Step By Step: Your Greatest Opportunity to Improve Your Procedure Can Be Found in its Smallest Part

By Elizabeth McQueen

We’ve all had to revisit our documented procedures to implement improvements. Sometimes we do so in the interest of complying with a certain quality standard or model, and sometimes we have found that certain activities were missing in our initial capture of the process.

However, even if we think we’re only going to “tweak” the procedure, the best approach is to revisit each step with fresh eyes. It doesn’t necessarily have to take much time, and you may be surprised at the opportunities you discover to improve flow and efficiency!

The elements of each step in any procedure include the order among the steps, role, input(s) and output(s). When we consider these elements as described below – especially after a newly defined procedure has been in place for a while – we often find ways to make the process stronger by adjusting aspects of some steps. As you review the steps in your procedure, think of the following tips.

Order of Steps

Does the procedure document describe the steps of the procedure as-is, or as they should be? Do steps, in reality, happen in an order that differs from the official, documented process? If so, why is that?

Would altering the order of steps make the procedure more efficient or effective? Or would consolidating some steps make more sense? For example, if a particular role regularly performs steps out of sequence, it might be beneficial to move those steps next to each other.

Not doing so can lead to “while you’re at it” syndrome, in which the players of the roles in the procedure take it upon themselves to reorder the steps. This may backfire and result in wasted time if it means they are skipping steps, and then backtracking to complete them – particularly if it has not been communicated to the other players who are expecting the regular flow.

When is each piece of information needed for the procedure? If the order of steps does not result in the timely transfer of information, it could actually cost your organization time and money. For example, if Earned Value is calculated with 3 month old information, the results aren’t actionable, anyway!

Handing off the same piece of paper, data file or form to a particular role or stakeholder multiple times as an input and/or output for various steps might be a sign of inefficiency; tap into this potential opportunity to save time, money, or effort by adjusting or streamlining the steps’ sequence.

Sometimes we define “fast track” or emergency processes that are supposed to speed things up under special circumstances. If these are not carefully designed and executed, they might actually cost you, due to the increased training need. If you don’t thoroughly train the participants, it will be even worse, because people will waste time consulting each other about the altered steps!

Roles

Is a specific role designated to perform each step? Could or should the step (sometimes) be performed by a different role under certain circumstances? If so, can you specify what those circumstances would be? If the person playing the role in question is busy or is somehow unmotivated to perform the step in a timely fashion, it could create a bottleneck for this process. If this is the case, could the time required for this step be unreasonable? Even if it is just based on your gut feeling, it can be beneficial to consider, and to explore why the step is so time consuming.

If a step requires that the person playing the role provide certain information, maybe he or she would be more likely to execute if a template were provided for capturing and transferring that information.

Inputs and Outputs

What information is needed to begin each step, and what is its source? The most common type of bottleneck in a process is usually related to input data that are not readily accessible. How do the providers of the input know when the input will be needed? Is the procedure missing a step to request the preparation of the input? If the provider of the input is unable or unwilling to respond to the timely need for the data, is there another potential source, even an automated tool, that could provide the same or comparable, sufficient data for the step to begin? Beyond alternative sources of input data, would the procedure benefit from alternative methods of communication/compilation?

What form does the input take? If it literally is a form, are all the elements or fields really necessary or critical, or are any just nice to have? Are other necessary pieces of information missing? Does it vary by circumstance? If communication of the input is usually less structured (say, via email), would creating a simple form for the purpose prove more efficient?

Does the output of each step become an input of another step or procedure? (If not, what purpose does it serve?) Is the resulting input sufficient and timely enough to serve that step or procedure? Could the output result in the capture of a metric that could be used to gauge the health or this or other processes within the organization?

Automation

There has been a lot of buzz in recent years about automating steps in repeatable processes. If doing so free sup individuals to do more analytical work, this can be a wonderful time saver; but before you look for ways to automate, consider whether it would really be beneficial:

• Is the step repetitive enough for economies of scale to make up for the cost of setting up the automation? Implementing regression testing for software requires considerable setup efforts. To do so only at the end of a software product’s life cycle is probably not cost effective.
• Is the input required for the step conducive to automation? A tool used for gathering data might also be capable of automatically creating a report based on that data.
• Does the step’s input require human analysis to identify the next step in a branched flow? If selection of the next step is based on the identification of a status state from a finite list, no complicated logic is involved, and automating might be a good option.
• Could automation result in the calculation of meaningful metrics data? Creating an automated report that is produced on a regular basis could be a painless way to spot trends in a procedure’s productivity or efficiency.

Taking a fresh look at the various aspects of individual steps each time you revisit a procedure is well worth the small amount of additional effort. The outcome of this effort will be a procedure that achieves the necessary results faster and is easier to follow. This is truly improving the process, rather than just modifying it.

Elizabeth McQueen became a process improvement specialist in 2001 after 12 years of technical writing. She lives in Alexandria, VA, with her husband and two "boys" (one canine and one feline). Elizabeth can be reached via email. Contact Elizabeth.