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?