Possibly the largest debate on lean in the public sector belongs to the differing opinions of the use of lean in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Many may be surprised to hear of how an organisation who are responsible for the collection of tax in the United Kingdom and have made such a high number of errors have been promoted as a leader of ‘lean thinking’ in the public sector. 1.4 million people have unwittingly paid too little tax through the PAYE system, while 4.5 million have paid too much; another 17.9 million might have paid the wrong amount, but HMRC is not sure. This amounts to 23.8 million people whose tax affairs are uncertain.
However, Dr Zoe Radnor advocates HMRC’s approach as “the closest of any public service organisation to date in implementing Lean philosophy” while John Bicheno believes “HMRC is a ‘neo-Taylorist’ implementation of what Bob Emiliani calls ‘Fake Lean’. Ohno would be horrified, as would Mike Rother, and Thomas Johnson.”
This debate continues after publication of another journal: Lean and mean in the civil service: the case of processing in HMRC by Bob Carter, Andy Danford, Debra Howcroft, Helen Richardson, Andrew Smith & Phil Taylor. http://www.tandfonline.com/
Unipart, a consulting organisation who supported the lean programmes over a 4-year period promote the approach used and have a case study downloadable on their website. They quote the programmes will deliver productivity improvements of 30 – 50%. A phenomenal increase in anyone’s book. http://www.unipart.co.uk/wps/
Professor Gregor Gall from Hertfordshire University also has been vocal with his opinions of the effects on the workers of HMRC of the ‘lean’ implementations. Gall claims that they are responsible for “de-skilling” and “de-humanising” workers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Professor Seddon has also expressed negative views of the use of lean in HMRC with many examples shared in his publication, Systems Thinking in the Public Sector: The Failure of the Reform Regime…. and a Manifesto for a Better Way.
As there is such a divided opinion on this interesting subject lets continue the debate. What’s your opinion? Is lean getting a bad name? What does this mean to the future of lean? Please feel free to contribute on our blog.
Ryan King
Head of Learning & Development
REINVIGORATION
There is nothing unique in the Lean efforts at HMRC as described by Carter et al. in “Lean and Mean in the Civil Service: The Case of Processing in HMRC.” It is the all-too-common failed effort brought about by a combination of uninformed senior management, consultant-led Lean, and ignoring the “Respect for People” principle in Lean management. That, plus a zero-sum atmosphere (layoffs), resulted in outcomes that were entirely predictable.
The paper by Carter et al. is, however, an outstanding example of what not to do, and therefore very useful for teaching students in my university course on Lean leadership. From the paper we see that almost every aspect of Lean management and Lean leadership at HMRC has been bungled due to ignorance, misunderstandings, or misapplication of Lean principles and practices.
HRMC management would benefit greatly from watching these videos of executives who, through personal engagement with Lean principles and practices, gained a correct understanding of Lean management and therefore avoided bad outcomes. See http://www.bobemiliani.com/wiremoldvideos.html?v=ZoX3Qsz2m1U.
Regarding Mr. Gregor Gall, he is repeating 100-year old concerns that have largely remain unaddressed by senior managers and consultants. See “Progressive Management: 100 Years of Criticism” http://www.bobemiliani.com/oddsnends/pmc.pdf. As a result, it remains difficult to achieve real progress.
Finally, I have made the case in a few of my books in the REAL LEAN series that Lean management is likely dying precisely because of botched efforts to understand and practice Lean, such as at HMRC. These outcomes are common despite having gained decades of practical knowledge that inform us of what to do and what not to do when introducing progressive Lean management into organizations.
Bob Emiliani
http://www.bobemiliani.com
Just like with PMS and Six Sigma, the Quality and Effectiveness of LEAN weighs heavily NOT on the SIZE of the consulting firm, its “reputable” management, nor indeed the magnificence of the sales pitch, but on the experience, mindset, and abilities of the individuals carrying out the assignment. There is a general acceptance that if I put up a great show (sales pitch) then everyone in my team knows what he or she is doing. Sales people are usually NOT involved in the assignment. We also seem to think that if a firm has serviced a number of big brands, then they must know what they are doing. In LEAN, you are effectively as good as your current application because it is the only one that matters to the client concerned.
There is nothing wrong with using a consultant for LEAN assignments as long as you are careful enough to choose a suitable consultant. I also believe that a suitable consultant will most probably drive the assignment more focused and precisely enough to reach the intended objective. However, there seems to be widespread tendencies to appoint unsuitable consultants, especially in government organisations.
You may have the best solution, but if you choose the wrong person to implement it you are more likely to cause more damage than resolve the problem. This is what I believe is giving great solutions like LEAN bad association.
One other determinant is the readiness of the organisation. LEAN demands a new ways of thinking. Management must adopt LEAN leadership philosophy. Experiences of employees must be fed into the system. However, if the assignment is just a paper exercise for a mere tick in the performance scorecard, the LEAN assignment will be dead on implementation. It is unfortunate that the thick layer of political cloud in government organisations prevents meaningful implementations. By virtue, simply deploying tools and methods is not a successful LEAN implementation.
Hi to you, i have been teaching LEAN for over 12 years now within Banking, Retail and non manufacturing circles.
In my opinion, there would be over 80% of LEAN so called experts that could not create effective change within an entire business culture if there life dependant on it. it will fail due to people realising that they can do a course for $400.00 and become certified as a Green Belt and earn over $100K in Australia.
The industry is full of ex manufacturers or inexperienced people leaders who try to adapt manufacturing systems within non manufacturing environments and have opportunists punching out training course after training course developing people with the same old tired material that came out of Toyota 30 years ago. Its 2011, let’s put LEAN on steroids and take it forward.
So is LEAN going to die? Probably if guys like you and me sit back and watch it happen or we do something about it. I for one want to push for us to form a global consortium that regulates the so called LEAN consultants and pushes out the smaller opportunists who are trying to make a quick buck.
My personal email is gbarbas@ThinkLEAN.com.au and my Skype id is ‘ThinkLEAN’, happy to discuss this more offline as its killing the industry. You know it’s time to get out when the tea lady is enquiring about becoming a GREEN belt.
“Divided opinion”, eh? And there was naive little old me thinking that Lean problem-solving evidence-based.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Applying the label ‘lean’ to implementation practices that do not support the underlying principles of ‘flow design and production’ do not, in truth, deserve the label. Nor can the use of so-called ‘lean tools’ or techniques, invented in the context of mass production, in the very different context of service or product development value streams, really be regarded as ‘lean’. These are examples of what my friend and colleague, Stephen Parry, calls LINO … Lean In Name Only. Otherwise known as LAME… Lean As Mistakenly Executed.
The process is familiar. Oligarchs and autocrats have often pretended to be ‘democratic’. But they are soon exposed because their behaviour (the walk) does not match their rhetoric (the talk). Similarly, the ‘lean transformation’ at HMRC clearly fails to embody the most basic of lean principles. Certainly, there seems to be very little evidence of an attempt to understand or focus on stakeholder value, nor in obtaining a realistic, quantified understanding of [all of] the process steps in the value stream(s). QED. It does not deserve the label of ‘lean’ or ‘flow production’.
As Bob Emiliani has pointed out, the win:lose nature of the transformation fails to implement the ‘respect for people’ principle that George Woollard, Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo emphasized.
Should such behaviours and misapplications (either deliberate or accidental) surprise us? No. One can trace evidence of some of the practices we now refer to as ‘lean’ back something over 2250 years. The fact that most people fail to appreciate the implications and benefits of these practices suggests that achieving and sustaining a thorough-going lean transformation is hard. Especially in the face of inherently unfair political and economic systems.