Process improvement and cultural change: How to drive technology decisions that matter for your public agency

During my tenure in the IT industry, I generally encountered two types of customers: the first was happy with their current technology and saw little potential in something new. The second was enamored with new technology and purchased the latest software solutions to solve a novel subset of issues. Since my success was measured by the fires I put out and the software solutions I implemented, the optimization of existing technology was rarely recognized. It was equally uncommon to think about how a new purchase would affect the public agency in a few years. 

While the thinking of both types of customers may have been justified, they answered an ill-considered question: When should technology be brought in to respond to the ever-increasing demand to boost efficiency? This question assumes that digital solutions are the remedy for any problem. 

IT managers often get pushed into buying products they don’t necessarily endorse. There are many reasons for this, several of which are beyond their control (for example, purchase commitments made by predecessors before leaving the agency). Despite initial resistance, managers may give in to user pressure. Once the product is rolled out, it may not meet user expectations and quickly fall out of use. The IT manager may feel vindicated, but it may be too late. Sometimes, they may simply shrug off the outcomes and say, “I gave my customers what they wanted,” and move on. What remains invisible to the public agency is how such implementations end up creating a cascade of problems.

Numerous systems and specialty tools enter public agencies through the back door in the construction industry. Many single-purpose applications are added as needed. I will not call them one-off type functions; I would rather call them minor functions, which end up being the fiefdom of one or two people. Upper management accepts this ever-growing number of unique applications that never go away, creating small pockets of isolated information. Five or six years later, when you discover these functions must be integrated into a larger workflow, it becomes impossible to share the knowledge between them, resulting in data silos.

Do we need to have a new technology solution for every challenge we face, or should we master efficiency by improving processes for existing solutions? 

The presence of a multitude of software solutions should be the first clue you will need to refocus on process improvement and, at an abstract level, change the mindset that drives us into such corners. To simplify the lives of IT managers, we must overcome the influence of users’ personalities and desires. Process improvement, not a blind dash for technology, should be the first goal of a public agency. Actual optimization delivers a state-of-the-art workflow that is transparent and goal-focused. 

I was fortunate to have worked on implementing a base document management system as well as related processes for a municipal department. With its completion, the true power of the workflow was apparent when the approval and signing process got streamlined. The procedure required finance, law, purchase, etc., to ensure that the contract followed what the Mayor had set down. The Director at the time was emphatic: Everything had to be done as mandated by the law or as enshrined in the charter and by the Mayor. It was the culture. On average, it took 21 days to complete the approval process. However, the implementation of the new workflow helped us get it down to 3.5 days. 

This demonstrates the importance of executive sponsorship to process improvement and, by implication, cultural change. For example, there was a time when the city engineers wanted to sign off on contracts before going to the Mayor. The Director said, “Well, that’s not a legal requirement.” So, we changed the process and introduced “notifications” to indicate that the contract was “moving forward,” eliminating another approval requirement. Until then, “approval” was seen as an absolute need. But it was an excessive step, one that served as a barrier to efficiency. That is the cultural aspect I was referring to. You should be able to change things without anyone saying, “We’ve been doing this for 20 years, and this is the best way to do it, so why change?” It would be best if you had the input of these people (who own the process), but you cannot continue doing business the way it was done 20 years ago. We live in a different world. No one person can overrule or derail true change, and everyone must be encouraged to accept the change.

However, achieving radical transformation is hard. A great shift is often associated with increased risk. Staff must be encouraged to take risks by rewarding success and learning from failures. This is when you get real efficiency gains.