|
We use a variety of charting and descriptive
methodologies, selecting specific techniques
to best meet the objective of clear
communications with all of the stakeholders.
Typically we start with charting how the
process works – at least how it works on
paper. After a few rounds of questioning for
understanding, we find more often than not
that the way the process actually works in
the field differs – significantly – from the
way the book says it does. From the “true”
picture of the process we work to identify
shortcomings. We perform a “component
failure impact analysis”; we look for
bottlenecks and potential points of failure.
They may be individual components –
sometimes paper forms, sometimes computer
hardware and software, sometimes roles, and
sometimes even specific people – whose
“failures” would be most harmful to the
process. An example of such a potential
“failure point” might be the resignation of
the only person in the organization who
posses “institutional memory” of how the
process developed into its current form. We
look for resource drains; we look for
“transformers” that leverage resources in
the process to produce the best “bang for
the buck.” The analysis may take several
iterations; from the analysis emerges the
concept for the re-engineered process.
From that concept, we work with the client
to develop a preliminary design, an initial
evaluation of the potential benefits of the
modified process, and an initial estimate of
the effort and cost needed to implement the
design. Our consulting engagement closes
with a handoff of the design and assessment
to the client – or by D. H. Keene Associates
proceeding to a design and build engagement
with the client.
We have performed consulting services for a
variety of public and private sector
clients; they include city and state
government agencies, health providers and
health benefit providers, medical research
facilities and medical group practices.
|
