Assessment Scorecard Using the PEMM framework.

As can be observed from the PEMM scorecard, the findings as regards Process Enablers and enterprise capabilities discussing opportunities and strengths from which improvement can be listed are described below.

Process Enablers

Design

Purpose (P2) – integrating the current processes with other vital processes is heavily influenced by the outcome of the previous design hence limited. For instance, there is immediate discontinuation in the event that the drafted resume is not completed. The profiles of the current policy implanting staff are improved to provide a reflection of the requirements in demand, and that would level the draft resume.

Context (P3) – a significant delay is expected since the process is considered complete after receipt of substantial feedback from the community being served. As of now, the existing mechanism of receiving feedback from the community is prone to manipulation, while reminders exist in the form of automated messages.

Documentation (P4) – the process, from inception to closure, is mapped out in a manner that encourages understandability and is also properly documented where historical data is extensively utilized to support the general documentation.

Performers

Knowledge (P3) – Owners (the state government) are not only knowledgeable of the details regarding the processes at the very basic level but also take part in the actual formulation process. However, there are several gaps between the top and the bottom due to improper adherence to the vision and mission of the institution.

Skills (P1) – skills needed for basic operations are adequately met. Also, the majority of key services that define the core mandate of the Department of Corrections in Florida State are adequately reflected in the skills and experience of the majority of staff. However, there is a small number of staff who are skilled in one or two areas but attempt to apply those skills in several areas beyond such skills. As reflected by the learning curve, new recruits have a direct contingent upon the background of these recruits. For instance, analysis shows that close to 55% of the new recruits in Florida’s Department of Corrections in 2019 had zero experience in their job postings. As a result, there was a need for a three-week induction and mentoring for them to reach the benchmarks of their respective roles.

Behavior (P3) – the owners (the state government) must adhere to policies meant for internal operations and related to all the phases connected to the delivery of service.

Owner

Identity (P3) – the element has caused confusion, potentially leading to several moments of back and forth. Changes in the process fall within the mandate of Process Improvement Manager (PIM). Nevertheless, the power to validate the process changes is under a different entity hence creating numerous bottlenecks during implementation.

Activities (P4) – the potential improvements or changes that are expected are largely systematic; hence must be well thought through before going ahead to implement them.

Authority (P2) – the PIM has the responsibility of executing changes even though it is the owners who have the authority over the systems that are used to put into action improvements. There is often deferment of these changes to operations, thereby resulting in kickbacks and delays.

Infrastructure

Information Systems (P4) – improvement of the workflow are carried out via concentrated focus groups considering the need for change and necessary impacts.

HR Systems (P4) –the existing Process Improvement Teams assume responsibility for the execution of changes connected to aspects that directly touch on the core mandate of the department, including training of the workers.

Metrics

Definition (P4) – metrics created from historical data plus projections complement operation concepts that are achievable.

Use (P1) – using the policy implementers to support metrics that provide transparency in all phases hence enables the managers to carry out analysis on trends while also addressing problems via consistent reviews (Hammer, 2007). Metrics generally need revisits from time to time for the creation of necessary alignment with goals and expectations.

Enterprise Capabilities

Leadership

Awareness (E3) – carrying out checks and balances on performances and changes is effective and efficient since the top management receives weekly briefs on the ongoings.

Alignment (E3) – some of the needs for change arise from policy implementers (low ranking employees, especially the newly hired ones) deviating from the department’s core mandate. In such cases, the mentors need to improve their modalities of carrying out induction.

Behavior (E2) – the department’s top leadership comprises those who direct programs, the majority of whom lack ground-level experience. Focusing on numbers over processes negatively impact.

Style (E3) – the department’s overall motivating factor is quite outward as far as inducting new recruits is concerned. The practice has been that experienced staff member takes the process upon themselves.

Recommendations

The provided recommendations focus on one main issue picked from the assessment. This includes ownership of the influence to cause improvement/change resting on individuals not directly associated with core mandate. Some of these recommendations include:

Formally engaging six sigma training to be used in the induction of new recruits and executing such processes the significant stakeholders. Validation of the process involves understanding of the process as well as understanding the means of carrying out the changes formally.
Streamlining communication between newly hired employees and the owners (the state government) for purposes of mapping out the true value of the process for improvements to training.

References

Hammer, M. (April, 2007). The Process Audit. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from

https://hbr.org/2007/04/the-process-audit