencies. The implementation of the General Reform Model can be done at minimum expense using an agency’s own personnel. I Recommend that a pilot implementation of my General Reform Model be done first. The pilot would be co-chaired by the Principal Consultant and a Representative from the GAO. See Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency.

Comparison of Lean Approaches and How they Are Used
Lean Six Sigma is implemented to make high level systems more efficient and is applied to selected individual systems on system by system basis. Enterprise Lean is used for reforming an organization making a permanent culture change empowering employees to innovate and make continuous improvements to their jobs.

The General Reform Model
The goal of my General Reform Model is to get the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible by correcting the following problems:

Phase 1.
Implement Enterprise Lean Teams in all government agencies to empower personnel to innovate and make continuous improvement to their jobs this fixes all government functional systems getting the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible.

Phase 2.
Uses specially trained Budget Analysts (trained by the Principal Consultant) to review the Lean Team VSM data developed in Phase 1. for Right-Sizing (making sure all employees have a full time job) and for the development of a Bottoms-up Budget. This corrects the problem of not knowing where to make cuts by making all government function’s costs transparent to Budgeting personnel.

Phase 3.
This phase changes the Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization further increasing productivity and eliminating a source of fraud and waste. Annual savings for the General Reform Model is estimated to be $300 billion with an implementation cost of less than one percent of the annual savings.
See the following articles:
Article 137. Role of Lean Facilitator and Budget Analyst
Article 170. Four Government Reform Models
Article 219. Proposal for Federal Government Reform Agency by Agency,
Article 224. How the Book “Banishing Bureaucracy” Can be Improved Using Lean
Article 232. Proposal for Defense Contractor Office Reform
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 269. The REINS Act- Part 1. of Three Major Federal Government Reforms
Article 285. The Military Bureaucracy and Enterprise Lean
Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up
Budgeting
Article 295. About Lawrence Rosier’s General Reform Model

Article 300. Approach for the Total Reform of the US Government
Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal
Article 319. The Big Deception About Big Government
Article 320. Proposal for Pilot Demo of Government Agency Reform
Article 321. Estimating Savings From the Lawrence Rosier Approach
Article 322. WARNING to All Federal Government Employees

Article 310. What You Can do NOW to Save Your Government Job!

With the current cutbacks Government Employees are being asked “To Do More With Less”. But the real question you should ask yourself is “How Can I Do More With More Innovation”? On the job innovation is what is needed and you are the expert in doing your job. Now is the time to think outside the box and make a real contribution. Toyota’s TPS is all about individual and Team contributions to job improvement find out about this important Lean process and save your job.

Government has never had the tools used in private industry for proper management, it does not do “Work Measurement”, in most cases it has no idea how long a task should take. Without these tools the government cannot identify who its most efficient and valued employees are. So when it comes time to make budgetary cuts the government can be completely arbitrary in its determination of who gets to keep their jobs and who gets cut.

Now that we know that Federal job cuts are coming here is what I recommend. Be proactive convince your department head that fundamental changes in the way your department is organized and operates can reduce the severe cuts that are coming. The strategy is to catch those that are doing the cutting off-guard with the reforms that you are making in your department and convince them you are on the leading edge of reform.

The Author’s Recommendations

Step 1. Implement Lean Teams throughout your department.
Introduce Lean to the department by providing a one day Lean seminar for all employees.
Appoint Lean Facilitators (I recommend HR personnel because they are not hiring new employees) to help organize and implement Lean Teams one for each major function performed in your department. Each facilitator can work with about twenty Functional Lean Teams each week.

Each Facilitator will meet once a week for an hour with a Lean Team until the Team can function on its own. At the first Meeting the facilitator will: explain the Lean process to the team, elect the team leader by secret ballot, and deliver supplies (rolled paper and markers) for doing the Lean Value Stream Mapping (VSM) study.

The role of the supervisor of the function.
Usually he is not included in the function’s Lean team but is included in a higher level Management Lean Team that examines the systems flow of documents or materials through the Department.

Step 2. The Lean Teams will conduct a VSM study of all the department’s functions.
It is important that ALL of the departments functions be included in the VSM Lean studies both by Management Lean Teams and Functional Lean Teams.

The Author’s Approach to Value Stream Mapping (VSM)

Each Lean Team will begin their VSM study by unrolling about 30 feet of brown wrapping paper and taping it to the conference room wall. The Current method will be done first starting at the top left end of the wrapping paper followed by the Improved method just below the completed current method. Each step of the function’s process will be documented on typing paper using marking pens and taped to the wrapping paper in the order that the process is done. The value to the customer of each process will be assessed those that are of low value will be eliminated if possible. The cost of Each process in expenses and labor is calculated and documented for each step.

When the current process and the improved process are completed the two are compared to determine the cost savings and the VSM study is presented to Management by the Lean Team. The VSM study data is turned over to a Budget Analysts for documentation.

Step 3. Role of the Budget Analyst.
The Budget Analyst will determine the expense and staffing required for each function. The study data is documented and accumulated until a bottoms-up budget has been completed for all departmental functions.

Step 4. The department is converted from a Bureaucracy to a Team Managed Organization.
The process of converting from a Bureaucracy to a Team Managed Organization is already done by authorizing the Management Team Leaders and the Functional Team Leaders as responsible for the management of the department.

Step 5. Final determination of Staffing and Budgets.
For each function determine the number of occurrences in a year. Multiply the occurrences by the total expenses and the converted man hours (Total annual man hours for the function x 1.25% = staffing) to determine the required annual staffing for this function and the bottoms-up budget for this function (This is a bare bones budget that does not include overhead and supervision).

Step 6. Develop a Weekly Work Plan.
In most cases where the number of occurrences of functions vary and are not predictable I recommend that a Weekly Work Plan be developed and followed by the functional teams.

With the addition of overhead to the bottoms-up budget you can develop a bottoms-up budget for the department that reflects how many managers and employees are needed to run the department. I have developed a spread sheet that can be used by the Budget Analyst to accumulate and document the VSM data. As the data is being accumulated the names of personnel working on each function and their contribution to the work of the function is also documented. This data is used for Right-Sizing the department (making sure each employee ha a full time job).

This approach will protect your job if you are among the thousands of government employees who work efficiently every day because it recognizes your contributions and identifies those employees who don’t have a real job. It could also prevent the entire department from being eliminated. If you decide to do this and need help remember I am only an email away. Lawrence Rosier cell 573 578 4716 lawrencerosier4@gmail.com

Down load the example Budget Analyst spread sheet by clicking on the link: “Free Ebooks” and see the following articles for more information:
Article 11. Adaptation of Manufacturing Quality Improvement Techniques to Achieve Efficient Government
Article 12. Using Work Measurement in Government Reform
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 241. Bureaucracy Versus Team Management
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 272. Options for Solving Bureaucratic Over Staffing
Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency
Article 288. Team Management’s Cross Discipline Teams
Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up Budgeting
Article 294. A Plan for Dramatically Improving Departmental Efficiency
Article 295. About Lawrence Rosier’s General Reform Model
Article 305. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!

Article 309. Why Not PINK BELTS in Lean Six Sigma

The federal government has just authorized a new Supplier for teaching Lean Six Sigma. This new online supplier, SixSigma.us, offers on line training in Six Sigma. This is an example of how government organizations go after new fads that they think can solve all its problems. It is important that we examine just how Lean Six Sigma should be used, what it does and what it does not do.

Six Sigma.us is now on the GSA schedule as an approved vendor!
It is now easier than ever for government agencies to register and complete training with Six Sigma.us. After a long anticipated wait, we are now officially a member of the GSA schedule and an approved vendor. You may search and register for our training for yourself, a department, or a group. This includes our onsite, online, blended, and classroom training.

White Belt Webinars
Yellow Belt Training
Yellow Belt Webinars
Green Belt Training
Black Belt Training
Master Black Belt Champion Training

WHY NOT A PINK BELT!

The way I see it you either known how to use Lean Six Sigma or you don’t. So what are all the colorful levels for; besides a good way of getting the Federal Government to fund more training.

Statistical process control has been around since the 1930s with thousands of people trained to apply the process mostly to manufacturing processes. The best example is in the grinding of automotive crank shafts. Sensors would alert monitoring personnel if the process gos out of control by the viewing the statistical bell shape graph. The graph tells if the size of the crank shaft is going out of limits measured in sigmas. When this happens the grinding process is shutdown and the grinding wheels are replaced. Anyone with training in this area is a qualified green belt the black belt comes from experience in applying the process. Again what are all the other colors for if not for extracting funding for training from the Federal Government.

This is a good example of what is being called cherry picking of Lean tools which focus on only a part of the massive waste found in government. Yes, Lean Six Sigma is a valid Lean tool and I fully agree with the Us Army’s linking of Lean to Six Sigma. I also agree that formal training is needed to properly use Six Sigma. But if you completely ignore Toyota’s use of Lean in its (TPS) Toyota’s Production System you have left out a major part of Lean which can be done by anyone who has the minimum Lean training. See Article 238. Cherry-picking Lean Tools Methods.

The use of Lean six Sigma
If you separate Lean from Six Sigma you will find that the Lean part can be done properly by anyone as long as you match the difficulty of the problem at hand with the level of expertise of the user. Six sigma is a sophisticated Statistical Process Control tool that requires specialized training in its use. When Lean is Linked to Six Sigma it becomes a specialized tool that is best used for solving problems in highly specialized systems and in managing those systems. These are mostly found in weapons delivery systems between suppliers and the military user. Lean is used for solving these high level systems problems and Six Sigma is used in managing the systems.

The Use of Enterprise Lean
Toyota has over the years implemented its TPS (Toyota Production System aka Enterprise Lean) throughout its manufacturing organization in its offices and its production lines. All of Toyota’s employees have received training in Lean and apply its principals daily. Enterprise Lean solves all of the inefficiency problems found at Toyota by empowering its employees to innovate and make continuous improvements in their jobs. This is why Toyota has become a major competitor for US automotive manufacturers. One can only imagine how competitive that Toyota can be when you consider that thousands of employees are making improvements to their jobs daily while US manufacturers use only a few industrial engineers to make improvements to their production systems.

Lean Six Sigma should be targeted for high level systems where there is a very significant reward in savings. Enterprise Lean should target all the rest of the processes in government. Used together all of the systems found in government can be made more efficient. See Article 278. Many Lean Programs Are Failing to Achieve the Highest Efficiency, and Article 285. The Military Bureaucracy and Enterprise Lean.

Enterprise Lean has other uses. I have developed a General Reform Model which uses Enterprise Lean as a first phase to get the highest efficiency possible in government systems. See Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government, Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency, and Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up Budgeting.

Article 308. Why there is Not Enough State Funds for Education

By Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant
In nearly every state the question arises “why is there not enough funds for education?”. The answer is really quite simple a large chunk of all State revenues goes to waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. But instead of fixing these problems it is easier to cut education funding because the public will nearly always vote for new taxes to fund education. The funds are there for education but it is in the form of waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. See Article 258. Missouri’s Governor Fails in Budgeting Solutions.

There are three classes of government waste: The “Visible Waste” which anyone can see, “Mismanagement Waste” and finally “Bureaucratic Waste” the daily unseen waste of manpower and expenses that is seldom seen by the public.

Waste:
Funds are wasted or misappropriated as an on going continuous stream some being diverted from education to legislators’ pet projects. The public votes for school funding but when the revenue arrives it is quietly diverted to other projects. In many states Gambling was made legal so revenues could fund schools but after a year or two the gambling revenues were diverted to more pressing needs.

Mismanagement:
Mismanagement is very hard to prove and goes unnoticed by the public unless large amounts of funds are missing. Few in the public have any idea of how much the losses to the state really are. This compounds the need for introducing oversight and auditing essentially sweeping the losses under the rug. For example: One of the largest mismanaged areas in disposing of unused state properties where State unused buildings are sold at fire sale prices. See Article 215. How Many Government Agencies do We Really Need?

Inefficiency:

No subject is less understood by the public than inefficiency. For many this means making government employees work harder and this may be true if the management tools needed to make government work are not in place. Bureaucracies are not seen as the most wasteful form of government organization that could be developed mainly because they are the only form of organization used in government. But state governments are beginning to change Maryland has introduced Team Management in some state departments.

The question of how to get more funds for schools without raising taxes is best answered by stopping the losses in: waste, mismanagement and inefficiency.

How to Stop the Losses In Waste

Stopping the loss of state funds through auditing has been reasonably successful. But most Legislatures need to enact laws that punishes fraud.

How to Stop the Losses In Mismanagement

Mismanagement by the misuse of manpower and state resources goes unquestioned. The best way to prevent this is through the use of Lean Six Sigma.

In special cases where similar activities are done by more than one organization the Author recommends that his Consolidation Reform Model be implemented. See Article 216. Building Government Service Agencies From The Ground Up and Article 217. Proposal for Consolidation of Federal Government Duplicated Agencies.


How to Stop the Losses in Inefficiency

The best way to bring efficiency into government is through the authors General Reform Model with the first phase the implementation of Enterprise Lean.
See following articles on state government reform:
Article 218. Proposal for Florida and California State Government Reform
Article 221. Proposal to Get the Highest Efficiency Possible at MoDOT
Article 222. Local Government and County Consolidation in Ohio
Article 223. Example Consolidation of County and Local Governments in Missouri
Article 226. Reinventing Texas Government to Operate Like a Private Business
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 240. Reinventing City and County Governments
Article 241. Bureaucracy Versus Team Management
Article 245. Consolidation of Missouri Counties into Districts and Metro Cities
Article 246. Balancing Missouri’s Budget Without Knowing Where Waste is Located
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up Budgeting.

Article 307. The US Government is in Need of Reform NOW!

By Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant

While America is wringing its hands with indecisiveness over the sequestration across the board cuts the government wallows in waste. There are three classes of government waste: The “Visible Waste” which anyone can see, “Mismanagement Waste” mostly between government contractors and the Federal Government and finally “Bureaucratic Waste” the daily unseen waste of manpower and expenses that is seldom seen by the public.

Congress seems to be petrified with inactivity stymied by the choice of either raising taxes or cutting public services. But there is a third solution: the elimination of waste and mismanagement and making government efficient. This can be accomplished by the implementation of efficiency tools that have been successfully used in private industry. They are Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean (aka Toyota’s TPS).
Lean Six Sigma is being used successfully by state governments to fix systems problems on a system by system basis. The US Army has successfully used Lean Six Sigma to fix high level systems in the DOD.
Enterprise Lean has been implemented by several state governments to change the culture of government empowering employees to innovate and make continuous improvement in their jobs.

Fixing Visible Waste Problems
Clearly Congress has allowed government bureaucracies to waste $billions in the activities of their management and individual employees who are not held accountable. Much government credit card theft goes unpunished by bureaucratic management. New Laws by Congress are needed to prevent fraud and prosecute felons.

Fixing Mismanagement Problems
The US Army has been using Lean Six Sigma to fix high level systems, to make improvements to and correct mismanagement at the higher levels of government. All government high level systems need to be reviewed for improvement using Lean Six Sigma.

Fixing Bureaucratic Waste Problems with Government Reform
Besides the waste caused by the bureaucratic organization itself the main problem with government is that is does not have the budgetary tools to manage properly. In Industry the exact cost of all manufacturing components of a product are known and when labor and material costs get out of line management can immediately take corrective action. This is facilitated by what I call a Bottoms-Up Budget. But in government we have a Top-Down Budget. Congressional budget leaders negotiate with agencies over their budget with no one knowing what the actual cost for labor and expenses really are. This causes significant budget waste when budgets are determined and leaves the bureaucracy without a needed management tool. The result is problems are being solved by dumping money on the problem.

Historical Government Reform Efforts

The Book “Banishing Bureaucracy -The Five Strategies For Reinventing Government” by David Osborne and Peter Plastrik published by the Plume Group 1998. The book was written to provide insight into how to implement the entrepreneurial spirit found in the previous important book: “Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector” by Osborne and Gaebler. Although the authors were on the right track with “Entrepreneurial Spirit” the Five strategies turned out to be confusing for public reformers and reforming government was soon forgotten. What was missing was a single step by step method which could be applied to government and achieve the highest results. The author Lawrence Rosier has put forward his General Reform Model to fill this vacancy.

The General Reform Model

The author’s General Reform Model is a step by step approach which any government can follow to correct the above problems ending with a government with the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible.
Steps of the Reform:
1. The formation of a Legislative Reform Commission to oversee the implementation of all government reforms. I recommend that each Federal Department reform implementation be managed by a Reform Implementation Committee chaired by the GAO. It is important to note that few government organizations have ever implemented satisfactory self reform.

2. Implementation of Enterprise Lean, brings a cultural change by training all relevant employees in Lean Teams to use Lean tools empowering them to innovate making continuous improvements to their work functions.

3. Documentation of the Lean Team’s improved methods and the labor time to do each function is done by GAO Budget Analysts with special training. All of the Government’s Lean data is stored and maintained in GAO databases and is used for staffing and the development of a bottoms-up budget. The data is used in the next step for Right-Sizing the organization.

4. The Budget Analysts Right-Size the employee work force to fit the workload making sure each employee has a full time job. Team members are cross trained with the capability of doing multiple jobs within their expertise.

5. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling is used to improve efficiency by grouping functions by skill level and expertise. This is followed by the development of a weekly Work Load Plan. As actual data is developed the plan is revised for continuous improvement.

6. In the final step the Bureaucratic organization is replaced with a Team Managed organization getting even greater efficiency eliminating the toxic management problems found in many bureaucracies. By this time the Lean Teams have acquired enough experience to manage their own work processes.

The author’s General Reform Model uses Government employees to make the reforms with training by only a few outside consultants familiar with the Lean tools and private management methods. The author recommends that a pilot implementation be made in a DOD agency to streamline the process and incorporate lessons learned. The US Army has expertise in Lean Six Sigma and the capability to support an Enterprise Lean implementation.

One estimate of the annual savings to the Federal Government from using Lean is given at $500 billion by Newt Gingrich and others. This overshadows the measly $58 billion causing so much havoc from across the board cuts.

About The Author Lawrence Rosier
The author has experience as a Management Consultant in private industry and has been developing and perfecting his government reform approach since 2005 as a practical solution to government problems.

Contact the author:
Lawrence Rosier & Associates 573 364 8789 cell 573 578 4716
12143 Cedar Grove Rd. Rolla, Missouri 65401
email: lawrencerosier4@gmail.com
See also:
Article 113. Private Versus Public Budgeting Practices
Article 120. Collaborative Innovation between States and Federal Government
Article 224. How the Book “Banishing Bureaucracy” Can be Improved Using Lean
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 285. The Military Bureaucracy and Enterprise Lean
Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency
Article 291. When Government Reaches The Point of Critical Mass
Article 297. Sequestration Suggestions for the Defense Department
Article: 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable
Article 300. Approach for the Total Reform of the US Government
Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government
Article 302. DOD Makes a Bold Step in the Right Direction
Article 305. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!
Article 306. WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED by Paul Ryan
Article 307. The US Government is in Need of Reform Now!

Article 306. WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED by Paul Ryan


WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED OPINION | March 12, 2013
By PAUL RYAN, Followed by Comments by Lawrence Rosier

America’s national debt is over $16 trillion. Yet Washington can’t figure out how to cut $85 billion—or just 2% of the federal budget—without resorting to arbitrary, across-the-board cuts. Clearly, the budget process is broken. In four of the past five years, the president has missed his budget deadline. Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in over 1,400 days. By refusing to tackle the drivers of the nation’s debt—or simply to write a budget—Washington lurches from crisis to crisis.

House Republicans have a plan to change course. On Tuesday, we’re introducing a budget that balances in 10 years—without raising taxes. How do we do it? We stop spending money the government doesn’t have. Historically, Americans have paid a little less than one-fifth of their income in taxes to the federal government each year. But the government has spent more.

So our budget matches spending with income. Under our proposal, the government spends no more than it collects in revenue—or 19.1% of gross domestic product each year. As a result, we’ll spend $4.6 trillion less over the next decade.

Our opponents will shout austerity, but let’s put this in perspective. On the current path, we’ll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we’ll spend $41 trillion. On the current path, spending will increase by 5% each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4%. Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023, and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy.

Yet the most important question isn’t how we balance the budget. It’s why. A budget is a means to an end, and the end isn’t a neat and tidy spreadsheet. It’s the well-being of all Americans. By giving families stability and protecting them from tax hikes, our budget will promote a healthier economy and help create jobs. Most important, our budget will reignite the American Dream, the idea that anyone can make it in this country.

The truth is, the nation’s debt is a sign of overreach. Government is trying to do too much, and when government does too much, it doesn’t do anything well. So a balanced budget is a reasonable goal, because it returns government to its proper limits and focus. By curbing government’s overreach, our budget will give families the space they need to thrive.

The other side will warn of a relapse into recession—just as they predicted economic disaster when the budget sequester hit. But a balanced budget will help the economy. Smaller deficits will keep interest rates low, which will help small businesses to expand and hire. It’s no surprise, then, that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office believes that legislation reducing the deficit as much as our budget does would boost gross national product by 1.7% in 2023.

We must take action now. Our budget will expand opportunity in major areas like energy. It will protect and strengthen key priorities like Medicare. It will encourage social mobility by retooling welfare. It will fix the broken tax code to create jobs and increase wages.

First, energy. America has the world’s largest natural-gas, oil and coal reserves—enough natural gas to meet the country’s needs for 90 years. Yet the administration is buying up land to prevent further development. Our budget opens these lands to development, so families will have affordable energy. It approves the Keystone XL pipeline, which will create 20,000 direct jobs—and 118,000 indirect jobs. Our budget puts the country on the path to North American energy independence.

Second, health care. Our budget repeals the president’s health-care law and replaces it with patient-centered reforms. It also protects and strengthens Medicare. I want Medicare to be there for my kids—just as it’s there for my mom today. But Medicare is going broke. Under our proposal, those in or near retirement will see no changes, and future beneficiaries will inherit a program they can count on. Starting in 2024, we’ll offer eligible seniors a range of insurance plans from which they can choose—including traditional Medicare—and help them pay the premiums.

The other side will demagogue this issue. But remember: Anyone who attacks our Medicare proposal without offering a credible alternative is complicit in the program’s demise.

Third, welfare reform. After the welfare reforms of 1996, child poverty fell by double digits. This budget extends those reforms to other federal aid programs. It gives states flexibility so they can tailor programs like Medicaid and food stamps to their people’s needs. It encourages states to get people off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls. We shouldn’t measure success by how much we spend. We should measure it by how many people we help. Those who protect the status quo must answer to the 46 million Americans living in poverty.

Fourth, tax reform. The current tax code is a Rubik’s cube that Americans spend six billion hours—and $160 billion—each year trying to solve. The U.S. corporate tax is the highest in the industrialized world. So our budget paves the way for comprehensive tax reform. It calls for Congress to simplify the code by closing loopholes and consolidating tax rates. Our goal is to have just two brackets: 10% and 25%. House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp has committed to pass a specific bill this year.

If we take these steps, the United States will once again become a haven of opportunity. The economy will grow, and the country will regain its strength. All we need is leadership. Washington owes the American people a balanced budget. It isn’t fair to take more from families so government can spend more.

A balanced budget isn’t unprecedented. President Bill Clinton worked with a Republican Congress to get it done. House Republicans’ last two budgets balanced, too—albeit at a later date. But a balanced budget is still a noteworthy achievement, considering the competition.

The recent debt-ceiling agreement forced Senate Democrats to write a budget this year, and we expect to see it this week. I hate to break the suspense, but their budget won’t balance—ever. Instead, it will raise taxes to pay for more spending. The president, meanwhile, is standing on the sidelines. He is expected to submit his budget in April—two months past his deadline.

We House Republicans have done our part. We’re offering a credible plan for all the country to see. We’re outlining how to solve the greatest problems facing America today. Now we invite the president and Senate Democrats to join in the effort.

— Mr. Ryan, a Republican, represents Wisconsin’s first congressional district and is chairman of the House Budget Committee.
http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=323383

Comment by Lawrence Rosier
Paul Ryan has written an excellent article which I largely agree with but there are some key things which he has missed. Most of our leaders in Congress have missed the fact that there is a third alternative to raising taxes or cutting services. And that is we can easily balance the budget by stopping the waste in government and by making government efficient.

The GAO has identified more than $100 billion in waste yet neither the Republicans or the Democrats have made any real effort to rid government of its massive waste which could easily make up the $58 billion needed to meet the sequestration across the board cuts.

Paul Ryan wants to repeal ObamaCare and I agree because simply passing off the most wasteful health care system in the world for the public to pay for is unsustainable. But what he missed is that with proper reform of the federal government making it efficient we can have a balanced budget and health care sooner than ten years. The approach to making health care affordable is in implementing Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean into a National Health Care delivery system which is designed to be without waste (as much as possible) and as efficient as possible. We cleanup the waste in government, using Lean Six Sigma to correct mismanagement of high level systems and using my General Reform Model to get the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible in government.
Read more about government reform in these articles:
Article 113. Private Versus Public Budgeting Practices
Article 207. Changing the Budgeting Balance to Get the Highest Government Efficiency
Article 224. How the Book “Banishing Bureaucracy” Can be Improved Using Lean
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 247. GAO Report Identifies Billions in Waste
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 271. Health Care The Cheesecake Factory and Lean Six Sigma
Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency
Article 297. Sequestration Suggestions for the Defense Department
Article 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable
Article 300. Approach for the Total Reform of the US Government
Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government
Article 302. DOD Makes a Bold Step in the Right Direction
Article 305. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!

Article 305. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!

By Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant 573 364 8789
March 4, 2013

THIS IS THE ONLY PRACTICAL WAY OF AVOIDING ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS! The implementation of the author’s General Reform Model makes all functions of government efficient and empowers employees to innovate and make continuous improvements to their jobs with Enterprise Lean. This is followed by right sizing (making sure all employees have a full time job), balancing the work load and building a bottoms-up budget.
See also Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency.

The DOD should implement Enterprise Lean (aka Toyota’s TPS) in all civilian offices Now! Here is why. The process immediately focuses employees on how their jobs can be done better. The process organizes employees into Functional Lean Teams that study how to improve each function performed by the Team.

The teams are organized and supported by Lean facilitators who have been trained in the Lean process by US Army Lean Six Sigma internal consultants. I suggest that Facilitators can be found available in Human Resource Departments because the DOD has a hiring freeze.

Implementation of the Team Management Organization

I further suggest that all DOD civilian employees be reorganized from the current Bureaucratic organization into a permanent Team Management organization based on the Functional Lean Teams. Each Functional Lean Team would elect its own leader by secret ballot. Cross training would begin immediately with each employee knowing how to do at least one other job this eliminates employees waiting on other employees to do their jobs and improves efficiency.

Enterprise Lean Implementation

The Enterprise Lean project would be kicked off with mass training provided by the US Army’s Lean Six Sigma internal consultants. The training would concentrate on the Value Stream Mapping tool (VSM). The Functional Lean Teams would meet for one hour each week to do the VSM study. Each Functional Lean Team would use the VSM tool to find the best way to perform the function (the most efficient and effective way). One way of doing this is to tape each step of the function on brown wrapping paper taped to the conference room walls. I suggest that the current method be done first followed by the improved method to determine savings in expenses and man hours.

All of the above work can be done without the expenditure of any funds for outside consultants. The next steps will require at least one outside consultant to train GAO Budget Analysts in how to cost out the VSM data, implement right-sizing and build a bottoms-up budgeting database. These steps involving reforms that reduce personnel is always done with personnel or consultants from outside of the organization. Bureaucratic organizations do not reform themselves.

GAO Budget Analysts
I further recommend that GAO Budget Analysts be brought in to collect and document the improved methods expenses and man hours on spread sheets. This will become the basis for right-sizing (makes sure each employee has a full time job) the functions within the department. Employees who do not have a job will become redundant. But more than that the reform method I propose identifies who is actually working on the function. Each employee is given credit for their contributions to all the functions they work on. This method of reform protects those valuable employees who make government work. Download an example documentation spread sheet by clicking on the link: “Free Ebooks”.

The GAO would be the custodians of the VSM functional expenses and labor costs storing the data in a new database which will eventually become a bottoms-up Budget. A bottoms-up budget would make the expense and labor cost of each function transparent to all who need and use budget data. The GAO would also be responsible for maintenance of all the Federal Government’s bottoms-up budget databases.

About the author Lawrence Rosier
Lawrence Rosier is a Management Consultant specializing in Government Reform. He was formerly a Management Consultant with Alexander Proudfoot ( the leading downsizing firm in the US and Europe) and Scheduling Corp. both management Consulting firms located in Chicago. He has served on the staffs of: the Manager of Special Projects, Boeing Co., President of McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Co. and Vice President of Manufacturing of McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Co. Education includes degrees in Industrial Engineering and Secondary Education. He was a graduate instructor at the University of Washington Experimental Education Unit. He was also the Manager of Manufacturing Engineering for Multiplex Company in St. Louis.

His most significant achievement in the 1980s was the proposal and acceptance by Sanford McDonnell CEO of McDonnell Douglas Corp. of a modification to the company’s Quality of Work Life (QWL) implementation (the forerunner of Lean Manufacturing). The modification replaced the existing Bureaucratic organization with a Team Management organization consisting of Steering Management Teams and Functional Management Teams for the McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Co. This Team Management style was enthusiastically received by employees and inspired employee innovation. It was used successfully for over ten years until the sale of the company to Boeing in the 1990’s.

I am always available to answer confidential questions about my Reform Models email: lawrencerosier4@gmail.com

See also:
Article 113. Private Versus Public Budgeting Practices
Article 137. Role of Lean Facilitator and Budget Analyst
Article 224. How the Book “Banishing Bureaucracy” Can be Improved Using Lean
Article 239. Applying Toyota’s TPS to Government
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 285. The Military Bureaucracy and Enterprise Lean
Article 287. Proposal for Reform of a DOD Military Agency
Article 297. Sequestration Suggestions for the Defense Department
Article 300. Approach for the Total Reform of the US Government
Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government
Article 302. DOD Makes a Bold Step in the Right Direction
Article 305. DOD Should Implement Enterprise Lean NOW!
Article 306. WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED by Paul Ryan
Article 307. The US Government is in Need of Reform Now!
Article 310. What You Can do NOW to Save Your Government Job!

Article 304. Reducing the cost of Health Care Delivery

When we take a broad look at the present health care delivery system we find a large part of the cost is in the physical building of the hospital itself. Most new hospitals take up to three years building time before opening their doors to the public. The cost of building and maintaining what are mostly inner city high rise structures impacts the bills paid by the using public and insurance companies. But there is an alternative to the way hospitals are presently being built and that is in using modular construction.

Most people have the image of modular units as cheap housing but that isn’t what we are doing these units won’t be cheaply built yet there will be a significant savings in the cost of construction and time for a hospital to be built.

Modular construction begins in the construction of a single manufacturing plant most likely located in the Midwest where there is room to spread out and single story rather than multistory hospitals can be built. The modular hospitals could be affordably built in communities without a hospital or located in the suburbs of larger cities.

The manufactured modules are delivered by truck as environmentally sealed units that attach to a previously constructed on site core structure. Each module will plug into the core structure using the core’s central utilities. The outside of the module would be protected from the elements by a removable concrete wall. This has the advantage that when a module unit becomes obsolete the factory can deliver an updated unit and install the new unit within a week. Saving months of construction time in bringing the hospital up to date.

The Manufacturing plant would operate in all kinds of weather using a batch manufacturing method for several hospitals being constructed at the same time. For example “operating modular units” would be manufactured for all the new hospitals as a batch. Then the plant would switch to another type of unit for all the hospitals.

The entire system would be funded by the federal government based on reduction in health care costs. The modular hospital system would provide the the same high quality health care while at a lower alternative cost to present high rise urban hospitals.

I suggest that the first modular hospitals replace the aging ill equipped Veterans Administration Regional Hospitals. The need great for replacing these aging hospitals first built to serve world war II veterans. The new VA modular hospitals could be expanded to become public service hospitals run by the government. The modular system could be designed to be build in rural medium sized towns with out hospital services. The intent is to bring down the cost of a hospital stay in direct competition with private hospitals.

One advantage of the modular system is that the number of beds can be expanded as the need requires. When the present hospital system expands the hospitals capability it sometimes leaves sections of the new hospital with empty beds. The no frills modular system would provide waiting rooms without atrium water falls and fish aquariums.

My recommended Solution
The solution to making health care affordable is in recognizing that health care is not a naturally competitive business the public has no choice but to pay what ever private providers demand. Health Care may resemble a free market in large urban areas but for the rest of the country health care is controlled by large health care providers in localized areas with out any competition they can charge any thing they want only medicare limits what they can charge patients.

Therefore I recommend that a reformed Federal Government health care system must be developed to enter the health care field providing the most efficient and effective health care system in direct competition with private health care providers. The federal Government must be a laboratory which shows the way for private health care organizations making all facets of healthcare as affordable as possible. This is a complete reversal of what the public envisions when it thinks of public health care. What is not known is that Medicare has actually held the line in keeping down costs in its published limits for what recipients pay for medical procedures. Without these guidelines there would be no limits to what private health care could cost.

The reason for the development of an efficient government health care delivery system is provide the private system with competition to hold down costs. See the following articles: Article: 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable and Article 303. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us.

Article 303. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us

By Steven Brill Feb. 20, 2013 Time Magazine
Comment by Lawrence Rosier
This is one of the best articles I have read on National Health Care. Key takeaways are: The Health Care industry is not a free and competitive market and until we change this process the industry will continue to gouge those who use the system both individuals and insurance companies big time. The growth in health care costs can not be sustained as more and more people either end up with no health care or National Health Care costs forces a public revolt. Drug costs are already twice as much for the US as in Europe and Canada where the governments put caps on how much a manufacturer can charge based on the cost of manufacturing the drug not how much the market will bare.

Brill found that each hospital has what is called a “Bill Master” a set of charges the billing personnel uses when making up your bill. On it are items like a $6 paper cup that is used to give you a $10 aspirin. But when you get the bill it is in code and you can’t determine what the items are.

Brill has praise for Medicare which he shows has actually held prices down from what they could be. He says instead of raising the age of Medicare recipients from 65 to an older age we should lower the age because it will actually cost us less.

If this is true the Medicare format could be used as a government health care program much like that found in Europe which provides better health care at half the cost. But Brill does not hold out much hope for a sane solution because the health care industry has spent $5.36 billion since 1998 on lobbying in Washington.
Read the entire article at: http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us


Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us

By Steven Brill Feb. 20, 2013 Time Magazine

1. Routine Care, Unforgettable Bills
When Sean Recchi, a 42-year-old from Lancaster, Ohio, was told last March that he had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, his wife Stephanie knew she had to get him to MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Stephanie’s father had been treated there 10 years earlier, and she and her family credited the doctors and nurses at MD Anderson with extending his life by at least eight years.

Because Stephanie and her husband had recently started their own small technology business, they were unable to buy comprehensive health insurance. For $469 a month, or about 20% of their income, they had been able to get only a policy that covered just $2,000 per day of any hospital costs. “We don’t take that kind of discount insurance,” said the woman at MD Anderson when Stephanie called to make an appointment for Sean.

Stephanie was then told by a billing clerk that the estimated cost of Sean’s visit — just to be examined for six days so a treatment plan could be devised — would be $48,900, due in advance. Stephanie got her mother to write her a check. “You do anything you can in a situation like that,” she says. The Recchis flew to Houston, leaving Stephanie’s mother to care for their two teenage children.

About a week later, Stephanie had to ask her mother for $35,000 more so Sean could begin the treatment the doctors had decided was urgent. His condition had worsened rapidly since he had arrived in Houston. He was “sweating and shaking with chills and pains,” Stephanie recalls. “He had a large mass in his chest that was … growing. He was panicked.”

Nonetheless, Sean was held for about 90 minutes in a reception area, she says, because the hospital could not confirm that the check had cleared. Sean was allowed to see the doctor only after he advanced MD Anderson $7,500 from his credit card. The hospital says there was nothing unusual about how Sean was kept waiting. According to MD Anderson communications manager Julie Penne, “Asking for advance payment for services is a common, if unfortunate, situation that confronts hospitals all over the United States.”

Sean Recchi
Diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at age 42. Total cost, in advance, for Sean’s treatment plan and initial doses of chemotherapy: $83,900. Charges for blood and lab tests amounted to more than $15,000; with Medicare, they would have cost a few hundred dollars

The total cost, in advance, for Sean to get his treatment plan and initial doses of chemotherapy was $83,900.

Why?

The first of the 344 lines printed out across eight pages of his hospital bill — filled with indecipherable numerical codes and acronyms — seemed innocuous. But it set the tone for all that followed. It read, “1 ACETAMINOPHE TABS 325 MG.” The charge was only $1.50, but it was for a generic version of a Tylenol pill. You can buy 100 of them on Amazon for $1.49 even without a hospital’s purchasing power.

Dozens of midpriced items were embedded with similarly aggressive markups, like $283.00 for a “CHEST, PA AND LAT 71020.” That’s a simple chest X-ray, for which MD Anderson is routinely paid $20.44 when it treats a patient on Medicare, the government health care program for the elderly.

Every time a nurse drew blood, a “ROUTINE VENIPUNCTURE” charge of $36.00 appeared, accompanied by charges of $23 to $78 for each of a dozen or more lab analyses performed on the blood sample. In all, the charges for blood and other lab tests done on Recchi amounted to more than $15,000. Had Recchi been old enough for Medicare, MD Anderson would have been paid a few hundred dollars for all those tests. By law, Medicare’s payments approximate a hospital’s cost of providing a service, including overhead, equipment and salaries.

On the second page of the bill, the markups got bolder. Recchi was charged $13,702 for “1 RITUXIMAB INJ 660 MG.” That’s an injection of 660 mg of a cancer wonder drug called Rituxan. The average price paid by all hospitals for this dose is about $4,000, but MD Anderson probably gets a volume discount that would make its cost $3,000 to $3,500. That means the nonprofit cancer center’s paid-in-advance markup on Recchi’s lifesaving shot would be about 400%.

When I asked MD Anderson to comment on the charges on Recchi’s bill, the cancer center released a written statement that said in part, “The issues related to health care finance are complex for patients, health care providers, payers and government entities alike … MD Anderson’s clinical billing and collection practices are similar to those of other major hospitals and academic medical centers.”

The hospital’s hard-nosed approach pays off. Although it is officially a nonprofit unit of the University of Texas, MD Anderson has revenue that exceeds the cost of the world-class care it provides by so much that its operating profit for the fiscal year 2010, the most recent annual report it filed with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was $531 million. That’s a profit margin of 26% on revenue of $2.05 billion, an astounding result for such a service-intensive enterprise.1

The president of MD Anderson is paid like someone running a prosperous business. Ronald DePinho’s total compensation last year was $1,845,000. That does not count outside earnings derived from a much publicized waiver he received from the university that, according to the Houston Chronicle, allows him to maintain unspecified “financial ties with his three principal pharmaceutical companies.”

DePinho’s salary is nearly triple the $674,350 paid to William Powers Jr., the president of the entire University of Texas system, of which MD Anderson is a part. This pay structure is emblematic of American medical economics and is reflected on campuses across the U.S., where the president of a hospital or hospital system associated with a university — whether it’s Texas, Stanford, Duke or Yale — is invariably paid much more than the person in charge of the university.

I got the idea for this article when I was visiting Rice University last year. As I was leaving the campus, which is just outside the central business district of Houston, I noticed a group of glass skyscrapers about a mile away lighting up the evening sky. The scene looked like Dubai. I was looking at the Texas Medical Center, a nearly 1,300-acre, 280-building complex of hospitals and related medical facilities, of which MD Anderson is the lead brand name. Medicine had obviously become a huge business. In fact, of Houston’s top 10 employers, five are hospitals, including MD Anderson with 19,000 employees; three, led by ExxonMobil with 14,000 employees, are energy companies. How did that happen, I wondered. Where’s all that money coming from? And where is it going? I have spent the past seven months trying to find out by analyzing a variety of bills from hospitals like MD Anderson, doctors, drug companies and every other player in the American health care ecosystem.

When you look behind the bills that Sean Recchi and other patients receive, you see nothing rational — no rhyme or reason — about the costs they faced in a marketplace they enter through no choice of their own. The only constant is the sticker shock for the patients who are asked to pay.

Yet those who work in the health care industry and those who argue over health care policy seem inured to the shock. When we debate health care policy, we seem to jump right to the issue of who should pay the bills, blowing past what should be the first question: Why exactly are the bills so high?

What are the reasons, good or bad, that cancer means a half-million- or million-dollar tab? Why should a trip to the emergency room for chest pains that turn out to be indigestion bring a bill that can exceed the cost of a semester of college? What makes a single dose of even the most wonderful wonder drug cost thousands of dollars? Why does simple lab work done during a few days in a hospital cost more than a car? And what is so different about the medical ecosystem that causes technology advances to drive bills up instead of down?

Recchi’s bill and six others examined line by line for this article offer a closeup window into what happens when powerless buyers — whether they are people like Recchi or big health-insurance companies — meet sellers in what is the ultimate seller’s market.

The result is a uniquely American gold rush for those who provide everything from wonder drugs to canes to high-tech implants to CT scans to hospital bill-coding and collection services. In hundreds of small and midsize cities across the country — from Stamford, Conn., to Marlton, N.J., to Oklahoma City — the American health care market has transformed tax-exempt “nonprofit” hospitals into the towns’ most profitable businesses and largest employers, often presided over by the regions’ most richly compensated executives. And in our largest cities, the system offers lavish paychecks even to midlevel hospital managers, like the 14 administrators at New York City’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center who are paid over $500,000 a year, including six who make over $1 million.

Taken as a whole, these powerful institutions and the bills they churn out dominate the nation’s economy and put demands on taxpayers to a degree unequaled anywhere else on earth. In the U.S., people spend almost 20% of the gross domestic product on health care, compared with about half that in most developed countries. Yet in every measurable way, the results our health care system produces are no better and often worse than the outcomes in those countries.

According to one of a series of exhaustive studies done by the McKinsey & Co. consulting firm, we spend more on health care than the next 10 biggest spenders combined: Japan, Germany, France, China, the U.K., Italy, Canada, Brazil, Spain and Australia. We may be shocked at the $60 billion price tag for cleaning up after Hurricane Sandy. We spent almost that much last week on health care. We spend more every year on artificial knees and hips than what Hollywood collects at the box office. We spend two or three times that much on durable medical devices like canes and wheelchairs, in part because a heavily lobbied Congress forces Medicare to pay 25% to 75% more for this equipment than it would cost at Walmart.

Read the entire article at: http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us. Other Health Care Articles:
Article 271. Health Care The Cheesecake Factory and Lean Six Sigma
Article 274. Reducing Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Health Care through Lean
Article 283. Replacing Obamacare and Curing the Healthcare Crisis
Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up Budgeting
Article 290. Virginia Mason’s Cutting edge use of Lean
Article 299. The Best Approach For Making Health Care Affordable
Article 303. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us
Article 304. Reducing the cost of Health Care Delivery
Article 307. The US Government is in Need of Reform NOW!

Article 302. DOD Makes a Bold Step in the Right Direction

By Lawrence Rosier Principal Management Consultant (cell 573 578 4716)
“As part of its planning for sequestration, the Department of Defense said it’s getting rid of tens of thousands of temporary employees, and on Friday, it made clear that should the automatic budget cuts occur, the remainder of the civilian workforce would face furloughs of one day per week without pay for the rest of fiscal year 2013.”

This bold move by the DOD to cut its civilian workforce with one day per week furloughs is the best quick solution to part of the sequestration and here is why. All bureaucracies are over staffed by as much as 20% or more. The only question is where is the over staffing occurring. Certainly not with air traffic controllers because someone has to man the equipment staffing is obvious but in departmental office areas over staffing is rampant and not nearly as obvious.

Alexander Proudfoot the most prominent downsizing firm in the US and Europe has found that private companies are over staffed by 17% to 20% or more. By reducing the work week by one day and going to a 32 hour work week (8 hours for four days) the DOD cuts the weeks hours by 20%. The DOD expects to save 9% in costs. But the actual savings is in reality much more than that. The four day work week is also one of my options see Article 272. Options for Solving Bureaucratic Over Staffing.

The Big Problem is that the four day week is only a temporary solution betting on an agreement between the House Leaders and the President. Even without an agreement the four day week is set to end at the end of this year; what happens then? The next steps should be to implement a permanent solution while the four day work week is in place like my Sequestration Suggestions. See Article 297. Sequestration Suggestions for the Defense Department, Article 300. Approach for the Total Reform of the US Government and Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government

Utah has Permanently Gone to a Four Day Work Week

The state of Utah has permanently implemented a four day work week and has stated it has experienced significant savings in the reduction of energy costs from shutting down its office buildings once a week.

Here are the reported results when the City of Atlanta went to a Four day Work Week
The biggest surprise with the Atlanta four-day work week program has been the unexpected boosts to productivity. “There has been a direct productivity boost in a lot of operations, particularly those that entail travel, setup and breakdown time, such as road repairs,” says Edwards. For those jobs with one-hour transitions on each end, the four-hour weekly reduction in compensation translates into only two hours fewer of productive labor.

Moreover, productivity per hour seems to have increased. Atlanta’s ATLStat performance measurement system shows that the decrease in work hours has not translated into lower outputs. “The 10 percent decrease in work time is not showing up on the outcome side,” said Edwards. “There has been no increase in backlogs, and all the performance targets we use — potholes filled, building permits issued, and that sort of thing — are showing no decreases in output. Zero.”
According to Edwards, when the program was first introduced, residents still came to City Hall or elsewhere seeking services on Fridays, only to be turned away. “Once people adjusted to the new hours, we really haven’t seen any complaints from the public,” says Edwards. In some cases, shorter business hours at City Hall prompt citizens to change their behaviors, renewing business licenses by mail or paying parking tickets on the Web rather than in person. Such transactions are generally less costly for the city to process.


Comments by Lawrence Rosier on Atlanta

Let’s take another look at Atlanta what is going on here “city employees working 36 hours per week still produce the same as when they worked 40 hours per week”. This proves that the city is at least over staffed by 10%. Atlanta went back to the 40 hour work week and missed the opportunity for savings. See Article 148. Where Less is More Efficient Atlanta’s four-day Workweek.

Milam County Texas was Found to be Over Staffed by Fifty Percent
Milam County Texas employees were found to be spending 52% of their work time on unnecessary websites especially Facebook. The county found by checking computer usage 50% of the Milam County Texas employees are redundant and County Commissioners could save the county taxpayers $millions. But all the County Commissioners did was to block access to Facebook. The fact is that most government employees Never get laid off! See Article 198. Milam County Texas was Found to be Over Staffed by fifty Percent.

Next Steps for the DOD When Draining the Swamp
When you boldly cut 20% of the work hours available to do work anomalies will begin to appear. In the consulting trade this is called draining the swamp. What happens is that those work activities that are efficient will begin to fall behind and start developing a backlog. It is imperative that the DOD knows by the end of the second week just which activities are falling behind. This requires that a weekly Work Completion Report be made by all departments. What this means is that all departments which do not develop a backlog are either more than 20% over staffed or their work load varies and this is a low volume period.

After the activities with growing backlog are verified I recommend changing their work hours to 9 hours per day four days a week. The next step is to bring in a Consultant to balance the Work Load. This will help but in a bureaucratic organization there will be objections by the work force. I recommend changing the bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization which frees-up employees to work as a team. Cross training of jobs is done so no one needs to wait on others to do their jobs. Along with Work Planning this should bring down the backlog in only week or two. See Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling

An Organized Work Slow Down may Occur
If this happens it is time to implement my Sequestration Suggestions.
Note that Draining the Swamp is a top-down approach which deals with problems in meeting the schedule while my Sequestration recommendations, is all inclusive approach to solve All waste and inefficiency problems. See Article 297. Sequestration Suggestions for the Defense Department

Recommendation 1.
Cut all visible waste and redundancy found in the DOD.

Recommendation 2.
Use US Army Lean Six Sigma internal consultants to make high level systems efficient and effective. This is primarily systems that interface between private companies and DOD agencies. Example Hardware delivery systems.

Recommendation 3.
Make Civilian DOD agencies efficient and effective by implementing Lawrence Rosier’s General Reform Model using Enterprise Lean. I recommend starting with a pilot implementation in a DOD agency to develop the process and incorporate lessons learned.

The goal of the General Reform Model is the get the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible by correcting the following problems:

Phase 1.
Implement Enterprise Lean Teams in all government agencies to empower personnel to innovate and make continuous improvement to their jobs. This fixes all government functional systems getting the highest efficiency and effectiveness possible.

Phase 2.
Uses specially trained Budget Analysts (GAO employees trained by the Principal Consultant) to review the Lean Team VSM data developed in Phase 1. for Right-Sizing (making sure all employees have a full time job) and for the development of a Bottoms-up Budget. This corrects the problem of not knowing where to make cuts by making all government function’s costs transparent to DOD Budgeting personnel.

Phase 3.
This phase changes the Bureaucratic organization to a Team Managed organization further increasing productivity and eliminating a source of fraud and waste. Annual savings for the General Reform Model is estimated to be $300 billion with an implementation cost of less than one percent of the annual savings.

See the following articles:
Article 137. Role of Lean Facilitator and Budget Analyst
Article 152. The Process of Replacing Bureaucratic Management With Lean Teams
Article 170. Four Government Reform Models
Article 219. Proposal for Federal Government Reform Agency by Agency, Article 232. Proposal for Defense Contractor Office Reform
Article 249. Office Workload Planning and Scheduling
Article 260. Using Work Measurement to Right-Size Government
Article 268. Applying Lean Six Sigma and Enterprise Lean
Article 269. The REINS Act- Part 1. of Three Major Federal Government Reforms
Article 272. Options for Solving Bureaucratic Over Staffing
Article 285. The Military Bureaucracy and Enterprise Lean
Article 289. Innovation, Continuous Improvement and Bottoms-Up
Budgeting
Article 295. About Lawrence Rosier’s General Reform Model
Article 297. Sequestration Suggestions for the Defense Department
Article 300. Approach for the Total Reform of the US Government
Article 301. Time for the GAO to Assume its Role in Reforming the Federal Government