Through lean and Six Sigma initiatives, public-sector agencies can improve performance and productivity—but the impact won’t stick if they ignore the “soft” side of making operational change happen.

For several years, government leaders have been seeking ways to reduce waste through operational-improvement programs inspired by lean manufacturing, Six Sigma, or both. Classic lean techniques for eliminating waste, variability, and inflexibility have been used successfully in a variety of agencies, from those with processes that somewhat resemble manufacturing (such as defense-related logistics units) to others where the ideas might seem less obviously relevant (such as intelligence agencies or policy-making bodies).

Yet for every success, there are several instances in which public agencies take a narrow view of lean operations. They devote their efforts exclusively to mastering the “hard” aspects of operational improvement—the technical tools and analytical solutions that abound in lean and Six Sigma tool kits (see sidebar, “Lean and Six Sigma basics”). To some extent, this is understandable because the tools are objective and straightforward, and trained experts are invaluable in diagnosing problems and suggesting solutions. But it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that simply by training and deploying technical experts, an agency will achieve significant improvements in its performance.

Neglecting the “soft” side of lean—which includes steps that enable leaders to drive continuous improvement and change the way employees think and work—can delay or even derail an operational transformation. Organizations can reap larger and more sustainable benefits by taking an approach that balances a lean program’s hard and soft elements (exhibit). Agencies must properly embed the softer aspects of lean by implementing the appropriate management infrastructure and by focusing on changing employees’ mind-sets and capabilities.

Source: McKinsey & Co (by Maia Hansen and John Stoner)