state historic preservation office kaizen event€¦ · log out rec projects stamp with log out on...
TRANSCRIPT
State Historic Preservation Office Kaizen Event
By: 106er FIXERS
June 21 – 25, 2004
Introduction Mary K.
• Kaizen Methodology – Focused on lead-time and variation reduction – Measurement focused – Is data driven, and fact based – Provides a baseline for future Kaizen – Drives cultural change
Background Lowell
19.49
13.66
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
30 Day Review
Averages
CO
E
EPA
FCC
FHW
A
HU
D
REC
D
RU
S
All O
ther
s*
Not
HU
D
SHPO Response Time
The 5 Days Mary N.
• Day 1 • Training
• Day 2 • Map the old process • Brainstorm ideas
• Day 3 • De-selection of ideas • Map new process
• Day 4 • Fine tune new process • Work on details
• Day 5 • Report Out & Celebration!!!
Goals Tom
• Reduce SHPO’s mailing cost under HUD Section 106 by 75%
• Improve completeness of HUD submittals from 50% “defective or incomplete” to 100% defect free
• Reduce turnaround time of review comments from 20 to 13 days
• Reduce NPIA project reviews from 1,314 to 319 (75%)
Objectives Tom
• Expeditiously meet HUD section 106 requirements. Review, advise, assist, recommend and eliminate
• Increase cooperation between stakeholders • Reduce confrontation, increase teamwork
Team Members Ralph
• Tom O’Neill (Team leader) • Dan Higginbottom (Sub-team leader) • Jim Scott (Consultant) • Don Hirt (SHPO) • Doug Jones (SHPO) • Barbara Mitchell (SHPO) • Ralph Christian (SHPO) • Berry Bennett (SHPO) • Lavon Grimes (SHPO) • Lowell Soike (SHPO) • Mary Klemesrud (IDED) • Leslie Leager (IDED) • Gabe Lee (IDNR)
• Mary Neiderbach (City of Des Moines) • Ken Oestreich (City of Davenport) • Paula Hinzman (City of Cedar Rapids) • Gretchen Schalge (City of Sioux City) • Gregory Bagsby (City of Waterloo) • Kent Rice (French-Reneker-Associates Inc.) • Joe Trnka (Howard R. Green Company) • Lori Beary (Iowa Finance Authority) • Joe Behrens (Region XII Council of Governments) • Susan Coffey (Southeast Iowa Regional Planning
Commission) • Mark Schneider (East Central Intergovernmental
Association)
Map the OLD Process Leslie
HUD
IDED
Fund theProgram
EntitlementCity
(Responsible Entity)
Applicant
COGsGrant
Administrator
ResponsibleEntity(Non-
Entitlement)
ReceivesFunds
Review toapprove
application
Fills outapplication
form
Sentapplication
to IDED
Applicantfills out
applicationform
City reviewsfunds
Sentapplication
to city
Review toapprove
application
ApproveNotificationof award
Receivesnotificationof award
Hire greatadministrator
Compileinformation to
supportdetermination
Receiveresults
END
Approve
END
Compileinformation to
supportdetermination
Entitlementcities
request sitefile search
GroundDisturbance
OSA
HPConsultants
SHPO
Yes
No
Sign leadagency
agreement
Review &AccessEffects/Eligibility
Determineeligibility ofresource
PrepareSHPO
commentform
Receiveauthorized
determination
Send toSHPO for 30
daycomment
Determineeffects
Fill out sitesurvey &photos
OSAreceivessearch
request fromCOG/
Entitlement
Completesite filesearch
Send resultsto COG/
EntitlementCity
2 2
Standingstructureaffected
Yes
No Structure45 years or
older
Yes
Is it ahousingproject
Yes
No
Receiveresults
Lavon
Receivebatch from
Dan &Barbara
Go intodatabase &log out REC
projects
Stamp withlog out onoriginal log
sheet
Makeenvelopes
Take to copymachine
Bring copiesto desk
Sorting forreader’s file106 & CC’s
etc.
Fileinappropriate
areas
Take lettersto mail room
Set aside
Are thereletters/
commentsheets
Yes
No
3 1
No
File
File
Yes
2No
Yes
No
1
4
Receivesfinding &
determination for
authorizedsignature
Review &accesseffects/eligibility
Determineeligibility of
revview
PrepareSHPO
commentform
Determineeffects
Authorizedsignauture
Send toSHPO for 30day comment
5
Map the OLD Process (cont.) Leslie
LovanReview
packet forcompleteness
SubmittalComplete
Yes
No
Is theprojectneed
Yes
No
Print Letter
Yes
No
CallApplicant
Requestupdate info
& set fileaside
Prepare file
Assignpreviousnumber &
pull file
Take files tothe
reviewers
Separatefiles for
reviewers
Put labelson front &back of file
Makephotocopies
of HUDletters for
HUD
Print labelfor file
Send out 30days letter
Print 30 dayletters
Set asideuntil batch is
complete
Pullinventory
files
Prepareinventory file
Log intoinventorydatabase
Assign newinventorynumber
No 30 dayletter toreviewer
Inventoryfile
Yes
No
Is therea
standingstructure
Yes
No
Determination
Yes
No
Makeenvelope for30 day letter
Assign R&Cnumber
R&C log intodatabase
Receivesbatches of
files
Sorting filesby due datebased on 30
daycomment
Log intoprojectdocket
Review forArcheology
Is this ahouserebhabwith no
archeology
Yes
No
TechnicalAssistance
Yes
No
Formalreview
Set it asideLog offreviewdocket
Send file toLovan
Log offreviewdocket
Enterrelevant siteinformation
on Archdatabase
Completetrackingsheet
Date stampmailOpen mail
Is moreinformation
needed
No
Yes
Standingstructure orarcheology
Yes
Yes
ConcurNoNo
Concurrenceletter to
responsibleentity &IDED
Write non-concurrence
letter toresponsible
entity &IDED
Write letterrequestingadditional
information
Completetrackingsheet
Log offreviewdocket
Pass off toBarbara
Dan
Barb
Receivesbatches offiles fromLavon &
Dan
Log files intofile docket
Arrange filesby date due& agency
Preliminaryreview for
completeness
Is itcomplete
Yes
No
Is thereground
disturbance?
Yes
No
Send to Dan
Phone oremail for
immediateresponse
Set aside fileFormerprojectreview
Anyinformation
gaps
Yes
No
Concur
Yes
No
Data Yes
No
Log off filedocket
Completetrackingsheet
Send backto Lovan
5
Completetrackingsheet
Log offreviewdocket
Sign off onsite
inventoryform
Completesite
inventoryform or
complete
Write non-concurrence
letter
Information inSHPOfiles
Send backto Lovan
5
Do researchin SHPO
files
Sign off onrequest for
SHPOcomment
sheet
Completetrackingsheet
Send backto Lovan
Completetrackingsheet
Log offreviewdocket
Write letterrequesting
recon.survey
Requestintensive
inventory orrecon.survey
5
Pass off toBarbara
5
Putinventory file
with newinformation
SHPO
Map the NEW Process Barbara
HUD
IDED
Fund theProgram
ResponsibleEntity
Entitlement
Applicant
COGsGrant
Administrator
ResponsibleEntityNon-
Entitlement
ReceivesFunds
Review toapprove
application
Fills outapplication
form
Sentapplication
to IDED
Applicantfills out
applicationform
Receivesfunds
Sendapplication
to city
Review toapprove
application
ApproveNotification
of award
Receivesnotificationof award
END
Approve
END
Compileinformation to
supportdetermination
Yes
No
Yes
No
Hire greatadministrator
Compileinformation to
supportdetermination
Coordinatelead agencyagreement ifapplicable
Cat-Exvis PA?
Yes
No
Cat-Exvis PA?
No
File
File
Yes
Send forauthorizedsignature
Send toSHPO
Responsibleentity for
comment form
Send toSHPO 1
3
2
3
2
Map the NEW Process (cont.) Barbara
Lovan SubmittalComplete
Yes
No
Return tosender
Highlightmissing info
Prepare fileEmail 30
day letterscc: Leslie
Assign R&Cnumber to
new
Log intoR&C
database
Receivesfiles from
Lavon
Open mail &date stamp
Dan(Archaeology)
Barbara(Arch. History)
SHPO
Is theproject
new
Review projectagainst
checklist forcompleteness
Pull old fileLog into
R&Cdatabase
Print labelplace on forfile & datedue stamp
Separatefiles for
reviewers
Take files toreviewers
Sort by date& agency
Formalreview
ConcurYes
No
Receivesfiles from
Lavon
Sort by date& agency
Formalreview
ConcurYes
No
Updatedatabase
Put downreasons for
non-concurrance
Is there anarchaeology
NoYes
Send outcommentsby email
cc: Leslie &Rita
Log out R&Cdatabase
Print out 2tracking
form and 2copies ofcomment
Send toLovan
Updatearchaeo site
database
Update R&Cdatabase
Sort projectfile
Reader’s fileISI HADB
R&CNADB
Disturbed
End
Assign newinventorynumber
Log intoinventorydatabase
Prepareinventory file
Put downreasons for
non-concurrance
Yes
No
4
Brainstorming Gabe
• Training on 106 process – Better guidance – Common language
• Programmatic Memorandum of Understanding – Categorical exclusions
• Communications – ICN – Email
• Checklists
De-selection of Ideas Lori
Difficulty
Impact
0 10
10
A B
C D
Results Lavon
Old Process New Process ChangeTotal steps 142 74 48% decreaseNumber of loops 24 10 58% decreaseNumber of delays 30 8 73% decreaseNumber of decisions 31 15 52% decreaseNumber of handoffs 29 11 62% decreasePercent (%) value added 16 21 31% increase
Results (cont.) Dan
• Develop programmatic memorandum of understanding
• Improve the database tracking • Outline training opportunities • Build better working relationships • Develop a user’s manual
Homework Berry & Gretchen
• PMOU roll-out August 1, 2004 • Core group in July, 2004 • Training in October, 2004 • Web guidance ASAP • Checklist completed in July, 2004 • Database changes in July, 2004
Parking Lot Joe T.
• Public involvement - core group • Ongoing survey efforts - core group
Conclusions Doug
• Formation of core group • Put processes in place to meet goals
– Email instead of snail mail – List of categorically excluded projects – More technical assistance up front so submittals
are more complete • Establish a timeline for completion
Experiences
Don Paula Mark Kent
Comments Jim
Questions?