There is a better way to make the federal government more efficient than what Americans are witnessing under the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s DOGE: an improvement process that has worked wonders in the business world and for some state governments. (Photo illustration by Bongkod Worakandecha)
Elon Musk’s purge of our federal government is a teachable moment. Contrary to its purported goal of streamlining government, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is crippling agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It was, as Nicholas Kristoff observed, “the world’s richest man gleeful at destroying an agency that serves the world’s poorest children.” Other targets include agencies charged with protecting Americans from toxic pollution, communicable diseases, illiteracy, and financial fraud.
What would genuine efficiency initiatives look like? Mission-driven efficiency can be achieved through Lean process improvement methodology. As a Lean trainer and practitioner, I see a connection between the DOGE debacle and the long-delayed ECHO Village pallet shelters in Providence. I am also a senior consultant at one of three firms with a Master Price Agreement with the State of Rhode Island for agencies seeking process improvement consulting services.
Lean techniques originated in manufacturing and are equally effective in the public sector. It’s about accomplishing the mission with minimal waste. It’s not about cutting services or reducing headcount.
Lean is politically neutral. Nebraska had a robust Lean program under former Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts. Project teams reduced the time the state reimbursed expenses to parents of kids with special medical needs from 15 days to two days, and cut wait-times on calls for economic assistance from 23 minutes to 5 minutes. The highway safety grant program had 126 steps and 32 handoffs; the redesigned process had a 58% reduction in work time.
The achievements of Results Washington, under Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, were highlighted in Jacob Stoller’s cogent explanation of the difference between top-down cost-cutting, and what actually works. As Stoller explained, “waste doesn’t show up as line items in financial reports but is distributed in tiny increments throughout the organization’s processes.”
Unfortunately, this common sense waste-detection methodology is not well known. Policy makers lack the vantage point to detangle administrative bottlenecks. They create umbrella agencies to coordinate redundant programs. Or they turn to disruptive forces like DOGE to destroy what exists. Neither approach is responsible or cost-effective.
Removing the waste to accomplish the mission
Consider the example of permitting. The purpose of a permitting process is to protect the health and safety of the community, not to frustrate the applicants. The process should allow those who comply with appropriate regulatory standards to receive a timely response.
Here’s a high-level view: An administrator would charter a Lean project team comprised of the people who do the work. The team maps the process as it is currently conducted. They assess the purpose of each step, differentiating those that add value from those without. The future state map omits the nonvalue added steps.
Designing an efficient process without sacrificing standards is the fun part. Implementing the changes is another matter. Some changes will be within the purview of the administrator sponsoring the project. Others will require regulatory or statutory approval by policy makers who are faced with pressure from interest groups.
The stakes
Of the many systems in urgent need of improvement, housing is the clearest example. Rhode Island needs 24,000 units to ease the housing crisis, yet we are last in the country in housing permits per 1,000 residents. The regulatory stranglehold that caused the ECHO Village project to take longer and be more costly than any other pallet community in the country is emblematic of a much broader problem. Clearly, we must do better.
The future
When those who seek to end the mission are in charge, they will sabotage it. When those who believe in the mission are in charge, they can use proven techniques to root out inefficiencies.
Our administrators and policy makers must rise to the challenge — not just to preserve our institutions, but to improve them. Let’s show the country how to make government work for all.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.