Majority of the Filipino populace have only achieved a secondary school diploma or a technical vocational education and training certificate, with only 20.83% of the labor force having a college degree as reported by the Philippine Statistics Authority in its 2016 Labor Force Survey. The minute percentage of enrollees and graduates in tertiary education is caused by its high financial and opportunity costs. While Filipino families may value education, the pressing burden of expenses outweighs the advantages of investment in further studies. Unfortunately, this not only decreases the opportunity of economic progress for the family through better employment and higher income, but it also affects the country’s capacity and productivity.

Photo credit: Business World Philippines

In an effort to reach the unmet demand for education, the province of Albay initiated a gallant investment of PHP 30 million annually to its Education Quality for Albayano (EQUAL) scholarship program in 2nd district of Albay Representative Joey Salceda’s vision to have a college graduate for every Albayano family. The program paved way for the introduction of a sustainable higher education funding system for its citizens with proven results of poverty reduction. House Bill No. 5315 and No. 2771 was later introduced in the House of Representative to operationalize the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education (UAQTE) which was then signed into law on August 13, 2017 as Republic Act No. 10931. Aiming for equitable providence of all Filipinos for quality tertiary education in both private and public educational institutions, it prioritizes academically-able students coming from poor families. The act contains five key components: (1) Free higher education in State Universities and Colleges (SUCs); (2) Free higher education in Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs); (3) Free technical-vocational education and training in post-secondary Technical-Vocational institutions (TVIs); (4) Tertiary Education Subsidy (TES) for Filipino Students; and (5) Student Loan Program (SLP) for Tertiary Education. The PHP 40 billion addition to the budget of the education sector is an investment for the future. For education’s direct link to employment and productivity curtails how it is a critical determinant for upward mobility and forthcoming overall standard of living. The investment made today will reap exponentially for every Filipino.

Productivity is simply measured by the ratio of outputs over inputs, and the level of productivity is a fundamental determinant of performance. This translates to the everyday standard of living based on the country’s nationwide performance, or the quality of public goods and services delivered grounded on the government’s productive use of tax collected. Recognizing the significance of productivity, in 1961, the Philippines joined seven other Asian countries in establishing the Asian Productivity Organization which aims to contribute to the sustainable socioeconomic development of Asia and the Pacific through enhancing productivity. Since then various productivity programs were introduced, an annual observation of National Quality and Productivity Month in October was celebrated, and Executive Order No. 395 Approving and Adopting the National Action Agenda for Productivity (NAAP) and Creating the Philippine Council for Productivity was signed in 1997. This was continued by the Medium-Term National Action Agenda for Productivity (MTNAAP) in the early 2000s with the Philippine Quality Award (PQA) institutionalized by Republic Act No. 9013. While the concepts of productivity were introduced in the Philippines in the 1970s, its Total Factor Productivity (TFP) ran an overall negative growth from the period of 1970 to 1990 and only became positive for the period of 1990 to 2013 with an average growth of 1.1%. While the productivity outlook of the Philippines is incrementally increasing, it is still lagging behind its neighboring countries. Several productivity challenges deter the country’s growth, and these are categorized as systems, technology, workforce, equipment, and governance. Complicated structures and burdensome regulations require systems reengineering and process improvement. Aligning to international standards and maximizing cross-functional coordination responds to a more customer-centric process and result to a more efficient and more seamless transaction. The anemic use of productivity enhancing technologies also hinders the opportunities of the digital age to harmonize service delivery and innovate for value creation. This era of change demands modernizing job competencies and increased measurement of productivity performance coupled with the development of knowledge productivity and innovative capacity. The surge of technologies and equipment also strain the necessity for an escalated productivity and quality consciousness and a new form of leadership and policies. As the productivity movement in the Philippines began in 1960s with its official declaration of commitment to productivity improvement, it has then created institutions, built partnerships, introduced program initiatives and developed frameworks and policies in the pursuit for increased national productivity. Up to this day, productivity is treated as priority indicating a Subsector Target Outcome of “Seamless Service Delivery Achieved” under Chapter 5 of the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022 with the following strategies: (1) adopt a whole-of-government approach in delivery of key services; (2) implement regulator reforms; and (3) improve productivity of the public sector. Together with various national agencies and high impact productivity and innovation programs, the Philippine government aims to be responsive to the needs of its people by efficiently and effectively delivering public goods and services. Good public service results in citizen satisfaction and public trust and confidence thereby ultimately improving competitiveness and nationwide performance.

“Our people, through their taxes, provide the lifeblood of the government. They are the reason for the government’s very existence.”

– President Rodrigo Roa Duterte on the National Budget for FY 2017

  On July 20, 2012, Executive Order No. 80 directed the adoption of the Performance Based-Incentive System (PBIS), a nation-wide, integrated incentive system emphasizing individual performance and contributions to the accomplishments of agency targets, computed based on percentage of individual salary in the form of either Performance Based Bonus (PBB) or the Productivity Enhancement Incentives (PEI). Formalized through Administrative Order No. 25 s. 2011, the defining nature of the PBIS is its goal of building foundations of a performance culture and a habit of excellence, and to recognize and reward delivery units based on performance results. The system aims to restore confidence of the Filipino people in the capacity of public servants to make people’s lives better, safer and healthier.

PBB Orientation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
Entitlement to performance-based bonuses is determined through the Results-Based Performance Monitoring System (RBPMS), a unified system to integrate the efforts of the government agencies relative to the five key result areas set by the President.  The bonuses and incentives are sourced from the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund (MPBF) after accomplishment of the PBIS eligibility criteria and submission of accomplishment reports to the task force. The rankings are done by unit heads, with objective templates to be filled out and collated for evaluation. The implementation of the PBIS is handled by the AO 25 Inter-Agency Task Force chaired by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and co-chaired by the Office of the Executive Secretary. Members of the task force include the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Finance (DOF) and partner agencies responsible for implementation, with OP and DBM as lead. Monitoring of agency compliance and performance scorecards are made available online. Since its implementation in 2012, the PBIS has been subjected to several phases of development, with performance indicators and targets reflected in the Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF) Book of Outputs. Through the PBIS and RBPMS, the government sought to strengthen performance management through the harmonization of existing performance monitoring, establishment of appraisal and reporting systems, veering away from across-the-board bonuses and linking incentives with results that matter to citizens. Within five years, the number of participant agencies increased from 184 out of 191 agencies in 2012 to 273 out of 307 agencies in 2017. This includes government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs), state-owned universities and colleges (SUCs), and other executive offices (OEOs). PBBs are granted on the condition that physical targets, conditions for good governance, and performance management conditions are met. Physical targets include priority program targets, major financial outputs, support to operations and general administrative support services; conditions for good governance which include the establishment of a transparency seal, posting of bid notices and awards on the website of the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS), liquidation of all cash advances of officials and employees, and the establishment of a Citizen’s Charter or its equivalent. The third condition, performance management, involves the cascading of targets, System of Rating and Ranking (SRR) and communication and change management. The eligibility of an agency to be entitled to the PBB system includes considerations such as the Major Final Outputs (MFO) Targets under the Performance Informed Budget (PIB) of the GAA, Targets for Support to Operations (STO) and the General Administration and Support (GASS) Targets which include the Budget Utilization Rate (BUR), compliance to the Public Financial Management (PFM) reporting requirements of the COA, and ISO-aligned documentation of at least one core process. In the future, the government hopes to further refine the PBIS by introducing tighter requirements on performance incentives, conduct review and validation processes, increase collaboration between agencies, streamline government transactions and most important of all, to build the capacity of public servants. All these share the goal of reforming culture and mindsets on government work and delivering meaningful results to citizens.

In line with the spirit of innovation and good governance, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) pilot-tested the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS). It was developed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), approved on March 04, 2011 through CSC Resolution No. 1100224, and implemented through DOLE Administrative Order No. 114, s. 2011. The SPMS was made effective beginning March 28, 2011 and is currently being implemented in other agencies as well.

Photo from Dole Ilocos Region

The SPMS is a core performance management tool aimed to improve the efficiency and productivity of DOLE employees through performance monitoring and feedback, in line with the Aquino administration’s 22-point labor and employment principles. The SPMS synchronizes the evaluation of individual and organizational performance and provides performance-based allowances and incentives based on this evaluation. The system aims to:

  1. Institutionalize a scientific and verifiable basis in assessing organizational performance and the collective performance of individuals within the DOLE;
  2. Concretize the link of the Department’s Strategic Plan and Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF) with the performance of its offices and individual employees; and,
  3. Use one platform to link performance management with other HR systems.
Photo from Dole Ilocos Region

The system essentially focuses on individual performance in relation to the outputs/outcomes of the organization, rewards good performance and provides employees opportunities for improvement. The resulting impact of effective implementation is a more responsive, impactful, transparent, and streamlined operations. The SPMS cycle follows four steps, namely: planning and commitment, monitoring and coaching, review and evaluation, and rewarding and development planning. SPMS is only one of three performance management systems implemented by DOLE such as the OPIF of the Department of Budget and Management which measures agency performance, and the Results-Based Performance Management System (RBPMS) which serves as the basis for determining entitlement to performance-based allowances and incentives, linking organizational performance to societal goals Performance evaluation teams were created to spearhead the implementation and set the targets of SPMS in the agency, and a performance validation teams to evaluate and report on submitted ladderized evaluations incorporated in the Individual Performance Commitment and Review, Division Performance Commitment Reviews and Office Performance Commitment Reviews.

These evaluation tools serve as basis for determining competency gaps among offices and employees and for identifying offices and individuals to be nominated for DOLE-wide, CSC and Career Executive Service Board (CESB) award nominations. Performance measures captured by the OPCRs measure the three dimensions of performance which include: effectiveness/quality, efficiency, and timeliness. These tools serve to provide feedback on employees for their work during the year, such that performance-based bonuses are given to performers and those with unsatisfactory ratings are entitled to opportunities for improvement. Following the issuance of DOLE’s SPMS guidelines, a series of detailed orientations were conducted followed by implementation, monitoring and evaluation.  DOLE initiated an action plan and provided for the facilities and resources needed to implement the system in all DOLE services, bureaus and attached agencies. Employees were briefed on the scoring and monitoring system prior to the year-end evaluations and appraisal. Review of the SPMS and other performance monitoring mechanisms are also conducted for continuous development.

The World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business 2018 reported an improvement in the Philippines’ business regulations as it tightens the gap with global regulatory frontier. From its 58.32 score on the distance to frontier metric in Doing Business 2017, it rose to 58.74 as it enriched its electronic system for tax payment and collection, and reduced its processing time to get an electricity connection. Amidst the incremental enhancements, the report also narrated that an entrepreneur in Quezon City would require 16 procedures, 28 days, and cost around 16% of income per capita to incorporate a business, then pay 42.9% of its commercial profits in 20 different taxes and contributions to multiple agencies. This evidently describes how small and medium enterprises still face substantial regulatory burden to start and operate a business, and how cumbersome regulation is associated with lower productivity.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) notes that regulation, as one of the three key levers of state power, is of utmost importance in shaping the welfare of economies and societies. While regulations may be perceived as controls and barriers for compliance, it is the government’s necessary intervention for better competition and development of the country. However, much of the current regulations in the Philippines have stemmed from reactionary measures rather than instruments arising from a coherent government strategy, thereby much of its compounded nature increase compliance costs for businesses and lead to unnecessary burdensome complexities.

As the Philippine government aims to be more responsive to the changing needs of the citizenry and as it works to sustain the record high economic growth, there have been several efforts to reduce bureaucratic red tape in both social services and economic activities. The Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) in partnership with the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) developed the Modernizing Government Regulations (MGR) Program aimed to examine the existing regulatory environments, determine how they affect the growth and operations of businesses, and develop proposals that would make those regulations more relevant and coherent.

It also hopes to develop an integrated business regulatory framework with a responsive, citizen-focused, systems and process-based Regulatory Management System that centers on horizontal governance. This follows the three stages of regulatory reform: de-regulation, regulatory quality improvement, and regulatory management; and uses the two tools in quality regulatory management system: regulatory impact assessment and cost compliance analysis.

The MGR Program is designed to support economic growth and make it more inclusive through an improved business climate with reduced regulatory cost and more transparent and relevant regulations. With the implementation of internationally recognized processes, systems, tools and methods for improving the quality of regulations or Good Regulatory Practices (GRP), it strives to form part of the Philippines’ regulatory reform that enhances the social fabric to ensure people-centered, clean and efficient governance laying down the foundation for inclusive growth, a high-trust society, and a globally competitive knowledge economy.

This in turn encourages the shift of business from the informal to the formal economy, supports the private sector to expand its economic activities, and attracts foreign direct investments. In the intention to streamline and decrease regulatory burden for all, smart regulation is in principle no regulation.

The 21st century has seen radical changes and advancements in its early years. Driven mostly by technological innovations and digital revolutions, information technology has evolved beyond imagination and continues to progress in exponential potential. At the core of this phenomenon is a shift in the major resource of economic activity, from land in the agricultural age, capital in the industrial age, and now, knowledge in the knowledge age.

Designed by Freepik

We are currently in the Knowledge Age, a new form of capitalism where knowledge and ideas have become the primary source of economic progress. From a perception of knowledge as an inactive form of asset of ‘know how’ or ‘know what’, it is now valued not for what it is but for what it can do. It is a form of energy that flows outward and inward, enabling things to happen or to facilitate creation. In this sense, knowledge is treated as an invaluable resource especially in an organizational setting where knowledge is required to be in constant use and motion. Harnessing knowledge has been a practical strategy to document knowledge and information for common systematic use such as manuals, guidebooks and policies. This is defined as Knowledge Management where various data and information is managed systematically to achieve organizational objectives.

Photo from Customerthink.com

Ikujiro Nonaka, with the fundamental insight that a company is not a machine but a living organism with a collective sense of identity and purpose, together with Hirotaka Takeuchi developed the Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Integration (SECI) model for knowledge creation process. There are two types of knowledge in an organization: tacit and explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is knowledge articulated, expressed, codified and is readily transmitted, while tacit knowledge is described as knowledge not readily expressed or transferred. The knowledge spiral follows the SECI process where in tacit and explicit knowledge share vibrant interactions, crystallizing ideas into standardized concepts and knowledge. This process develops organizational knowledge, enhances efficient processing and interoperability, as well as effective decision making for a high corporate IQ.

Developing a shared vision, shared knowledge and wisdom enables a vast wholeness in moving forward towards attaining the goal of the organization. And this is possible through an active pursuit of knowledge creation, harnessing knowledge from an individual and transforming this idea down to business process improvements and organizational understanding. Stephen Covey, as the famous author of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, said that when trust goes up, productivity goes up and costs go down; when trust goes down, productivity goes down and costs go up. Knowledge management is no longer just a nice-to-have; it is now a must-have to improve productivity, to innovate and to stay relevant in a knowledge economy.

On November 2013, the Philippines was struck by Typhoon Haiyan, the deadliest and most destructive tropical cyclone in Philippine recorded history. The typhoon took 6,300 lives and affected 1.48 million families in addition to causing approximately $2 billion in damages. The resulting destruction in provinces such as Eastern Samar, Leyte, Quezon, Capiz, Iloilo, Aklan and Antique required evacuation operations care of local government units  and intensive relief and rehabilitation operations by the combined efforts of the National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (NDRRMC), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Office Of Civil Defense (OCD), Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), various non-government organizations and civilian aid. The NBI had been charged with handling natural disasters while the Philippine National Police (PNP) is charged with missing persons and human-induced disasters.

Photo from archive.boston.com

Just two weeks after the incident, almost two thousand bodies had been recovered from affected areas, a number that would continue to increase as relief and recovery operations continued. Majority of the bodies died through drowning or were hit by falling objects from collapsed structures. Retrieval of bodies was conducted with the assistance of the PNP and the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), while external examinations, standard data collection, and body identification were conducted by teams from DOH and NBI. Fifty percent of the bodies received in the collection center were examined by the DOH team, while the remainder was processed by the NBI. Only fourteen percent were identified through personal belongings while reports estimate thirty three to eighty nine percent of the bodies have remained unidentified prior to mass burial for sanitation purposes. Failure to identify a huge proportion of the recovered bodies was a massive disappointment to both the public and the families of the victims, which subsequently led to a decrease in public trust in the bureaucracy.

This failure was attributed to poor post-disaster management planning, along with the lack of a common database and a single identification algorithm across agencies. The lack of guidelines and procedures in the management of bodies made it extremely difficult to cross-reference information between autopsy details and missing persons reports. These events prompted the creation of a Unified Workflow for the NBI and other agencies involved in Disaster Victim Identification proposed by Dr. Arjay Jeresano, a medico legal officer of the NBI. The Workflow complements the National Policy on the Management of the Dead and the Missing Persons During Emergencies and Disasters. During a disaster, the MDM cluster is activated followed by the deployment of field commanders and post-mortem teams to the affected sites, sampling and collection, identification process, ante-mortem team deployment, matching of identities, and reconciliation of bodies with their respective families. The project earned the title of Most Collaborative Re-Entry Project from DAP.

(Photo by Jeoffrey Maitem/Getty Images)

The Unified Workflow of the NBI was applies SECI Model of Organizational Knowledge Creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1996) which involves four ways in which knowledge types can be combined and converted: 1) The sharing and creation of tacit knowledge through direct experience; 2) Learning and acquiring new tacit knowledge in practice; 3) Articulating tacit knowledge through dialogue and reflection; and 4) Systemizing and applying explicit knowledge and information. The model is based on two types of knowledge – explicit and tacit. Tacit knowledge is held by individuals and is not readily expressed or transferred such as things we can explain but have not externalized while explicit knowledge is knowledge that has been articulated and expressed, or knowledge that comes from inside and outside the organization that has been combined. The fundamental quality of the SECI Model is the transformation of the two types of knowledge into meaningful information for a specific purpose, best exemplified in this case by the system of post-mortem data collection and identification.  Through this new system, agencies will have a set of guidelines to follow to significantly decrease the number of unidentified bodies in future disasters.

The SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Knowledge management, along with inter-agency coordination and planning, can save lives and maintain order in times of disasters. The establishment of systems, guidelines and procedures remain crucial in improving organizational productivity, maintaining the quality of service delivery and excellence in any organization.

A productivity specialist always strives to achieve high productivity and quality. To be able to do this, he/she must have the knowledge and competencies in different productivity and quality (P&Q) tools which will help in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of an organization. P&Q tools are grouped into two major groups – basic and advanced. Basic tools help an organization to identify procedures, ideas, cause and effect, and other issues relevant in improving its performance, while advanced tools involves more complex processes such as measurement techniques, statistical data analysis, lean concepts, and the business excellence frameworks.

Basic

  1. 5S – A systematized approach to organize work areas, keep rules and standards, and maintain discipline. It utilizes workplace organization and work simplification techniques.
    • Seiri (Sort) – Take out unnecessary items and dispose
    • Seiton (Sytematize) – Arrange necessary items in good order
    • Seiso (Sweep) – Clean your workplace
    • Seiketsu (Sanitize) – Maintain high standard of housekeeping
    • Shitsuke (Self-discipline) – Do things without being told or ordered
  1. Quality Circle– involves a small group of employees from the same workplace organized to identify problems and suggest solutions to work-related issues. A quality circle, also known as Work Improvement Team, Synergy Team, and Support Team, has seven basic features: voluntary in nature; small in size; homogenous in membership; projects within control; systematic and scientific in approach, continuing in activity and universal in application.
  2. Suggestion Scheme – A systematic approach to solicit innovative ideas for improvement. It promotes two-way communication between management and employees wherein good ideas are recognized and rewarded to encourage active participation. However, grievance, bargaining and policy issues are not part of the themes for suggestions.
  3. Practical IE – offers simple but systematic techniques to analyze operations, processes and integrated systems with a view to improving efficiency, effectiveness and economy, and makes inefficiencies visible. Among the practical IE techniques are:
    • Method study – systematic examination of doing work in order to develop and apply easier and more effective methods and reduce costs
    • Work measurement – used to obtain time data for method study and establish standard time to perform tasks
  4. Quality Management – An approach to ensure that the desired quality of a good or service is delivered. It covers quality planning, quality assurance, quality control and quality improvement. ISO 9000 standards provide guidelines on how to establish QM systems.
  5. Inventory Management – Approach to oversee and control the ordering, storage and use of supplies, materials, components and other items that the organization will use for the production of goods and services.
  6. Energy Conservation – Reducing energy consumption through using less of an energy service.
  7. Value Analysis/Value Engineering – An approach to improve the value of an item or process by first understanding the functions of the item and their value, then by identifying its constituent components and their associated costs. It then seeks to find improvements to the components by either reducing their cost or increasing the value of their functions.
  8. Productive Maintenance – A maintenance management approach that looks at maintenance as a productive function, and considers that it should be the concern of every unit in the organization. It aims to eliminate big losses on equipment effectiveness e.g. setup time, breakdown, speed losses, waiting time, etc. All levels in the organization must cooperate in ensuring the productive functioning of equipment and physical facilities.
  9. Knowledge Management – An integrated approach of creating, sharing, and applying knowledge to enhance productivity, profitability and growth.
  10. Ergonomics – Making better use of human capacities (economize motions) and protect workers from hazards and other poor work conditions that negatively affect worker’s occupation health and productivity. Principles: – Safety – Comfort – Ease of use – Productivity – Aesthetics
  11. Green Procurement- Purchasing products and services that cause minimal adverse environmental impacts. It incorporates human health and environmental concerns into the search for high quality products and services at competitive prices.

Advanced

  1. ICT/ Digital Era Government/ E-Government – Involves the use of computer technology and conversion of manual records into computer files to automate data and transaction processing thus minimizing or removing manual work and intervention that is susceptible to corruption
  2. Shared Services – A strategy to “move out” major support processes out of individual units by “concentrating them” in order to improve cost efficiencies, service levels, and responsiveness.
  3. Re-engineering –Strategic review, analysis, and redesign of structure, workflows, and processes to achieve higher efficiency, effectiveness and economy.
  4. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence – A managerial approach centered on quality based on participation of all members and aimed at continually improving performance over the long term by focusing on customers while addressing the needs of all stakeholders.
  5. Lean Management – A management philosophy that seeks to maximize value to customers, both internal and external while simultaneously removing wasteful activities and practices.
  6. Operations Research – Employing scientific and mathematical techniques to determine optimal or near-optimal solutions to complex decision making:
    • Mathematical optimization
    • Queuing studies
    • Simulation
    • Econometric analysis
    • Data envelopmental analysis

Public sector organization faces a lot of challenges such as meeting the citizen’s expectations, managing workforce transition, reducing risks in implementing new technologies, and financial limitations. Lean management, one of the major buzzwords within management today, addresses these challenges. Lean in English lexicon denotes thin and well-trimmed. Thus, an organization that is aiming to be lean cuts away its excesses in all aspects of work wherein repeated processes take place. To be lean, an organization may need to cut down the number of its employees, although this should not always be the case. The organization, through lean management, has to listen more to its stakeholders and in the case of the public sector – to the citizens. Lean Management is a system that refers to a collection of principles and methods that is focused on the identification and elimination of waste in any process. Its origins can be traced in industrial production and now the concept of Lean has swept across the private and public sectors. Lean has five basic principles – identifying customer value, creating value streams, creating flow without stops, introducing new guiding principles and practicing Kaizen every day. Lean also practices eliminating waste or “muda” in Japanese. These eight wastes are:

  1. Inventory (backlog of work, excess materials and information, obsolete databases and folders)
  2. Defects (data errors, missing information, typos, confusing requirements)
  3. Overproduction (unnecessary reports and copies, excess email messages)
  4. Complexity (too many steps in a process, too many signature levels, unclear job descriptions)
  5. Waiting (long time to wait for approvals or decisions, waiting for information)
  6. Excess Motion (travels to meetings, trips to printer and copier)
  7. Moving Items (transport of documents, document storage)
  8. Environmental Resources (excess use of energy, paper, and water)

To implement Lean, an organization must first analyze the steps of a process and determine which steps add value and which do not. Next, it needs to calculate the cost associated in removing steps that have no value-added and comparing its cost versus the expected benefits. It also has to determine the resources required to support the value-added steps while eliminating those without added value. However, many organizations encounter these typical pitfalls which lead to failure of implementing Lean.

  1. Management loses focus on Lean – There are times when management, despite good results, lose their focus and later on, backslide in implementing lean. What must be understood is that Lean is not a band-aid solution and should be implemented in a long term.
  2. Lean is treated as a project – As mentioned above, for Lean to be effective, it must involve the whole organization and its future. It should not have a start and end date. It should be inculcated all aspects of operations as well.
  3. Lean does not involve all employees- Lean must be sufficiently anchored to all the employees. The implementation should also consider the ideas of the employees and not just of the management.
  4. Insufficient internal anchoring of Lean knowledge and competencies – In starting Lean, an organization may seek the help of external consultants on Lean management to train its employees and to later on, build its own competencies to be able to continue working with Lean.
  5. Insufficient performance management – Performance management is one of the core aspects of Lean. An organization must ensure that there is continuous improvement by measuring results in a regular basis.
  6. Lack of management power – As with other productivity and quality tools, management’s commitment is critical. The management must be able to motivate and engage its employees to practice Lean.

It is normal for an organization to encounter one or more of these pitfalls. However, it should not discourage it from continuing with Lean. Lean entails a simple mindset, and not too shocking changes, and delivers results in a few months.

Workplace ergonomics is often associated with placing and design of equipment and furniture in a workplace, however it is much more than that. Ergonomics involves everything that involves people. It is making better use of human capacities (economize motions) and protect workers from hazards and other poor work conditions that negatively affect worker’s occupation health and productivity. The concept of ergonomics has a major role to play in providing a comfortable working environment to promote productivity and efficiency. According to the Asian Productivity Organization, comfort and productivity are interrelated. Employees who worked in a noisy environment and congested areas are more likely to feel dissatisfied and unmotivated to do their tasks. Other common ergonomics issues include wrong heights for table and chair, no back support, no elbow support, banging the knees in keyboard tray, and cradling the phone while using the computer. An office should be designed based on the specific nature of the jobs and the employees working there. Flexibility, comfort, communication, lighting, temperature, air quality and spatial arrangements should be considered to further improve productivity in the workplace. Benefits of Ergonomics

  1. Ergonomics reduces costs – Sprains and strains results to lost productivity, and at the same time, this costs money for an organization in the form of compensation benefits. Implementing ergonomics in the workplace reduces ergonomic risk factors such as musculoskeletal disorders.
  2. Ergonomics improve productivity – Working in an awkward posture is not an efficient way to get things done. An efficient workstation encourages good posture, less exertion and fewer motions, and better heights and reaches.
    Photo not our own. Taken from: http://switchedontosafety.com/ergonomics-in-the-workplace-2/
  3. Ergonomics contributes to higher working capacity – Poorly designed workstations are frustrating and may cause employees to feel tired and strained. With ergonomics, employees are not distracted by discomfort and are likely to feel inspired, solve more problems, and think of new ideas.
  4. Ergonomics make the employees feel more engaged – An organization that provides an ergonomic workplace takes the health and wellbeing of their employees seriously. A comfortable workspace can reduce turnovers, decrease absenteeism, and increase employee involvement.

Organizations feel that implementing ergonomics is a luxury but it is not. The initial cost may be higher but compared to conventional and traditional workspaces, ergonomics offers more benefits not only for the employees but for the organization as well. For an organization that is limited financially, an option of procuring second-hand ergonomic equipment and furniture may be explored.