This document contains the text of the articles in the Winter 1995 ASQC Public Sector Network News (PSNNews3). PSN newsletters are available electronically through the TQM computer Bulletin Board and Clemson University. You can access the TQM BBS using your computer modem at (301) 340-0325. Through the TQM BBS the newsletters are in the government area and are named PSNNews1.zip, PSNNews2.zip... You can access the files through Clemson University using internet (in the TQM BBS file area, government subdirectory): anonymous ftp to deming.eng.clemson.edu or gopher://deming.eng.clemson.edu:70/1 or http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/ The PSN began in 1987 as an informal network of state and local government employees. When we joined ASQC, in 1993, our membership had grown to over 1,300 people in State, Local and Federal government. Our mission: To help government leaders increase the capacity of the public sector to deliver services that delight the citizenry through accelerating the development, application and documentation of total quality management. To advance a systems approach to the public sector that will foster collaboration between federal, state, and local government. You can join the ASQC PSN by calling ASQC at (800) 248-1946 and telling them you want to join the Public Sector Network. Please forward any comments or questions on the electronic availability of PSN News to asqcpsn@aol.com (John Hunter, secretary of the PSN). ------The Public Sector Network News-------Winter 1995------- Articles listed in the order they appear. 1) The Art of "Service Recovery" Pete Williams 2) Obliterate, Reengineer or Improve? A. Keith Smith 3) Quality in Cyberspace John Hunter 4) Quality Purchasing Tool Kit Michael Masterson 5) Quality in Government Andrea Lewis 6) Documenting Improvements Using a Q.C. Story Ron Black 7) Why Diagram a Process? Kathleen C. Moore 8) The Deschutes County, OR, Public Works Department Transition to Quality Larry Rice 9) Changing of the Guard by Barry Crook The Art of "Service Recovery" by Pete Williams Rules of Quality Service: (1) Do it right the first time. (2) Fix it if it fails. (3) There are no third chances. Service, service, service! Yes, the word is woven into the fabric of the Department of Parks and Recreation. But, no matter how customer friendly we design our process, sometimes it just doesn't work out the way we planned it. This is the time for Service Recovery. It is the art of "fixing it" for the customer. The way an organization overcomes everyday mistakes marks a true quality service organization. Research has shown that customers who experience a service foul-up and get a satisfactory resolution to their problem are nearly as happy as those who get good service the first time. "The acid test of a service delivery system is how you solve customers' problems," says Leonard Berry, professor of marketing at Texas A&M University and a nationally known service quality researcher. Berry found that the best customer satisfaction ratings come from customers who have experienced no problems; close behind are those who experience a problem that is resolved satisfactorily. Once we realize that even after a foul-up, there is still a chance to satisfy (even delight) the customers, it behooves us to prepare for the inevitable. In other words, have a plan for how to return the customer to a state of satisfaction. Nonetheless, not every customer will give you a chance to make things better -- many will simply go away mad and not complain to you. But, they will tell everyone else about the poor service! The bottom line is to do it right the first time, but if you don't, make sure the service recovery hits the mark. Not that this is new to you! Even without the buzzword "service recovery," many of you intuitively know and practice service recovery as a normal part of your job. A recent example: On a Monday in June, Carol Sprow and the maintenance crew from Sugar Pine Point SP were replacing old concrete fire rings with new steel rings. Campsite 119 was vacant and not anticipated to be occupied that day. The crew had removed the old fire ring from the site, removed rocks and debris and left to have lunch and to pick up the new steel ring. When they returned, they found the site occupied. The camper moved her vehicle to allow the back hoe access, but when the operator started digging and the dust started to fly, the camper became (understandably) very upset and without saying anything to the crew, went to the contact station to file a complaint! While she was gone, the crew scrambled to complete the installation, place a couple of logs for seating by the fire ring (a little extra touch), dust off the camp furniture, and, most importantly, left a note apologizing for inconveniencing the camper and (after checking with the unit supervisor) told her she was entitled to a refund of that evening's camp fee, courtesy of the maintenance crew. The next day the camper had moved on but left this note at the contact station: "Dear Carol, Thank you very much for the kind offer and your apology. Your apology was warmly received and all that was necessary. We have always had our best camping experiences at Sugar Pine and have years of happy memories. And (sic) we appreciate the hard work it takes to make our camping so delightful." Six Steps to Service Recovery "OOPS! Time for Service Recovery," a video by Salenger Films, suggests that there are six steps to a successful service recovery: 1. Apologize. A simple "I'm sorry" will do. It is so simple, but research shows that these words are missing in more than half of the service breakdowns we experience. Part of the reason may be that uttering "I'm sorry" may seem to mean "I've failed" or "I am the person to blame." But it need not be an admission of guilt. "I'm sorry" simply acknowledges that things have not gone right in your customer's eyes and that you are part of a system that aims to correct the situation. 2. Listen, emphasize and ask clarifying questions. Listening is an active process. Customers can tell if you are not giving your full attention. Let them express their feelings. Doing so will allow you to gather the information you need to rebuild a connection to this customer. Show that you understand what the customer is saying and that you care. But don't cross the line and get into sharing or mimicking the customer's feelings (e.g. getting angry - like they are!) Rather, aim to understand the feelings. An angry customer may not be terribly rational. After listening for a while and demonstrating that you are concerned about the situation, ask questions to get a clear and complete picture of the problem. But, don't begin asking questions too soon. Let them speak their piece. Wait until the emotions have subsided to begin asking questions. 3. Solve the problems quickly, in partnership with the customer. Once you have gained the information you need from the customer and have checked into other sources of information (as may be needed to get a clear understanding), begin developing solutions together with the customer. This partnering with the customer simply means presenting solutions to them as options, allowing them to say, "Yes, please do." Or, if the solutions are not obvious, partnering means asking them how they would like to see the problem solved. Either way, the customer is involved in the problem resolution. 4. Offer atonement. A major part of a completed service recovery is taking that extra step "to make it up to the customer." This step worries many of us, as it sound like we have to "give away the store" to please the customer. Not true. Atonement means giving what is appropriate to recover a valuable customer. It does not mean, "Oh, since you were disturbed and did not sleep well in your campsite last night, I'll give you a week of free camping!" More appropriately, it might be, "Since you are planning to stay for a week, how about staying an extra night on the house?" 5. Keep your promise. This step is doubly important because the service glitch in question is, to the customer in at least an unstated sense, the first broken promise. Broken promises on top of broken promises make merely frustrated customers furious and can sabotage any chance of rebuilding the customer relationship. Be realistic about when and what you can and cannot deliver. 6. Follow-up. Following up simply means confirming what went wrong has truly been put right. And it tells the customer that you really care. Follow-up is especially important when recovering from a complex problem where you have fixed a problem out of the sight of the customer. Before you contact the customer, check within your organization to make sure that solution has been implemented. Then, follow-up to ensure the customer is satisfied. For more information contact: Pete Williams California Dept. of Parks and Recreation 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone (916) 653-6160 Fax (916) 657-3903 Obliterate, Reengineer or Improve? by Keith Smith If those of us the public sector had not heard the message from the electorate before now, then November 8th delivered their message load and clear. Our customers, the taxpayers, want less government and VALUE for the tax dollars they are willing to spend. Should we wait for our politicians to lead this effort, or do we in the public sector bear the responsibility to act. We have two choices; act now to give them what they want or suffer the consequences! Each and every one of us must look at our program and ask what is the purpose of its existence, what are the outcomes we have been asked to accomplish and what are the key processes to deliver service? Three questions must then be asked and answered using data from our customers and from our processes: Why do it at all? Why do it this way? Can it be done better? If the program's expected outcomes have been accomplished, then we must bring that information to the attention of the policy makers so they can decide on the need for the program's continued existence. If the outcome is still valued but the service delivery process is broken and does not deliver results, we should reengineer the process. If analysis of the process shows it to be fundamentally sound but with potential for improvement, then improve it we must. One hundred years ago "good enough for Government service" meant the highest product standard. It is up to all of us in the public sector to spend the coming years on a journey to recreate that reputation. How do we start on that journey? We must learn from others who have started afresh, and rebuilt organizations, and we must learn from each other about the unique challenges in public sector organizations. We hope that the Public Sector Network News can, in some small way, contribute to both these goals. We are attempting to present a wide variety of implementation models, successes (and failures with their concomitant learning), tools, techniques, book reviews or anything else informative and helpful. Please do your part and contribute to the recreation of government as a vital partner in 21st century America. A. Keith Smith Editor, Public Sector Network News. Please submit articles for inclusion in the Public Sector Network News to: A. Keith Smith Bureau of Automotive Repair 10240 Systems Parkway, Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone (916) 255-1340 Fax (916) 255-1369 Quality in Cyberspace by John Hunter Feedback from the last column stressed the usefulness of the on-line sources. So more space is devoted to listing sources this time. If you are interested in a topic which has national interest using electronic communication can help you. This column will focus on how internet mailing list allow you to communicate with people across the country interested in the same topic. Current topics relating to quality include teams, learning organizations, Deming, TQM in education, changing personnel regulations in the federal government, Business Process Re-engineering and many others. New topic groups are being set up every day. If you have an idea for one but don't have the desire or equipment to manage one find a similar topic and let others know. Others may direct you to one you were not aware of, or if many people express interest, someone else may take it on Subscribing to a mailing list is free. Once you join messages written by the other participants are sent to your E-Mail address. These messages include questions, answers, notices of events or books of interest to members, success stories etc. To take advantage of this tool first identify those areas which you need to keep abreast of the most current information. Then subscribe to a couple of mailing list and try them out. Stay with those that met your needs and drop the others. Most list relating to quality have under 10 messages a week so the amount of time invested is small. For some reason some people think by adding another tool to those they use to do their job they are adding to their workload. My advice is, if subscribing to a mailing list doesn't help you perform your job better (or more efficiently) stop your subscription. Most who try them find the right mailing lists are tremendously helpful. Unless I get feedback to do something different I will explore in more detail the TQM BBS and one of the internet sources in the next column. The following is a short list of available on-line resources. Internet mailing lists include your full name in each request to join a mailing list -- at the "" below. Deming Electronic Network write: clauson_jr@a1.rscc.cc.tn.us in body: join DEN "" Quality Management based in the UK write: mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk in body: join quality-management "" REGOnet write:listserv@pandora.sf.ca.us in body: info REGO-L "" Instructions for 3 more Re-inventing Government mailing list follow. write: Listproc@gmu.edu in body: subscribe REGO-XXX "" where "XXX" is QUAL, ORG, DOD, (taken from the list below). REGO-QUAL Creating Quality Leadership and Management REGO-ORG Transforming Organizational Structures REGO-DOD DoD TQM in Higher Education write: listserv@ukanvm.bitnet in body: subscribe TQM-L "" TQM (Glenn) more discussion of theory than most. write: tqm.list@tqm.permanet.org in body: subscribe TQM-L "" World Wide Web QualiNet http://www.netview.com/qualinet/ QUALITY.ORG http://www.quality.org/qc Computer Bulletin Boards TQM BBS, free BBS, (301) 585-1164. Dedicated to discussion of Quality. Includes material on the philosophy of W. Edwards Deming. Has section on the PSN, including newsletters to download. FEDWORLD (703) 321-8020 Free BBS Federal Government Large scope. Many files on NPR. Gateways to other BBSs. Please let me know of other resources (a larger list is available on the TQM BBS as file: online4.asc) or via www at: http://www.casti.com:80/qc/lists/online.resources.guide.txt John Hunter U.S. Office of Personnel Management Mail Stop 102-268 2200 Wilson Blvd Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 528-6786 ext. 6000 Fax: (703) 528-6786 E-Mail: asqcpsn@aol.com Quality Purchasing Tool Kit by, Captain Michael Masterson Madison Police Department, Madison, Wisconsin. On June 27, 1989 a City improvement team composed of employees representing motor equipment, traffic engineering parks, police, streets, attorney's and controller's office developed a quality improvement tenets. Their mission was to "respond to a commitment by top City managers to develop the means to improve the procurement process on important purchases. In particular, the management team wanted to formalize user input, establish a quality process for quality purchases and provide a means for continuous improvement." Detective Team Captain, Michael Masterson, has recently written an article on the topic "Buying Radio's is Talking Quality for city Government, which will appear in a future edition of Quality Progress. In that paper, he describes, in detail, how the police department used the "tool kit" to buy portable radios for police officers. A typical city agency initiates hundreds, perhaps thousands, of purchases of goods/services in a single year. Certain purchases can directly affect your employees and even the quality of service delivery. A traditional purchasing unit is equipped to imitate formal quotation and bid processes to ensure favorable prices. The critical missing elements, however, have been a quality needs evaluation and specification preparation which leads to making a quality purchase. An example would be in ordering a dozen pair of work gloves for a City work crew. Sound simple enough. What was not obvious to City Purchasing was the relative importance of such factors as: usable life, waterproofing, warmth, protection from abrasions, retention of manual dexterity, fire protection, color. The goal of course is to minimize the total cost, not just the bid price. The low bidder can win the glove contract, but, within 6 months, because of poor fabric, inadequate stitching, or lack of ventilation, you may find yourself reordering more to replace the poor quality products. Not only does quality have a monetary cost, it also has a service cost for the quantity and quality of our employees performance may suffer too. Our justification to purchase should be based on: Cost/benefit analysis Prior favorable experience with the product/vendor Special or unique product features that are of particular value to the user Data-based, measurable user evaluation Exceptional warranty or vendor support One unique feature of this purchasing process solicits the front end input of the users of the service or product. The process considers the input of users (internal customers) critical in making a quality purchase. The components which can be given weighted value in your decision to purchase may include: Cost effectiveness and life cycle costing (downtime, warranty, service/maintenance cost, energy use, operating costs, etc.) Time Savings/Productivity Reliability/Dependability Ease of Maintenance and Repair Health/Safety Considerations Falls within Budget Relationships with Vendor Demonstration User interview Although the "tool kit" was developed over five years ago, it is still relevant in 1994 and beyond. In the interest of sharing information so others may learn, a copy of the 21 page Quality Purchasing Tool Kit is available by sending a business size, stamped, self-addressed envelope to: Captain Michael Masterson Madison Police Department 211 South Carroll Street Madison, WI 53710 Quality in Government by, Andrea Lewis "Is TQM Dead" This question was posed in the lead article in the April 1994 issue of Quality Digest. You, too, may be wondering if the buzzword of the 1980s, embraced by companies and organizations large and small, has bitten the dust. Looking at some of the statistics, one could easily conclude TQM is in trouble. According to the Quality Digest article: * Only 20 percent of Fortune 500 companies are satisfied with the results of the TQM processes, according to a 1992 Rath & Strong survey. * A study of 30 quality programs by McKinsey & Co. found that two-thirds of them had stalled or fallen short of yielding real improvements. * A survey of 300 electronics companies by the American Electronics Association found 73% had quality programs in place, but of these, 63 percent said they had failed to improve quality by even as much as 10 percent. What or who's to blame? The article refrains from directly pointing fingers and offers six rules which determine the success of any TQM effort: 1. Measure costs--quality must yield a payback. 2. Integrate TQM into your mission--it is essential that quality be driven by the business purpose of the organization. 3. Use the right tools--of the numerous quality tools, use them appropriately. 4. Balance people, processes, and technology. 5. Don't lose people to teams--an organization must balance employees involvement in teams against individual excellence. 6. Allow time to change the organization's culture--TQM takes time to become fully ingrained in an organization culture. The bottom line--whether or not there is a shared definition of TQM--is that TQM is a philosophy and, as such, is not dead but is being changed and improved. This change process is expounded in the August 8, 1994 cover story BusinessWeek magazine, "Quality: How To Make It Pay" and corresponds to #1 success indicator above: measure costs. The BusinessWeek story cites quality successes and failures, failures due in part to organizations losing sight of the customer as they strive for faster processing times and improved quality. This is amazing, to say the least, when one of the precepts of TQM is focus on the customer! To turn this around, a growing number of organizations are starting to refine the notion of quality -- by integrating the concept of "return on quality" (ROQ). Organizations are beginning to assess the financial impact of quality improvements with the value being added for the organization and its customers. This is not a unique or new concept. Quality "guru" Phil Crosby speaks about the Cost of Quality in terms of measuring monies you're losing because you're doing something wrong, monies lost as a result of not doing it right the first time, and how much it will cost to change or improve. There are some detractors from the ROQ theory believing that it is a mistake "to take a bean-counter's view of something as fundamental as quality." But to its advocates, ROQ is getting organizations back to the concept of customer focus. The steps for ROQ start with having an effective quality program with a strong foundation on the basics: process/system knowledge and controls, measurement systems, skill-based personnel. Next an organization must calculate the cost of current quality initiatives, determine customer needs, focus on quality efforts most likely to meet or exceed customer expectations at a reasonable cost, closely monitor results and roll out successful programs, and continuously improve. Although the ROQ theory may seem more applicable to private-sector organizations who have an eye on market share and profits, there is a direct linkage to us in the public sector. As we craft our quality initiative, we have to be cognizant to target our improvement efforts on those activities that have potential payoff when we weight the resource commitments to results. In our current fiscal environment, we must make sound decisions to determine improvement projects that have a positive impact on improving the products or services we provide in a cost-effective manner. Andrea Lewis, Assistant for Quality Programs California Environmental Protection Agency 555 Capital Mall, Suite 235 Sacramento, CA. 95814 Phone (916) 324-7316 Fax (916) 322-6005 Documenting Improvements Using a Q.C. Story by, Ron Black What is a Q.C. Story? A Q.C. Story is a document that is used to explain work done during an improvement effort. It contains elements which explain the steps in the improvement effort. This standard format makes it easy to understand the details of an improvement project. The Q.C. Story is intended to be written during a project to help the effort remain on-track, making regular progress. The Q.C. Story consists of the following eight elements: The ISSUE section explains the Issue Statement for the project. The WHY SELECTED section explains why this issue was selected, how it was selected and how the issue relates to customer satisfaction. INITIAL STATUS explains what was initially known about the issue when we first started to work to improve it. ANALYSIS OF CAUSES explains what causes have been identified and how we performed the analysis to find the causes. PLANS quantifies the improvement objective, delineate possible solutions and how each was evaluated, explain the selected solution(s) and plans for implementation. RESULTS compares the actual results achieved with the target in the objective statement. STANDARDIZATION explains what was done to hold the gains achieved through the improvements to the process. And, FUTURE PLANS explains what possible issues could be worked on next and which of those issues has been selected for the next improvement effort. A detailed description of each of the eight elements of the Q.C. Story is provided. Also there is a checklist of questions you can use to help you write an excellent Q.C. Story. Issue: This section of the Q.C. Story contains one simple sentence, the Issue Statement. An Issue Statement contains three elements: Direction Measure Reference to a process, product or service. For example: "Reduce (direction) the percentage of contracts that are returned for rewrite (measure) in the XYZ Contract Department (reference)." An Issue Statement is simply a description of the measure and the way in which the measure will change. It does not contain a goal, just the direction of change. Until further analysis can be done to find the causes of the issue, it is impossible to determine a meaningful goal for the measure; therefore, a statement like: "Reduce the percentage of contracts that are returned for rewrite by 50%" is not a valid Issue Statement. We may want a 50% improvement, but we must let the analysis tell us what is possible. Be careful of words like "improve" and "lack of". Statements such as "improve customer satisfaction" or "lack of training" are not issue statements because they contain no direction, measure or reference. We could say "improve customer satisfaction with the quality of contracts" if we had a method to measure customer satisfaction with contracts. The term "lack of..." is really a cause in disguise, not an issue. If "lack of training" was to be accepted as an Issue Statement, the obvious solution would be to "do training". It would require no analysis to find the cause because the cause is implied from the beginning. Another word to avoid in an Issue Statement is "and." Usually when "and" is in the Issue Statement, it indicates the presence of two issues. It is commendable to try to resolve two issues at once, but it can be very difficult and is sometimes impossible. If the two issues have the same set of causes, then choosing one issue will automatically lead to the resolution of the second. If the two issues have different causes, it is a mistake to try to analyze and solve them together. In either case, they should be two separate stories. Why Selected: In this section, we explain why we are working on this issue. It is easy to say "customer satisfaction". The question which needs to be addressed here is "how do we know that this is the most important thing to work on" to improve customer satisfaction? We need to show how we know this is an issue. Is the knowledge of this issue gained through surveys, customer feedback or complaints? How many complaints? There should be a clear relationship to the customer and the customer's needs. We should explain how the problem is affecting the customer and how solving it will benefit the customer. This is also the part of the Q.C. Story where we explain HOW selected. Certainly, there are many issues which might be addressed. What was the method used for the selection of the most important issue? It is possible that this issue was selected because it is part of a higher-level manager's improvement plan. We should be able to show how this issue fits with the higher-level plans. Initial Status: Here we explain the status of the issue before we started working to improve it. In order for the reader to understand the Initial Status, several things need to be explained. The most important thing to show in this section of the Q.C. Story is the status of the measure in the issue statement. If the measure was "% of rejected contracts", then we would need to explain what the percentage was in the months before we first started working on the issue. If the measure was "cycle time to get signature approval", then we would show what the cycle time was. Just giving one data point is less valuable than showing the status of the measure through time. Knowing that last month the percentage of rejected contracts was 16% is of some value, but showing the percentage of rejected contracts each month for the past year gives a better picture of the status of the measure. This is a good place to use graphical tools like line graphs or control charts. If there are other facts or diagrams that would help us to better understand the Initial Status, they can be included in this section of the story. A flowchart of the initial process is very helpful. We might explain how many people were involved, the number of shifts, the floor space requirements of the process, related measures that might be impacted or previous attempts to solve the problem. Any of these could be included in this section of the story, if they helped the reader to understand the situation before the issue was improved. Analysis of Causes: The reason to perform analysis is to find the cause(s) of the issue. In this section of the Q.C. Story, we explain the cause and provide the data that was used to find and verify the cause. It is common that the first level of analysis is demonstrated through a Pareto Diagram. This diagram shows the various aspects of the problem and shows which is the most frequent or common. It is easy to make the mistake of thinking that a Pareto Diagram provides true analysis of causes. This is usually not the case. Most often, the Pareto Diagram categorizes types of problems or defects, but this is not a description of cause. It is helpful to know the most frequent type of problems, because this should be the target of further investigation. Next, we may use an Ishikawa (Fishbone) Diagram to theorize the causes of the most common problem (from the Pareto). Fault Mode and Effect Analysis (FEMA) is another excellent tool for theorizing causes. Data is collected to determine and verify which of the several possible causes is, in fact, the cause of the problem. there are several analytical tools to help with this effort: checksheets, histograms, or scattergrams are very useful. The story should include the time period over which the data was collected. We sometimes run small-scale experiments to collect data about causes or to verify that we have found the actual causes. When the results from these experiments show that our theories are correct, we can include them in this section of the story. How causes are verified is an important but commonly overlooked part of the story. This section of the Q.C. Story concludes with a statement of "Necessary Action". This is not a plan. This is a statement that summarizes what needs to be done to eradicate the cause. Plans: This section explains the Objective Statement, the possible solutions, the method that was used to evaluate the possible solutions and select the best solution(s) and the details of the plan to implement the solutions. A complete Objective Statement contains: Direction Measure Reference Target (or goal) Time Frame Owner For example: "Reduce (direction) the percentage contracts returned for rewrite (measure) in the XYZ contract department (reference) by 65% (target) by the end of the fiscal year (time frame). Owner: Joe Jones" It should be clear that the target in the Objective Statement is derived from the analysis. For example: Let's say our issue was "% of contracts returned for rewrite" and that the Initial Status of the measure was 25% of the contracts returned. If our analysis showed that half of the problem contracts were returned because they did not contain a needed financial figure and we felt we could remedy this cause, then we could set a target reducing the percentage of rejected contracts by 50%. (We could also say reduce the percentage of returned contracts from 25% to 12.5%) The Q.C. Story should be written in such a way that it is easy to see how the analysis, the plan and the target are related. The details of the plan should be aimed at eradicating the cause, and if the cause is eradicated, the measure should change to a predictable level. There should be some indication of the different solutions that were considered. There should be some information about how the different alternative solutions were evaluated and how the final solutions were selected. It is in this section of the story that we include the details of the plan. This detail could include planning sheets or tables, PERT or GANTT charts, timelines and review tables to describe how the planned implementation proceeded. The reader should be able to tell if the plan was implemented on schedule. Results: In this section, we compare the actual results from the improvement effort with the target in the Objective Statement (the expected results). This comparison should be shown in the same format as the information in Initial Status and Analysis. If the Initial Status was shown in a control chart, then the Results should be shown in the same type of control chart. If an important part of the Analysis was shown in a Pareto Diagram, then some of the Results should show a comparison with that Pareto Diagram. The reader should be able to tell if the expected results were achieved within the original time frame described in the Objective Statement. If there is a deviation between the expected results and the actual results, some additional analysis should be provided in this section of the story to explain the cause of the gap between the two. This is also where we explain any other results (in addition to the changes in the measure) that occurred as a result of implementing the plan. These could be positive benefits or they might be negative side effects. If we were working on an issue of % of contracts to be rewritten and as a result of our improvement efforts morale went up, we would want to include that information in the story. Conversely, if we saw a new kind of problem get introduced in the process of writing contracts, that information should be included, also. Standardization: Here we explain the steps that were taken to assure that the implemented solution will remain in effect. We want to prevent the process from reverting back to its previous state so we can continue to hold the gains achieved through the process improvement. Standardization involves six types of activities: 1. Documentation -- the new process will need to be documented by changing procedures, material checklists, etc. 2. Training on the new process -- people will need to learn the correct way to do the new process. 3. Training on the skills needed to perform the new process -- in addition to learning the steps in the new process, people may need to learn skills. For example, they may need to know how to run a new computer program, or how to use a new piece of equipment. 4. Physical Reorganization -- the movement of desks, shelving, equipment, machinery, etc. has the effect of preventing the process from reverting to its original state and helps to hold the gains of the improvement. 5. Sharing -- we can expand the benefits from improving a process if we inform other, similar processes or organizations about the problem, how it was analyzed and solved and the results of the new process. 6. Monitoring -- by watching the process metrics on a regular basis after the process has been improved, we can be assured that the process is continuing to run at the improved level and we will quickly be able to catch any deviation from the new level. It is helpful to assign a specific custodian to be responsible for monitoring. Although Standardization takes these several forms, doing one or two is not sufficient to assure that the process is standardized. It is necessary to do most or all of the actions to be assured that we can hold the gains. It is not necessary to include the documents and training materials in the Q.C. Story, just a description of the actions taken to Standardize. Future Plans: In the last section of the Q.C. Story, we list the problems that could be addressed next and the issue that has been selected to be the next project. First, there should be a list of possible problems that could be selected as the next project. This list could include problems directly related to the issue that has just been improved. It is possible that one (or several) aspects of an issue have been resolved, yet more aspects of the issue still need to be improved. On the other hand, the list of issues could include problems which are unrelated to the issue in the current Q.C. Story. For example, if the issue in the current story was "reduce the percentage of contracts returned for rewrite", we could have made significant gains in reducing the percentage, but more work could still be done. On the other hand, customers might be satisfied with the progress to date and some other issue may have risen to a level where it needs attention more than the current issue. We conclude this section with the identification of the issue (from the list) that will be the next issue for improvement. This identification crates a connection between the current improvement effort and the next project. Q.C. STORY QUICK REFERENCE You should be able to answer "yes" to each question. Issue: Does the Issue Statement contain the three parts: Direction, Measure, Reference? Have you avoided words like "improve" and "lack of"? Have you avoided using "and" to load more than one issue in the Issue Statement? Have you kept the Issue Statement free of any target or goal. Why Selected: Have you explained how you know this is the most important issue to work on? Have you shown how this issue relates to the customer, customer satisfaction or shown the benefits to the customer? Have you explained the method used to select the issue? Initial Status: Have you described, in numerical terms, the status of the measure in the Issue Statement? Have you provided some historical information about the status of the measure? Is there data displayed in a visual, graphical format? Is there a flowchart or other explanation of the status of the process at the beginning of the project? Have you included other facts that would help the reader understand the initial situation? Analysis of Causes: Is there a clear statement of the major cause(s) of the issue? Have you explained how the possible causes were theorized? Are there data included to show how the main causes were identified? Is the data displayed in such a way that the connection between the issue and the cause(s) is clear? Have you explained how the data was collected and over what time period it was collected? Plans: Is there a complete Objective Statement: Direction, measure, reference, target, time frame and owner? Is it clear how the target was derived from the analysis? Is it clear that the actions in the plan are aimed at fixing the cause(s)? Have you indicated what alternative solutions were considered, and how they were evaluated to select the best solutions? Have you included a copy of the planning tables, PERT charts, etc.? Have you indicated whether the plan was implemented on schedule? Results: Is there a comparison of the target in the Objective Statement and the actual results? Are the results displayed in he same graphical format as the information in "Initial Status" or "Analysis"? Have you indicated whether the results were achieved in the expected time frame? If the actual results did not match the objective or were achieved outside the expected time, have you provided the analysis of the gap? Have you included any other, related results, good or bad? Standardization: Have you explained the actions taken to hold the gain in the area of changed documentation, training on the new process, skills training, physical reorganization, sharing or process monitoring? Future Plans: Have you included a list of possible next projects? Have you indicated which of the possible projects will be the next issue for improvement? For further information, contact: Ron Black, Metadynamics 7465 Wayland Road, Loomis, Ca. 95650. Phone (916) 652 8442 ******************************************************* Graphics in the following article are represented as best we can for distribution over internet (GRAPHIC MISSING means a graphic appears which in the original article but not in the electronic version available here) ******************************************************* COPYRIGHT Kathleen C. Moore 1994 ******************************************************* Why Diagram a Process? by, Kathleen C. Moore To see it, to understand it, to change it. In "The New Economics", W. Edwards Deming quotes Paul Batalden on the subject of process diagramming: "The first step in any organization is to draw a flow diagram to show how each component depends on others. Then everyone may understand what his job is. If people do not see the process, they can not improve it." Deming then refers to diagramming the process 15 times more in the same book. Considering that emphasis, we can understand how vital it is. The concept is simple supplier ----->> process ------->> customer input or output step Benefits of producing a process diagram are numerous; here is but a partial list: --Most of the time a process is an intangible item to us. But by drawing it out, it makes the invisible become visible. --When a group can develop a process flow diagram together, the experience develops consensus as to what steps are involved, what order the steps fall, parameters such as the beginning and end points, input/outputs, and customer/suppliers are defined. --A baseline (initial status, capability or structure) of the process before it is changed can be compared with results after changes are made. The measurement of output before and after can help show improvement made and cost savings. --Redundant steps can be identified. --Added value (transformation) can be assessed at each step. --A written process is a great tool for training a new employee and can help them identify their suppliers and customers. The methods of process documentation are many and varied but all have the same basic goals, i.e. to bring the process into a concrete form. Each method has advantages and limitations. In this article, the writer presents a brief description of four process diagramming methods and several benefits of each. The language of systems is symbols. Traditional flow charting comes with realistic graphic symbols as well as simple boxes and arrows. Just as the computer programmer used bins and paper symbols to explain their system, a business process flow may identify entities such as an organizational unit, a file, a process step, the start and stop points in unique symbols. This writer doesn't believe that obligatory rules are required in the use of symbols in the simplest documenting method. However, a standardized language has developed which makes sense in most applications. A good rule to follow is the more sophisticated the method, the more important is the discipline in use of symbols. Whichever ones are used, consistency is imperative throughout the process regardless of the method of documentation. GRAPHIC MISSING Method 1: A basic flow chart is the simplest method to begin a process logic and it has widespread familiarity to most business people. It is the most flexible method for recording purposes, however, its flexibility becomes a liability when depending upon it for process change strategy. If intended for a full scale process improvement implementation, several specifications would be desired to standardize the methodology. Method 1 benefits: --Basic steps are identified --Order of steps is standardized --Dead end steps identified (i.e. input but no output) --Redundant steps and rework identified --Measurement of elapsed time is easy to accomplish --Reorganization of steps can be considered (i.e. move the inspection step forward in the process) --Can be developed with post-its and reorganized --Cause and Effect Diagram can be added at any step Method 2 is similar to Method 1 and adds a responsibility matrix on top of the process. GRAPHIC MISSING Method 2: Department or Deployment flow charting uses boxes to identify participation and process steps in a linear format. There appears to be less flexibility in the use of symbols and the system focuses on the people or organizational units responsible at each step of the process. Myron Tribus is credited with popularizing this approach. By this method, ownership is clearly established and those involved in the process become evident. Method 2 benefits: --Basic steps are identified --Order of steps is standardized --Ownership of the process is clearly identified --Measurement of elapsed time is easy to accomplish --Can be developed with post-its and reorganized --Cause and Effect Diagram can be added at any step Method 3 is similar to the other two, but it draws the process flow across the organizational structure. GPAPHIC MISSING Method 3: Organization mapping, as the word -map+ indicates, draws the process across a terrain much like a street map drawn across the expanse of a city. In this case it the organizational structure upon which the process is drawn. At this point in sophistication, process documentation begins a more structured approach. Ownership is clearly established and the entire process is presented at a glance. It is effective for displaying a macro process which crosses organizational barriers. External suppliers and customers become part of the process for the first time. Method 3 benefits: --Basic steps are identified --Order of steps is standardized --Ownership of the process step is clearly identified --The organization is displayed within its market (suppliers, customers, regulatory bodies, etc.) --Key inputs and outputs are easily labeled --Allows every employee in an organization to see how he fits in the overall picture --Requirements can be established for process steps --Measurement can be initiated at every step or for the entire process --Redundancies and bottlenecks become apparent --Cause and Effect Diagram can be added at any step --Easy to understand by those not essentially involved with the process Method 4 takes an entirely different approach to process documentation, it is a far more exacting, but powerful analytical tool. GRAPHIC MISSING Method 4: Essential Process Analysis or Structured Analysis is far more rigid in application and takes an extended amount of time to accomplish. The language is totally inflexible. Ownership and organization boundaries fall away and only the process itself is evident. The process diagram is complex and understood best by those who have developed it, therefore, somewhat ineffectual if used as a reporting method to management or others outside of the process. The supplier-customer relationship, measurement, analysis of "value added work", are features of this method. It allows the analyst to magnify and focus upon any step of the process. It can be used to design and implement a perfect system the first time or redesign and existing one with the same precision of a computer programmer. Every input and output can be traced through the depths (minute detail) of a process. It is a powerful tool for a team to use in the improvement process or reengineering. Method 4 benefits: --Basic steps are identified within -levels+ of the process --Order of steps is numbered --Key inputs and outputs are easily labeled and defined --Data dictionary is developed --Requirements can be established for every process input or output --Measurement can be initiated at every step or for the entire process --Redundancies and bottlenecks become apparent --Understood best by those within the process The methods presented here provide the reader with an overview and quick comparison of differing approaches to documenting a process. This writer believes that these methods can be used separately or in combination. Each offers beneficial techniques for the process improvement specialist, however, limitations of each method must be understood. They all start with the basic premise that a process has to be written to be changed effectively. Whatever the chosen method, Deming states that "To make the flow diagram work, the flow of materials and information from any part of the system must match the input requirements of the next stages." Thus, it is important to view the entire process and then, the steps as part of the whole. In summary, you have to see it, then understand it, before you can improve it. About the author: Kathleen C. Moore is a specialist in Process Analysis. Her office is located in Roseville, CA and can be reached at (916) 722-0258. She has worked in the field of Quality Improvement and has focused on the use of process analysis tools in the improvement process. Copyright, 1994 held by the Kathleen C. Moore. This article first appeared in the Winter, 1995 issue of The Public Sector Network News. If you wish to copy this for more than your use, or for commercial purposes write Kathleen C. Moore. The Deschutes County, OR, Public Works Department Transition to Quality by, Larry Rice Our Department's journey towards a quality work culture began over four years ago, in recognition of our customers' insistent demand for increased levels of service, increased service quality, and decreased service costs. The Departments' one hundred person work force maintains, preserves and constructs County Roads, and disposes of municipal solid waste generated by 90,000 citizens and businesses. Service monies come from State gas taxes, Federal Forest revenue sharing, Improvement Districts, and fees. Our foundation in the evolution to quality was the use of W. Edward Deming's fourteen points for quality management. Many other quality management works that address customer service and quality are also used. We determined that the process of change would be evolutionary. Yet, a visit to our Department and a review of our current organization demonstrates we have been through a revolution. Our organization chart is an inverted pyramid with the customer on top and the Board of County Commissioners on the bottom. Our ratio of management to employees is one to sixteen. Our managers focus on long range business management; coaching and counseling; intergovernmental relations, and sharing of services with other units of local and state governments; quality assurance; cost control; customer relations; and the level of programs of service. One strategy used was to initiate and focus change at the employee level. We have observed that those agencies attempting transition that insist on spending a couple of years attempting to change the attitude and behavior of managers and supervisors are not very successful. It is easy to talk about change if you do not have to walk the talk. Employees see no change, just promises they consider the most recent management fad. Another key strategy was to gain Union, County Commissioner, and the Personnel Departments support for change. A priority task was to develop and maintain a high level of communications and trust. Little outside assistance was sought or needed early on in the transition except for specific training such as conflict resolution and probable cause recognition. One cannot take someone else's system and import it, but ideas and strategies can be useful. What has been accomplished Early changes included: The establishment of nine Self Reliant Teams each based upon the provision of a common service; the positions of Supervisor and Lead were eliminated (replaced by Teams); new Team employees are hired by the Team (and discharged); the compensation plan was changed from a system based upon time in service to demonstrated skills; teams were made responsible for Team member and Team performance evaluations. Traditional supervisory responsibilities were delegated to Teams. Among these responsibilities were: Teams are responsible for one year probation evaluations and recommendation to pass or terminate; performance evaluations and recommendations for pay raises; first level discipline and first level grievance ; conflict resolution among members: work scheduling; vacation scheduling; establishing work hours; the provision of training and cross training; taking the initiative and making decisions; participation in the preparation of the annual budget; establishing Team goals. What are we doing Our current emphasis is on customer satisfaction; training and certification programs; developing a quality assurance and control program; putting into place a results measurement system; and developing partnerships with the public and private sectors. Too this end we recently entered into a cooperative agreement with the State Department of Environmental Quality, (through a Partnering process) for implementing our Solid Waste Management program, including the siting of a new landfill. We have found that "partnering" is a valuable tool for use in not only construction but for improving other relationships. We have come a long way toward developing a quality organization, but are acutely aware of how far we have yet to go. We are proud of our accomplishments and will share information with those that may see a benefit. We host visiting groups and are comfortable with exposing our problems along with touting our successes. Tips for a successful transition: The Policy Body, key managers, supervisors, and Union(s) must be supportive; The effort must have an energetic, committed, and respected Leader or Champion; Do not expect quick results, changing behavior is a long term effort; therefore the commitment to the transition must be long term (5 years minimum); Expect work performance to suffer early in the transition since employees do not know what is expected of them under a new system and they no longer work in the old system; You will have problems with a few supervisors or managers; be prepared to take action; Ensure timely communications to all, no secrets or hidden agendas; Most employees will adopt a wait and see attitude, find the positive leaders; Once employees are comfortable with the transition and learn to trust management, they will become a major support base and will drive your future successes; Managers and Supervisors will continue to have doubts into the third year, or more; There is no blueprint or published time schedule for transition that an agency can adopt; Each Agency or Department is unique and must work through the process in their own time and in their own manner. Management must assure key persons that they will continue to have a job if---, Victories are measured through a series of small actions that can be accomplished and that develop trust and confidence; It is wise to consolidate gains and cast them into stone in order to reduce the risk of loosing them with the loss of a leader or change in a Board or Union; Do not pit one team against another; Choose an outsider to compete with such as the private sector or another public agency; Keep a record of where you are and where you have been; Attempt to set up measuring systems that demonstrate change, good or bad; Identify and develop a network of people that are doing like things and use it. For further information, call or write: Larry Rice, Director of Public Works, 61150 S.E. 27 Bend, OR 97707. Phone (503) 388-6581 Fax (503) 388-2719 Changing of the Guard by Barry Crook "I've got big shoes to fill" is said by everyone who takes over a job -- and in my case, not only do I have great big shoes to fill, but I need to fill four of them. The Public Sector Network has been under the very able stewardship of Tom Mosgaller and Michael Williamson for its entire existence. They have decided to "retire to the front porch" - your PSN Council accepted the recommendations of its Nominating Subcommittee at the Fall meeting in Washington D.C. and has somewhat reluctantly agreed to let them. The new slate of officers for the next year are: Chair: Barry Crook (Multnomah County Oregon) Vice-Chair: Becky Meyers (State of New York) Past-Chairs: Tom Mosgaller (City of Madison) Michael Williamson (State of North Carolina) Secretary: John Hunter (OPM - US Government) Regional Councilor Nathan Strong (State of South Carolina) & Coordinators: Donna Crocker (The Enterprise Foundation) Nominating: Anne O'Conner (DOD - US Government) Program: Kim Peterson (City of Austin) Publications: Keith Smith (State of California) Referral Systems: Rusty Borkin (City of Milwaukee) Database Task Force: Cheri Howe (State of Washington) Info Packet: Tim Boncosky (State of Arizona) What will make it easier for me to "fill the shoes" of my predecessors is the way that the Council has always shared leadership among each other. We have worked well together to make things happen, with no egos getting in the way and with very little policing necessary. Thus we are not losing the leadership that Tom and Michael provided - its still going to be there - rather we are just shifting some responsibilities around. The ability to share leadership and accomplish our tasks says so much about the style that Tom and Michael brought to the group and their ability to inculcate a sense of responsibility in each of us for building the Network. I'll try to continue in that vein and try to live up to their legacy as we work to build the capacity for delivering services to the membership. It was this commitment to build a capacity for delivering value to our members that was the highlight of our Washington meeting. We agreed to begin building a system of regional councilors to represent the PSN in every part of the country, recruit Deputy Councilors as necessary, create a higher profile for the Network within the section activities of ASQC and be a resource for members on a local level. We also reviewed our strategic plan that we adopted last year in Milwaukee and have determined we need to have an in-depth discussion with ASQC leadership about a new paradigm for developing technical committees into division status. I'll share more about this as those discussions begin. We also should have information packets and new member packets ready for distribution in short order. The database development work proceeds within the Society in a collaboration with the Software Division and the Service Industries Division. We have expectations that the Society will fund its development in the next budget cycle. If so, it should make peer-to-peer connections much easier to establish and thereby increase members ability to learn from the experiences of others. We have also agreed to provide two tracks at the Service Industries Division's Conference in Baltimore, April 24-25, 1995. Tim Boncosky has also been tasked with working to revise the curriculum for the Certified Public Manager program in order to infuse a greater emphasis on quality principles into it. Finally, I want to say "Thanks!" to Keith Smith for doing such a great job on the newsletter. They are a product on continuous improvement . . . they just keep getting better and better. Please take Keith up on his request for stories about public sector quality, the real value of the Network is our ability to learn from each other, but we must communicate for that learning to take place.