Embed – monitoring and tracking of key performance measures and the coaching and mentoring of lean implementers This step is considered the

linchpin of lasting lean improvements.

In the UK, Radnor (2010b) describes the roll-out of the ‘Unipart Way’ to implement Lean in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The HMRC is responsible for “administering taxes (both direct and indirect), National

Insurance contributions and Customs duties. HMRC also pays and administers tax credits, Child Benefit and Child Trust Fund” (Radnor, 2010b:416). The

73

Unipart Way was developed as a philosophy of a working in the manufacturing division of Unipart which was later attributed the accolade of “The best example

of the Toyota Production System outside Japan” by the Vice-President of Toyota Motor Company (Radnor, 2010b). The implementation model developed at Unipart initially for sharing knowledge with Unipart’s own suppliers was later rolled out as a new consultancy division. The model is replicated from Radnor (2010b:414-415) in figure 2.7a and b.

Figure 2.7a: The Unipart Way (Source: Radnor 2010b:414-415)

Figure 2.7b: Unipart model for Lean implementation (Source: Radnor 2010b:414-415)

74

The Unipart Way stays close to the origins of Lean, paying clear homage to the

Jidoka pillar of the TPS with the slogan: ‘Efficiency with a Human Face’, thus reminding employees of the essential part they play in facilitating and improving efficiency in the organisation. Both models of implementation (outlined in Krings et al, 2006 and Radnor, 2010b) acknowledge ‘training’ and knowledge transfer as an important aspect of Lean implementation supporting the findings of Part One that education and learning is necessary when an organisation implements Lean. The diagram in Figure 2.7b follows a similar process to that of Krings et al (2006), with ‘identification’ and ‘understanding the need to improve’ as an important first step followed by a ‘setting of objectives’ (akin to step 1 of Krings et al, 2006 and ‘grasp the situation’ in the Unipart process). Again, the inference here is that the Unipart way stays close to the TPS as ‘understanding’ was thought to be the favourite word of Taiichi Ohno, (Seddon et al, 2009). Steps to locate waste and implement solutions reflect step 3 of the model put forward by Krings et al (2006), and the final steps of the Unipart Way dictates a review of the situation and results and updating ‘standard work’. This ‘standard work’ step presents an apparent departure from the similarities with the steps presented in Krings et al (2006), but again stays close to the DNA of the TPS (Spear and Bowen, 1999) whereby ‘rigid specification is the very thing that makes flexibility

and creativity possible’ (p.97). Thus it might be sensible to conclude that the specification of work standards is an essential component of continuous improvement in a scientifically rigorous manner. The aim of the Toyota Production System in this sense is to develop a community of scientists, united by the same goal of continuous improvement supporting the contention of Spear and Bowen (1999). The implication here is that the principles and rules for Lean implementation discussed in section 2.3.2 are shown to apply to the public sector.

2.7.2 Challenges of implementing Lean at HMRC

Returning to the implementation of Lean in HMRC, the roll out of Lean across multiple sites was facilitated using a combination of centralised internal Lean experts and local internal Lean experts rotating between sites every three months.

75

Working alongside external consultants (including Unipart) the objective was to consistently transfer learning and good practice (Radnor, 2010b). Discussing the findings of the evaluation of Lean implementation in HMRC, Radnor (2010b) notes that standardisation was one tool that met a lot of resistance. The author questions the applicability of standard work to the public sector (a key component of Lean identified in Pettersen, (2009), see table 2.3), due to the need to respond to demand in a number of different ways. Evidence is inconclusive however, as Radnor explains, the standard work did not come from the workers themselves, they were imposed on them and thereby (perhaps predictably), staff branded them as ‘not fit for purpose’.

In contrast, standardisation was one of the tools and techniques considered important by HMRC employees alongside structured problem solving, process management, team working, continuous improvement and performance boards (Radnor 2010b). Performance boards, visual management and daily problem solving was thought to have had a particularly significant impact across the organisation. However, the author notes a tendency of some of the sites to misuse daily meetings and performance boards: ‘The format of the daily meetings, which

were described to and witnessed by the research team, were about discussing (or finding reasons for) non-achievement of targets (i.e. poor performance) rather than improvement’ (Radnor, 2010b:8). This marks a return to the early discussion of the importance of changing mindsets (section 2.1), from a functional view of organising towards a systemic, process view of work. Thus moving away from territorial notions that deliver at best, ‘islands of optimisation’ (Holweg and Pil, 2001), and recognising the importance of value from the perspective of the customer that the process must conjointly deliver. Thus it seems that barriers faced by the public sector in implementing Lean are similar to that experienced by manufacturing in terms of creating a shift in mindset from a functional perspective to a process/system perspective (Hines et al, 2004), and from the use of tools to the development of culture and organisational readiness for change (Radnor 2010b; Hines et al, 2008).

76

2.7.3 Summary and implications for research

The case studies described in Krings et al (2006) and Radnor (2010b) support the view that Lean principles outlined in part one can be applied to the public sector. However, contextual differences between the public and private sector denote that Lean should perhaps be adapted rather than blindly adopted into the public sector (Radnor and Walley, 2008), particularly in light of an operating context with multiple stakeholders that render the determination of ‘value’ from the perspective of the customer as inherently contestable. However, the case study approach employed by Radnor (2010b) provides a rich description of the complexities and tensions of Lean implementation in a government organisation that resonate with those faced by the private sector. For example, a blame culture where staff are misusing performance boards (in some sites) to apportion blame focusing on the

‘why not’ of improved performance rather than ‘how to’ (Radnor 2010b:420). This finding supports the contention that Lean implementation does require cultural change, particularly a change in mindsets, and this will not happen overnight. Furthermore, the case study lends support to the need for improvements to be made in line with scientific method at the lowest level of the organisation (Spear and Bowen, 1999). As the HMRC case demonstrates, without bottom-up improvement, staff feel like changes are imposed and de- contextualised from the specific nature of the work. At HMRC, the staff declared the standard work instructions as ‘not fit for purpose’, subsequently, many of the staff failed to use them (Radnor, 2010b:420). The research of Radnor (2010b) sheds light on some of the tools used to help implement Lean in the public sector: performance boards, visual management daily meetings and daily problem solving. What was particularly interesting was the resistance towards standard work and a process view of the organisation despite recognition that these tools were powerful. Thus, like manufacturing, again we find that a primary inhibitor of Lean implementation is the traditional mindset of the functional organisation. Finally, a further reflection of Lean implementation in manufacturing organisations, the case studies described in Krings (2006) and Radnor (2010b) suggest a tendency towards the application of tools without an understanding of the principles of Lean (Radnor et al, 2012).

77

Krings’ (2006) study also echoes the contention of Pettersen (2009) and Radnor and Walley (2008) that the approach to Lean implementation depends on the nature and focus of the organisation’s goals. The implication is that the research should consider the goals and more generally the context of the organisation in relation to implementing Lean to explore the existence of a relationship between organisational context and the approach to Lean implementation.

In summary, the two models of Lean implementation in the public sector that are described in section 2.7.1 support and compliment the conceptualisation of Lean postulated in section 2.

The next section explores the extant literature relating to the implementation of Lean in healthcare.