Operational Excellence
Phase 2 Summary
What happened over the course of Phase 2?
The objective for phase 2 of Operational Excellence (OE) was to analyze and assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) in the following project areas:
- Development of a small set of key performance indicators (KPI’s).
- Development of a training philosophy.
- Development of a compensation philosphy.
- Assessment of current and available technology investments.
The analysis on Training, Technology and Key Core Measures were developed internally by the OE team and extended team members throughout the organization.
The analysis on Compensation was performed by an independent consultant who specializes in public sector consulting.
SWOT Analysis Results:
Training
| Strengths | Weaknesses | Opportunities | Threats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Investment / budget money available | Inconsistent application/content/tools | External partners | Reduction in staff must result in increased training |
| Internal subject matter experts (SMEs) | Lack of philosophy | Leveraging technology to improve efficiencies; staff portals, Target safety solutions | Increase in training will result in reduction of staff |
| External partners available | Duplication of efforts/lack of coordination | Human Resources to handle global training | Risk management liability |
| Lack of values alignment in recruitment | Have our employees provide contract services to other agencies, advance opportunities | Managing the quality and consistency of in house training | |
| Value of certain training is not taken seriously and assigned which results in staff not being equipped to respond, i.e. CPR / First Aid | Institutional knowledge, use subject matter experts, use in house trainers to fullest potential | Institutional knowledge turnover | |
| Allocation of training funds is different among departments. | Develop an internal management program to assist in career progression | Contracted services does not replace institutional knowledge and could result in lower quality and being taken advantage of | |
| Training will be limited because it is tied directly to monies in the budget and to staffing levels | Develop career path training plans | Fear that training will be tied to testing which will be tied to discipline, including termination | |
| Failure to promote higher education with limited tuition reimbursement | Mentoring programs for institutional knowledge turnover | Belief that higher education is the only path for advancement | |
| Belief that extra training or education is irrelevant because those positions that are being worked towards are being eliminated |
View the SWOT Analysis Tables
Technology
| Strengths | Weaknesses | Opportunities | Threats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full time staff (2016 – 1st in house staff) | Divided, non-integrated approach | Better use of current software (Kronos, Cartegraph, Power DMS, New World) | Fear of change/new technology |
| Long-term IT consultant relationship | Lack of training | Re-consideration of labor levels | High costs |
| Investment/budget money available | Not fully leveraging tools usefulness | Consideration of GIS (McHenry County, MPI consortium, other municipalities) | Time to implement |
| Long range capital planning | In-house staff meeting demand/need | Establish a true ERP system | Rapid obsolesces |
| Best in class tools | Non-integrated, duplicitous data efforts | Paperless environment - Laserfiche | Security concerns |
| Virtualizing of physical system | Clean up drives | ||
| Innovative approach |
Key Performance Indicators
| Strengths | Weaknesses | Opportunities | Threats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual budget includes performance indicators and goals | No standardization | Strategic plan lays out framework for building quality performance indicators | Concern KPI’s will not accurately reflect service |
| Data is available | Mostly counting data with no correlation with service levels/goals | Proactive follow-up on unmet goals | Lack of buy-in from organization/community |
| Institutional knowledge of what has (not) worked in the past | No objective monitoring or identifying trends | Write rules on how KPI’s are selected by each division | Who cares? No accountable results? |
| Reactive organization | Write rules on how to set goals | ||
| Write rules on how to require action plan to improve unmet/under performing goals | |||
| Communication to entire organization/community on how we are doing (ongoing) |
Compensation
The Village hired McGrath Human Resources Group, Inc, an organization that specializes in public sector consulting, to conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study of all positions, which would update the current system that was implemented from a 2000-2001 compensation study.
On August 23, 2018, the Village Board approved the results of the study performed by McGrath Human Resources Group, Inc in a report titled “Classification & Compensation Study: Executive Report for the Village of Lake in the Hills: dated August 2018 under Resolution 2018-04.