Meeting Citizens’ Needs inChallenging Times Through

Employee Engagement

Mark McDanielICMA Conference Presenter

Case Study: City of Tyler, Texas

DallasDallas--Fort WorthFort Worth ShreveportShreveportTYLERTYLER

City of Tyler, Texas• Full Service City • Regional Trade Hub – Medical, Education, Retail,

Oil & Gas, Manufacturing• 100,000 Residents/Daytime Population 270,000• Adopted Council-Manager Plan 95 Years Ago

Cities' worst budget pain in decades won't end for years, U.S. study says

The sky is not falling in city budget

Houston's new fire chief faces a budget blaze

Public Servants Defend Benefits

Our current environment…

Fewer Resources…

Drop in Existing Property Values

Loss of $9.1 Million in Sales Tax Since 2008Fewer Actual Employees on Staff Than 25 Years Ago, During a Period of 30% Growth in Population

89

9

83

3

84

0

75

7

77

0 82

4

81

9

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

FY1984-85 FY1989-90 FY1994-95 FY1999-2000 FY2004-05 FY2009-10 FY2010-11

$17,

165,

695

$18,

560

,37

5

$20,

263,

478

$21

,49

9,60

0

$23

,15

4,84

8

$24

,85

8,94

3

$23,

471,

623

$22,

314,

820

$22,

900,

596

$23,

587

,61

4

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

$22,000,000

$24,000,000

FY2002

-03

FY2003

-04

FY2004

-05

FY2005

-06

FY2006

-07

FY2007

-08

FY2008

-09

FY2009

-10

FY2010

-11

FY2011

-12

4%5%

7% 7%9%

10%

7%

2%0.99%

-0.49%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

FY

2002

-03

FY

2003

-04

FY

2004

-05

FY

2005

-06

FY

2006

-07

FY

2007

-08

FY

2008

-09

FY

2009

-10

FY

2010

-11

FY

2011

-12

$0.5

336

$0.5

153

$0.4

372

$0.3

937

$0.3

114

$0.2

954

$0.2

798

$0.2

620

$0.2

545

$0.2

488

$0.2

488

$0.2

384

$0.2

237

$0.1

990

$0.2

040

$0.2

040

$0.2

089

$0.2

089

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

FY1994

-95

FY19

95-9

6

FY199

6-97

FY1997

-98

FY19

98-9

9

FY199

9-00

FY2000

-01

FY20

01-0

2

FY2002

-03

FY2003

-04

FY20

04-0

5

FY2005

-06

FY2006

-07

FY20

07-0

8

FY2008

-09

FY2009

-10

FY20

10-1

1

FY2011

-12

Dramatic Decrease in Property Tax Rate

The Question:• What is our resource engine?

The Answer:• Our employees

The Challenge:• How do we “super charge” our resource engine to

meet citizen expectations given political and fiscal constraints?

The Response:• Though effective employee engagement strategies

Tyler’s strategy-employeeengagement

• City University – a culture of learning

• Called to S-E-R-V-E – serving a higher purpose

• Lean Sigma – empowerment of employees

Meeting Citizen Meeting Citizen ExpectationsExpectations

Lean Sigma

City U

Called to

S-E-R-V-E

Building on a Culture of Continuous Improvement

City U

• Launched in 2008 - began with a dedicated classroom and training coordinator.

• Employee Board of Regents established to help develop the program.

• Goal: create an environment of continuous, lifelong learning; investing in our employees.

• Needs analysis survey conducted - What training do we need?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Technical Skills

Customer Service

Computer Skills

Leadership

Project Management

Supervisory Skills

Health and Safety

Other

What skills and competencies do you need training to address for your Department?

Structure• Year one: four tracks

– Core competency– Innovation– Professional Development– Leadership

• Year two: four tracks plus– Toastmasters– Leadership Academy– Lean Sigma

• Year three: four tracks plus– Called to SERVE Difference training

Outcomes

92%

8%0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Agree Neutral Disagree

City University has improved the overall employee satifsaction and fostered a culture of learning.

25%

67%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Computer Courses Professional Courses Leadership Courses

Which area of training has been mostbeneficial to your employees?

Year One – 3 graduatesYear Two – 44 graduatesYear Three - ?

City U has saved the City $77,520*** annually in training costs in addition to enhancing the quality of the workforce and increasing productivity and job satisfaction.

**Does not include cost of lost time from work, travel & lodging that would have been otherwise incurred.

A culture of life-long learning

A commitment to invest in our employees

Enhancing job satisfaction

An investment ininternal communications.

Called to S-E-R-V-E

Called to S-E-R-V-E…

Our people ARE our brand

• The organization is only as good as those who work for us.

• Citizen interactions with our employees shape our brand.

• Employees are an invaluable communication vehicle.

Called to S-E-R-V-E

Enhancing employeecommunications is critical

• What is the vision, mission, brand and heart of the organization?

• Not only what is going on…but why?

• Does every single employee know about it?

Getting started

• The most important thing to know is your message.

• Define your message.• Make it CLEAR, CONCISE, and EASY TO

UNDERSTAND.

Tyler’s Blueprint• Mission • Vision• Goals• Core Values

Brand the initiative• Think of the internal

communications plan as a marketing campaign.

• How would Coca Cola get the word out about the new beverage? (Get your mind around the “point of sale”).

• Get the employees involved:– Motto survey– Called to S-E-R-V-E

Communications Plan development• Develop a plan to roll out aspects of the

effort over several months.• Build on the BRAND.• Determine what is working as you roll out

each item.• Focus on sustainability. Don’t launch more

than you can maintain.

Communications Plan

Specific actions• Motto - Called to S-E-R-V-E

• Promotional Materials– Brochures– Banners– Cards– T-Shirts– Bookmarks

• Employee Communications– Personal Visits– Monthly Newsletters– Emails, Intranet– Press Releases– Called to SERVE Training

• Events/Recognition– Blueprint Bravos– Called to S-E-R-V-E Spirit Events

Lean Sigma

• Methodology focused on reducing variation and waste in business processes.

• Why Lean Sigma for Tyler?– Tyler has a long history of continuous improvement.– Tyler Blueprint adopted in 1997.

• Defines our organizational culture.• Represents the City’s core values and supports related

goals for operational best practices.

…to create a citizen sensitive and customer oriented environment where all City services are quality-driven in the

most appropriate cost-conscious manner.

Key decision points• Pilot or complete roll out?

• Entire organization or single department?

• Outsource training or hire Black Belt?

• Champion (reporting lines)? – Communications Department/City University

• How to fund?– Shifted funding from retiring employee

Lean Sigma Deployment Plan

Wave I• Blue Belt (one-day) training

for all leadership.

• Recruit and train eight green belts from throughout the organization.

• Complete eight Lean Sigma training projects.

• Offer Blue Belt classes through City U for other employees.

Wave II• Recruit and train 18 additional

green belts from throughout the organization.

• Train two black belts.

• Complete 18 Lean Sigma training projects.

• Enhance communications about successes.

Outcomes

• An evolution of Tyler’s lean, quality-driven culture.

• Reaching all levels of the organization through project teams.

• Solutions are driven by the people involved in the process.

Project Outcomes• Year I – 179% ROI

– 9 projects closed

• Year II– 19 new Greenbelts– 14 total projects completed; 21 underway– 4 new Blackbelts

• Nearly $977,915 saved (hard and soft savings)

Project outcome examples:• Municipal Courts – Improved warrant process (from 70 to 10

days) and Insurance Verification from 116 to 661 per month • Police - Reduced “error” rate in evidence processing (19% defects

to 2%)• Water – Improved variation of response time for customer call

outs (variation of 30-60 min to less than 20 min) • Fire – Implementation of TPM program (estimated annual savings

of $220,000)• Legal – Took document review from 16 days to 8 days • Solid Waste – Reduced missed can call-ins from 4 to 1 per month;

Saved an average of 10 hours of time to run each route• Vehicle Services - Reduce inventory costs resulting in a total

savings of $327,002

Tools

1751501251007550

Median

Mean

12011010090807060

1st Quartile 75.000Median 84.0003rd Quartile 98.500Maximum 167.000

64.630 115.592

72.279 105.847

22.391 63.506

A-Squared 0.86P-Value 0.016

Mean 90.111StDev 33.149Variance 1098.861Skewness 1.69764Kurtosis 3.90789N 9

Minimum 49.000

Anderson-Darling Normality Test

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

95% Confidence Interval for Median

95% Confidence Interval for StDev95 % C onfidence Intervals

Summary for Monthly Complaint

Project Charter

Descriptive Statistics

Tools

Count 493 170 70 69 10Percent 60.7 20.9 8.6 8.5 1.2Cum % 60.7 81.7 90.3 98.8 100.0

Complaint

Other

Com

plaint to

Solid

Was

te

Curb

Mis s

Pack

OutMis s

ed

Garb

age Mis s

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Co

unt

Pe

rce

nt

Pareto Chart of Complaint

Pareto Charts

Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R

100

50

0

Per

cent

% Contribution

% Study Var

109876543211098765432110987654321

0.2

0.1

0.0

Part

Sam

ple

Ran

ge

_R=0.048

UCL=0.1568

LCL=0

1 2 3

109876543211098765432110987654321

3.0

1.5

0.0

Part

Sam

ple

Mea

n

__X=0.592UCL=0.683LCL=0.502

1 2 3

10987654321

3.0

1.5

0.0

Part

321

3.0

1.5

0.0

Operator

10987654321

3.0

1.5

0.0

Part

Ave

rage

1

2

3

Operator

Gage name: Improve C hemical Dosage P rocess Test SamplesDate of study : September 16, 2010

Reported by : Sherry PettitTolerance: .300Misc: SO P Written, Improve Test

Components of Variation

R Chart by Operator

Xbar Chart by Operator

Measurements by Part

Measurements by Operator

Part * Operator Interaction

Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Measurements

Graphing

Tools

8070605040302010

USL

LS L *Target *US L 10Sample M ean 61.3Sample N 40StD ev (Within) 11.1355

StD ev (O v era ll) 11.0644

Process Data

Z.B ench -4.61Z.LS L *Z.U SL -4.61Cpk -1.54

Z.B ench -4.64Z.LS L *

Z.U SL -4.64Ppk -1.55Cpm *

O verall C apability

Potentia l (Within) C apability

PP M < LS L *PP M > U S L 1000000.00PP M T ota l 1000000.00

O bserved P erformancePP M < LS L *PP M > US L 999997.96PP M T otal 999997.96

Exp. Within P erformanceP PM < LS L *P PM > US L 999998.23P PM T otal 999998.23

E xp. O v erall P erformance

W ith inO v erall

Process Capability of DAYS ELAPSED

Capability Analysis

Tools

Process Mapping

Tools

29 41.7 15

19.9626

•Our lead time is 70 days.

•Our cycle time is 132.40 seconds.

Value Stream Mapping

Tools

Fish Bone Diagram

ToolsProcess:Date:

Description Weight Description RankingOn Time Warrants 9 Process Flow 81

0 Waiting for Inventory Prior to Process 81 0 Create Lable Files 81 0 Manual Complaints 81 0 THE System (Program) 81 0 Understaff 81 0 Double Verification of Data 63 0 Over Process of Warrants 63 0 Part time Judge 45 0 Absent Judge 45

Training/Cross Training 45 Clerical Error 45 Process Standardization 45 Working Court 45 Warrant Form 45 Location of Warrant 45 PD Reports 45 Pull Tickets 45 Autosite 45 Multiple Warrants 32 Server Out of Order 27 Delay in Data Entry 27 No Files 9 No Ink 9 No Labels 9 Incorrect Data 9 Lack of Space 27

Output Variables Input Variables

YX Diagram Summary

Improve Warrant Process11/4/2009

From:

To:

Supervisor

Cam McCabe

Takt Time Cycle Time Operator Number

Prepared By

Judy M

Quality Check Safety Precaution Standard WIP Units STD WIP

Dept/Location

Municipal Court

Team Leader

Judy M

Standard Work Chart

12/2/2009

12/2/2009

Date Prepared

12/9/2009

1

Spaghetti Diagram

YX Summary

Tools

TAKT Time and Cycle Time

Tools

5S

Visual Management

Process Control Plan

1451291139781654933171

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Observation

Ind

ivid

ua

lVa

lue

_X=15.2

UCL=34.4

LCL=-4.1

Baseline ProjectBaseline Project Improvement

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1111

1

11

11

I Chart of DAYS ELAPSED Project Progress

Statistical Process Control

When it all comes together…

Meeting Citizen Meeting Citizen ExpectationsExpectations

Lean Sigma

City U

Called to S-E-R-V-E

Questions/Comments?

Additional Information…