Summit on Lean and Process Improvement for Environmental Agencies in the Northeast May 28, 2014 Douglas Fine, Assistant Commissioner for Planning & Evaluation Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

 Integrated online Secretariat-wide IT system  Automate standardized business processes  Share data transparently  Use state-of-the-art information technology  Improved tools for businesses, the public, and EEA agencies  Cost: $40 million over 5 years  Pre-Design work began in 2011  Begin design work in July 2014  EIPAS functions begin rolling out

Tools for Businesses/Regulated Entities: 24/7 access to permit & reporting status One on-line place for reporting, compliance payments, etc. Step-by-step permit application guidance (incl. sample permits; completeness checks,..) Tools for General Public/Advocates: Map-based “point & click” access to regulated activities Easy dive into deeper content (incl. permits held, spill notifications, compliance status/history,..) Tools for MassDEP: Computerized administrative completeness & compliance screening Automated (or IT-assisted) agency responses Improved management tools 3

In order to maximize the value of the IT redesign, MassDEP is: ◦ Optimizing and aligning agency work practices (called Agency Process Optimization) ◦ Establishing common data standards across all programs and locations 7

 Before IT design begins, engage with staff who “do the work” to: ◦ Align practices across programs & offices ◦ Make simple improvements in work flows ◦ Document agency processes/work flows  APO helps: ◦ Provide clear consistent documentation to designers ◦ Reduce the number of workflows for EIPAS ◦ Avoid “coding” current inefficiencies 8

 Inventory processes (agency-wide)  Prioritize processes for APO  Identify optimizations (for a handful of processes) ◦ mapping current workflows ◦ identifying ways to standardize and improve ◦ mapping future workflows  Implement optimizations (for these processes) ◦ codifying future-state workflows ◦ creating SOPs, template docs, etc.  Expand optimizations (across all programs, for each process) 9

 Processes Inventoried (Winter 2013)  Selected three for first APOs (Winter 2013): ◦ Permitting, Complaint Management, Reporting  Identified Optimizations (Winter 2013) : ◦ Permitting: 3 Air Permits; 2 Groundwater Permits ◦ Complaint Management: Air, Wetlands, Strike Force ◦ Reporting: Environmental Results Program [Done via intensive “workshops” – 2 to 4 days] 10

 Implemented these Optimizations (Summer/Fall 2013) [Done via periodic team meetings w/assignments]  Expanding Permitting Optimizations to all permits (Winter/Spring 2014) ( aka Assimilation) [Done via consultation sessions w/individuals or small groups] 11

Map Current State Identify Opportunities and Solutions Develop High Level Action Plan Map Future State Standardization Steps Current State MapFuture State Map The Winter 2013 workshops followed 4 key steps to identify pre-design process changes and map a standardized “future state” process. 12

1.0 Standard Procedures: ◦ Staff checklists for internal documentation of permit review ◦ Guidance to support internal document sharing ◦ Internal SOPs for administrative tasks & PIMS entry 2.0 Supporting Documents & Templates: ◦ Applicant checklists for complete submittals ◦ Document templates (Admin Review Completed, Confirming Withdrawal of Application) 3.0 New Tools & Capabilities: ◦ Decision trees for applicants ◦ Templates/forms for GW applicants to self-certify ownership & control and financial/operational responsibility 4.0 Staff Training on Permit Writing: ◦ Determine need for, and contents of staff training (must first clarify the “problem to be solved”) ◦ Develop or provide the training 13

Conduct “consultation sessions” to: ◦ Identify key variations from a baseline workflow ◦ Put permits into “families” ◦ Generate permit workflow diagrams for each family ◦ Collect standard documents & templates in use ◦ Identify new std docs / SOPs that would be helpful ◦ Record process improvement recommendations See sample workflow charts (on wall) 14

 Finish Assimilation for all Permits  Additional Implementation Work (pre-EIPAS Website Changes) for Complaints Management  APO for Revenue Collection & Management  APO for Routine Reporting  Additional APO (TBD) 16

Activity / Role# of PeopleDuration of Commitment # of Days Project Management Team 12On-going (began Dec. 2012) 1 day/week Project Sponsors3On-going1 day/month Identification12 per process3 weeks each4 days total per person Implementation12 per process12 weeks each4 days total per person Assimilation45 for permitting 16 weeks1 day total per person 17

 Std documentation of workflows & std templates are very helpful  Some pre-design testing is valuable  Lean “Lite” isn’t enough time  Make “identification” and “implementation” the same step  More frequent sr. sponsor engagement w/teams (daily?)  Need good facilitators  Line staff need coaching to develop program- wide implementation guidance 18

 Event “playbook” (for Identifying Optimizations)  Event facilitator resources  Sample materials ◦ Charters & scopes ◦ Meeting invitations ◦ Event agendas ◦ Implementation memos, etc. 19

Change Management 20

The following perceptions were raised by staff in Fall 2013:  EIPAS will limit staff flexibility thus limiting our value-added  EIPAS will replace people/result in layoffs  EIPAS is too big & ambitious to get done  EIPAS will only be a glorified fee collection system  EIPAS will fade away with the next governor 21

 Establish a clear vision  Top down communication to highlight priorities  Bottom up engagement with staff to help plan for a system based on client needs and to build “ownership” of the system 22

Routinely share EIPAS & APO information and engage personnel via: ◦ Weekly updates at Commissioner’s Senior Staff meetings ◦ Monthly decisions/acceptance sessions at Senior Leadership meetings ◦ Monthly updates at Bureau & Regional 1 st line supervisors meetings ◦ Periodic All-Staff “Road Shows” (began 2014) ◦ Periodic Commissioner’s All-Staff s ◦ Bi-Weekly Sponsor Meetings 23

 Significant time/effort for APO & Data Standards  Persistent staff engagement & communications  Strong commitment from senior agency heads  Committed Project Management Teams and Sponsor Group  Dedicated project support/coordination 24

25