Episode Transcript
Stephenie Langston:
Hi everyone! Thank you for joining us today on our very first Knowledge Network session. I’m very excited to begin this series with you as we create exciting conversation surrounding safety, change management, and sustainability. We have a fun lineup ahead of us for 2021 that I believe you will all love. For our first session on the Knowledge Network today, we have Amy Haberman with us to discuss process improvement and change management and how her experience in safety directly relates to these topics. Amy is currently the Assistant Director for Continuous Improvement at the University of Florida and an At-Large Member of the Board of Trustees for CSHEMA – the Campus, Safety, Health, Environmental Management Association. She has over 10 years’ experience in safety and holds a Bachelor’s of Science in Occupational, Environmental, Safety & Health from the University of Wisconsin Whitewater. In addition to her degree, she is a certified ASP professional and Advanced Yellow Belt in Lean Six Sigma and has earned numerous awards during her tenure. I hope you enjoy our conversation today and gain some tools to take with you along the way. And with that—Hi Amy! Thank you for joining me today!
To find out more about Amy Haberman, visit: www.amyhaberman.com
To find out more about Lean Six Sigma, visit: www.leansixsigmainstitute.org
Amy Haberman:
Hey Stephenie, thanks for having me.
Stephenie Langston:
So, I wanted to start today’s conversation really getting a better idea of what process improvement and change management mean. I’ve heard so many different terms used, that it can be confusing to understand. Can you give us some insight into the work being done by people in this field?
Amy Haberman:
Sure, and I can certainly relate with how it can seem overwhelming. There’s a lot of different methodologies and terms floating around in that space around process improvement. But I think what it boils down to—there’s a really basic continuous improvement cycle that almost all of the methodologies that you’ll find in the best-selling books or the thousand plus dollar courses that you can sign up for really are based in what we call PDCA, which is Plan, Do, Check, Act. That cycle was developed by Edward Stemming, who is an American Engineer. Really that was the foundation of Lean 6 Sigma and a lot of the other more robust, intimidating methodologies. But really it just comes down to Plan, Do, Check, Act. I can explain a little more about what that means specifically, but you did also mention change management and I want to just touch on that. So, being an EHS professional, I was very familiar with the management of change and how there’s a reputation around management of change as it relates to highly hazardous processes and things like that, and so, I initially was really confused when I went to a conference with all of these process improvement folks, and they kept talking about change management. I was like, “there’s a standard of how to manage this.” Really, what they meant was the “people” side of the change—is what I heard really continuously from everyone I talked with. Their approaches to change management are different, depending on the culture of your organization, but really what change management is about is engaging the stakeholders and the people that are responsible for the processes that you are trying to improve. It’s a really key aspect of process improvement that needs to be imbedded because you are not going to have any success if you do not engage your stakeholders in the change.
Stephenie Langston:
Ok. That makes sense, seeing that change management is just a piece of this larger process improvement puzzle. So, could you give us more insight into the Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle?
Amy Haberman:
Plan, Do, Check, Act is really the foundation for some of the more complicated methodologies. In Lean Six Sigma, for example, the plan part of that cycle is actually seven steps, so they really expand on each of these, but if you were going to categorize you are going to look at the four major steps of a process improvement project. So, planning for the changes is exactly how it sounds. You’ve identified that something needs to be improved, and you’re going to start planning for it. That’s where you’re going to define the scope of the project, get your stakeholders involved, talk about what’s working and what’s not, what would an ideal process look like. This is probably the part of the process where you would physically map the process to visualize it and identify where you might have opportunities to improve the process. There’s basically infinite possibilities for how you want to plan for change. It’s probably dependent upon your own personal working style and quirks and things like that, but that planning phase is really important before you start to do any work or do any changes. So, the next step is do, which is pretty basic, but the difference in Do and Act (which is the last step), Do is really incremental and it’s almost like a little experiment.
Stephenie Langston:
Ok.
Amy Haberman:
And you’re between—you’re checking—right? So, you’re going to make a change and you’re going to monitor that change. You’re going to make sure that you’re getting the results that you’re looking for. Is it effective? With whatever metrics you’re measuring, have you made the improvements that you’re expecting to see? So, it’s one of those examples of piloting something new, you don’t want to roll it out to your entire organization at once because you have not had an opportunity to get feedback and identify if there’s maybe a better way you should make that change. So, that Do is what I consider to be little mini experiments, where you’re going to get continual feedback and identify what’s working and what’s not, and what you really want to “Act” to make standard is the last step.
Stephenie Langston:
Good.
Amy Haberman:
So, I kind of jumped over the C, but you’re doing your pyramids, you’re making your changes to the process, you’re checking to see how well it’s working (are you getting the results you want?), and then you’re going to Act to make it standard. I think EHS professionals should be really familiar with that. It’s really where you engrain it as far as you have documented procedures, policies, you’re doing training, etc. That’s how you really standardize that new expectation for how that process should be executed.
Stephenie Langston:
I was going to say the cycle of experimenting and checking and actually having the procedures written down does sound really familiar, and it doesn’t sound as foreign of a concept once you break it down that way.
Amy Haberman: Yeah.
Stephenie Langston:
So, talking a little bit more about yourself, how does someone make the transition from safety professional into process improvement? And really what made you want to take that leap into the field?
Amy Haberman:
Yeah. So, I think it was really a natural transition for me because in environmental health and safety, almost all of our activities are around making improvements. Right? We’re identifying hazards. We’re reducing risk. We’re trying to improve training, make our controls more effective. So, everything that we’re doing is around improvement. It’s just a very specific application of process improvement in the realm of safety or EH&S. I had, throughout my career, also been engaged in a lot of other projects with my colleagues as far as I.T. and facilitie, and I had a lot of exposure to operations and things like that. So, I was able to influence operational changes from that perspective that I took with safety. I was able to kind of share that with my colleagues, and I saw where there was an opportunity for me to make impactful change at UF and use my skills in the way that I have specifically in safety to other core administrative areas. When I saw the position posting, for me, it was really exciting to be able to take a shot at something different and, like I said, really make a broad impact and also learn a lot. I was really excited to be able to learn more about the operations of administration of the University and see things that I wasn’t seeing from my EH&S perspective, specifically.
Stephenie Langston: Okay.
Amy Haberman: Yeah.
Stephenie Langston:
So, within that, have you seen anything in this transition from safety to process improvement that you wish that people could learn along the way? So, what tools or methods did you have in safety and process improvement that you really think mesh together and create a “bigger picture” outlook?
Amy Haberman:
So, I actually connected those dots for myself. After I got in this position, I did several formal trainings. I’ve done Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt, Green Belt, I’ve also received some business process improvement training from some consultants that we partnered with at UF, and what I was seeing really consistently aligned with, in EH&S, what we call our “hierarchy of controls.” And the way that we apply that hierarchy of controls to control the risks associated with different hazards really could be applied to a process and it would lead to essentially a process improvement. I’ve been asked this question a lot of times. People are always like, “Wow! That’s a really big change—from safety to process improvement.” And I’m like, “Yeah, no. Not really.” It’s pretty much using the same skills and knowledge that we use with the hierarchy of controls and you just apply it to process improvement. So, I actually developed an infographic that, if you want to share that, it helps visualize what I mean when I say, “You can use the hierarchy of controls to make a process improvement.”
So, I would assume that most of your listeners are EH&S professionals and so they should be intimately familiar with our hierarchy of controls. And what I did was I basically broke it down into a step-wise process. If you were looking at what’s in an administrative process, or even a physical process, how you would improve it. Just like with the hierarchy of controls, you’re going to want to try to eliminate as much as you can. Right? When we’re talking about efficiency or reducing the opportunity for failure, which happens in processes all the time where you have rework or you have folks that don’t do the process correctly, if you can eliminate it, that’s going to get you halfway there to having a more efficient work environment. Substituting is another really easy step when you’re looking at a process. It’s like, “Well why are we handing this off? Could another individual do this activity? Could another department do this?” It seems silly that we’re passing things back and forth when, in reality, we could substitute who’s doing this work and it would be more efficient. Engineering controls, too, is exactly how it sounds. So, just like how we want to automate equipment to remove the hazard from the environment, you want to automate processes so people can’t fail at them. So, let’s say you’re filling out a form and you have required fields, so you can’t submit if you haven’t completed them all. Or, you have automatic workflows, notifications, things like that, where you’ve eliminated the need for the individual to manually go in to the system and check for a queue of items that are waiting for them or look at a form and say, “Well this was not filled out correctly or they missed this information.” If we could just engineer that workflow so that folks couldn’t fail at it, that’s another really intuitive way to improve the process.
Stephenie Langston:
That makes sense. I feel like that’s where SafetyStratus steps in, to help with that automation process. It’s nice seeing it in this framework of how you get to that step and at what point you would reach out.
Amy Haberman:
Yeah. There’s definitely a lot of times that folks want to buy a software that will fix everything or say, “We can just automate this.” But, really if you haven’t clearly defined what you want your workflows to be, automating a bad work process still makes it a bad work process. So, you do want to take a more holistic view of the activity that you’re engaging. Is it bringing value to your customers or to your organization? Do you really need to be engaging in this process? That’s kind of that “big picture” question. So the next thing I always encourage people to look at are those administrative controls and I think that, from a safety perspective, we’re really familiar with living in this space. We’ve got standard operating procedures, training, instruction guides, all of those things that are really designed and developed to prevent errors and prevent mistakes, same type of thing within process improvement. Then I did add protection. This was hard for me to make that connection, because it’s PPE, right? So, how do you put PPE on a process? I do think it’s more holistically about the protection of the process, to make sure it doesn’t fail or it can’t fail, and it’s also a last resort. And so, in that regard, I added it as that last step. Because, maybe there’s an additional check that you’re going to need to perform, so you’re not adding efficiency to the process, but maybe you’re adding some quality control to ensure that you’re not putting some bad work into the system. And again, it really should be that last resort to make sure you’re not going to end up with rework or an issue with having to go back and fix mistakes.
Stephenie Langston:
That’s great. I really liked seeing the process improvement method laid out in this way. Going back to things that are familiar for safety professionals, this is it. And it makes it less overwhelming, I think, to get started. If you’ve been doing it all along with safety in your career, then you could easily take this next step and start looking at it this way. We’ll link to Amy’s website so that you all can find this infographic. But, in addition to this, were there any other methodologies or things like that that you would direct EH&S professionals towards so that they can get a better understanding of process improvement—this, paired with something else?
Amy Haberman:
Yeah. There are a lot of different methodologies available. I felt like I needed to have Lean Six Sigma. That was kind of the “gold standard.” It really helped me gain actually confidence in the skills that I already had. Because I was doing that kind of comparing and contrasting of, “What am I learning in Lean Six Sigma? What information do I already have in my toolbelt?” And again, that’s where I connected those dots. It allowed me to also see where you could apply more specific analysis tools. They use pareto charts, histograms, and you’re looking at a lot of data that’s important. Especially in EH&S, you want to find meaningful information in the data that we have.
Stephenie Langston: Yeah.
Amy Haberman:
So Lean Six Sigma was something that I felt was beneficial to add to my knowledge set, but I don’t necessarily prescriptively follow the process for every project, because you have to be flexible. Every organization is different, and even within my organization, I find that certain departments respond differently to different techniques—where Lean Six Sigma can be very numbers-based, and you have a lot of data about lead time and process time and complete accurate rate. And when I’m working with our accountants or a finance group, they’re all about that, they love the numbers and the data. But, maybe in our human resources group or some other areas that are not as data-driven in that way, they need a different approach, because they measure the meaning in their work differently. So, you have to be flexible. And, I would say, just do your research and dig in and find what method feels right to you. Where would you be most successful if you adopted a certain methodology, and then keep in the back of your mind that that might not always be the right tool for your audience. So, just being flexible and then, of course, once you’ve committed to a methodology, make sure you see it through. Follow the steps from start to finish. I think one of the most important pieces is measuring. You want to have that baseline data about the process that you’re trying to improve. What changes are you going to make? And then be able to measure the improvement at the end—is really where you’re going to make the argument. You’re going to be able to show your return on investment. A lot of time goes into these process improvement projects, and a lot of people, so if you are doing the change management piece correctly, you’re going to be engaging a lot of stakeholders for a lot of hours, and it’s a good investment to ensure the success of the change or the adoption. You have stakeholder buy-in, and they are able to have their voice heard in any change initiatives. But, like I said, it is a big investment for an organization, so you want to be able to show the metrics of how you improved your process.
Stephenie Langston:
Yeah, that makes sense. So, what I’m gathering from everything that we’ve talked about so far is really—and correct me if I’m wrong—in order for somebody within EH&S to look at improving their processes or creating some meaningful change within their department, they’re really going to want to start with the “people” part. They’re going to want to start engaging first. Would you agree? What else would you recommend when they are really just at the beginning. Maybe they’re not in the director-level position, but they’re really wanting to start making these changes because they want to see improvement.
Amy Haberman:
Yeah, I think that is a great starting point and I would definitely suggest you engage people. I think there can be a blind spot for EH&S folks, honestly. It’s like, we have this code of federal regulations that tells us what we’re supposed to do and that becomes a crutch. Yeah, we might be the expert in the room when it comes to those codes and regulations, but we’re not the expert in the room when it comes to the experience folks are having when they engage with our unit or engage in our processes. So, we have to respect that feedback just as much as we would respect the letter of the law. I encourage everyone to start with (when you’re trying to find opportunities to make improvement) I would definitely go to your stakeholders, your customers and get their feedback and find out—where do they have (we call them) pain points? Where are the pain points when you’re engaging in our processes? And that’s going to be where you really want to start to hone in and take a look at things more closely. From an EH&S perspective, you can also look where you’re having noncompliance—basic inspection things, where you’re finding repeat deficiencies. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I think 90% of folks want to do the right thing and they’re not intentionally being unsafe or engaging in risky behaviors. So, I think if there’s a failure like that, where we’re continually finding a noncompliance, it’s more related to the process. They’re not getting it. Either it’s a training issue or the process is difficult to engage with and they have difficulties. So, rather than blame the person, let’s fix the process. Those are the two areas I would definitely start with: feedback from your customers and then also look at the data you have from inspections or other areas where you’re finding repeat issues that need to be improved.
Stephenie Langston:
Ok. As you’ve learned more and as you’ve transitioned and, like you said, you’re explaining how process improvement works, is there anything that you wish you would have known when you were in your Director of Safety for the College of Engineering role that you now know?
Amy Haberman:
I think I would have appreciated having more formal knowledge of the change management concepts and principles. I definitely spent a lot of time in my career learning a lot about—how do you influence culture and how do you foster a positive safety culture? There are a lot of those concepts embedded in that approach. With that goal in mind (an improved safety culture), you’re going to be leaning on a lot of those change management principles. You’re doing employee engagement activities, and you’re trying to empower folks with tools and resources to take responsibility and ownership for their safety. It becomes the same type of thing in process improvement. We want to empower them to improve the process on their own and take ownership and identify ways to make their work more enjoyable, more efficient, etc. So, there’s a lot of overlap, but there’s definitely a lot of formal approaches and training and things around that whole change management piece that I think can be really, really valuable.
Stephenie Langston:
Great. Thank you very much for all this information. I do have one last question for you. And this is maybe a side-step from what we were doing before, but because of your experience in safety, can you share with us one of your favorite funny safety stories?
Amy Haberman:
That’s a good one. So, I have several funny safety stories, but I think the one everyone gets a good laugh out of—safety person who was kind of caught in an unsafe situation. So, I wasn’t in safety yet. I was very young, I was only 18. But, I was working at Kraft Foods/Oscar Meyer and I worked in the maintenance department and I did a lot of hard labor. I broke concrete and drove a forklift and did all kinds of crazy stuff in the maintenance department, but it was a great learning experience. But anyway, I crashed my forklift. I was going in and out of a warehouse and I was backing up through the garage door and I had forgotten to bring down the mast of my forklift and the garage door didn’t go all the way up so the mast caught the garage door and it literally pulled the entire thing off, including the frame. It fell on top of my forklift. And actually, the really funny part about that story was thirty years earlier, my dad had hit that same garage door with a boom truck. So, it runs in the family I guess. But, that was one of my first experiences with safety gear or really being unsafe in an industrial environment.
Stephenie Langston:
They’re going to have to put a plaque up that just says, “Haberman and your maiden name” up there.
Amy Haberman: Yep.
Stephenie Langston:
That’s funny. I think those are the learning experiences that sometimes start you on your career, like, “Oh, that was kind of unsafe.”
Amy Haberman:
Yeah. For sure. And honestly, that wasn’t the worst one and I know you know this about me, Stephenie, there was a fatality where I worked at that same location a couple years later. And that’s what got me into safety for real. Up to that point, I had been going to UW Madison and I was interested in industrial engineering and then there was a fatality and that really opened my eyes to fact that there’s this whole profession of environmental, health, and safety. And I changed my major and changed schools and really that changed the whole course of my career. They say everything happens for a reason and so I hope that my experiences with that have helped prevent some serious incidents out there in the universe and the ripple effect is in play, hopefully.
Stephenie Langston:
I knew that about you ahead of time, but I have no doubt in my mind that there’s a lot of great that has come from your knowledge and your wisdom and everything that you willingly and openly share with anyone who’s willing to have a conversation. Which is why I was really excited to have you on this call with us today, just because you’re really approachable and easy to talk to and engage with when you’re wanting to learn more about process improvement or even safety in general. So with that, what is a great way for people to contact you if they have questions or maybe they just want to get to know you a little bit more either with safety or process improvement?
Amy Haberman:
Yeah, sure. I encourage anyone to just shoot me an email. It’s ahaberman@ufl.edu. Like you said, Stephenie, I’m always willing to have a conversation and help people learn and grow because people did that for me. I’m still learning and growing, but I just think that’s the spirit we need to approach our work life in and it just makes it more enjoyable for everyone. So, I’m totally willing to help out in any way that I can and have the conversation. So, yeah, please feel free to reach out and get in touch.
Stephenie Langston:
Awesome. Well, thank you, Amy for joining me today. I really appreciate your insight and experience that you’ve shared. And, like I said, you’ll be able to find out more about our conversation as well as links to the resources we discussed today on the SafetyStratus website, and I can’t wait for you all to join us on our next call as well.
Amy Haberman:
Alright, thank you for having me.
Stephenie Langston: Thank you.
