This document contains the text of the articles in the Spring 1995 ASQC Public Sector Network News (PSNNews4). PSN newsletters are available electronically through Clemson University and the TQM computer Bulletin Board. You can access the files through the PSN World Wide Web site at Clemson University: http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/psci/psn You can access the TQM BBS using your computer modem at (301) 585-1164. Through the TQM BBS the newsletters are in the government area and are named PSNNews1.zip, PSNNews2.zip... 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-------Spring 1995------- Articles listed in the order they appear. 1) Hearing the Quiet Voice of the Customer Guion VanRensselaer 2) Growing Quality Communities Howard Schussler 3) A Message From the Chair R. Barry Crook 4) Quality in Cyberspace John Hunter 5) Creating Conditions for Organizational Transformation A. Keith Smith 6) TQM as a Philosophy Ron Safran 7) Team-Based Performance Ratings Ken Doby 8) A Process Improvement Model That Works Karen Bourgeois 9) Pioneers in a Customer Driven Administration Services Division Wendy Wohl-Shoemaker 10) Improving Oregon's Natural Resources by Improving Learning with Adults Across the State Ute Vergin Hearing the Quiet Voice of the Customer by Guion VanRensselaer In this age, when customer service is paramount, we in the public sector continually struggle to access the voice of our customers. We continually hear from the "squeaky wheels," and we've gotten pretty good at dealing with complaints about the service we provide. We know that those who take the effort to complain only represent the tip of the iceberg and may not be reflective of our customers in general. To reach all those customers "below the waterline" (those who may or may not be satisfied, but remain quiet), we've become proactive in our efforts to talk to our customers. We've done this through focus groups, random surveys, and so on. Focus groups can yield wonderful information, but they are difficult to manage. Random surveys are usually designed to have the customer respond by validating (or repudiating) our thoughts and assumptions about the service we provide. In actuality, many of the methods we use to gather information from our customers are proactive only in the sense that they open some avenues of communication with our customers. Is the quality of the information we receive from these types of customer input any better than what we have received from customer complaints? Quite often it is not. To be truly proactive in gathering customer input, we have to start by listening and then dialoguing with our customers. How can this be done! It can only be done by forming a partnership with our customers. A partnership with our customers? What's that all about? It is a partnership that you form with your internal and external customers to determine their needs and then reach an agreement on specific improvement efforts. In essence, it is a partnership for improvement. How in the world can that be practically done? In this time of extremely tight budgets, where will we get the resources to partner with our customers? We barely have the resources to provide the basic services, let alone partner with our customers! Is your organization striving to continuously improve the services it provides? If you are already doing that, you are already incurring expenses to improve your services. There always is some cost associated with improving service. The idea is to minimize the costs incurred in your improvement efforts. This brings me to the point where I would like to share with you a customer input methodology that is very cost-effective. It also has the added benefit of providing a "richness" of customer information that is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain through most other customer input methodologies. Recently, the cities of Milwaukee and Madison, WI, contracted with Arbor, Inc., of Media, PA, to be trained in the Customer Window [SM] Process. As part of the contract, Milwaukee and Madison were given license to use the Customer Window [SM] Process in their continuous improvement efforts. We have used this process over the last year and have found it an extremely powerful tool. This process is a valuable addition to our continuous improvement tool box. Specifically, we have found it to yield the following benefits. 1. It allows us to segment our customers (this focuses us on our primary customers). 2. It allows customers to tell us, in their own words, their service needs (quality characteristics) . 3. It allows us to measure customer satisfaction, as well as identify the level of importance for each quality characteristic. 4. With that knowledge, we are able to concentrate our improvement efforts where they will realize the most gain. Customers have told us what improvements they want, and what change they don't want. 5. By starting our improvement efforts by interviewing our customers, we are able to focus on the opportunity for improvement right from the beginning of the process. This shortens our improvement cycle time, which, in turn, reduces our improvement costs. 6. By forming partnerships with our customers, we send the message that the citizen (customer) is truly important to us. This certainly will positively affect the public's perception of us as a service provider. 7. It allows us to use a small sample size. This is accomplished by careful segmentation of customer groups. By sampling a small number, we greatly reduce our costs. 8. It enhances your ability to target follow-up information gathering. The Customer Window Process consists of a customer interview followed by a customer survey. The customer interview consists of open-ended questions that allow the customer to identify the quality characteristics of the service in his or her own words. *******Missing Graphic*********** The richness of information gathered from the customer interview greatly expands knowledge of the service. Quite often it reveals information about your service that you could have never seen from your perspective as the service provider. Once the quality characteristics have been identified, a follow-up customer survey is conducted, which determines customer satisfaction and level of importance for each quality characteristic. The data compiled from the customer survey are then plotted on the Customer Window. The Customer Window is a powerful graph that easily focuses us on areas for improvement. Because this entire effort is a partnership, it becomes incumbent on us to deliver the service improvements. By doing this, we strengthen the partnership with our customers. By satisfying our customers, we build a strong base of support for the services we provide. We become the service provider of choice for our citizens (customers). Do you think you should be using this tool? A presentation of this approach to accessing the voice of the customer will be presented at the ASQC Fourth Annual Service Quality Conference. The conference will be held April 24-26, 1995, at the Marriott - Inner Harbor, in Baltimore, MD. If you have the opportunity to break away from the office in April, please come and learn more about this intriguing approach. For more information contact: Guion VanRensselaer Organizational Improvement Specialist, Human Resource Department Madison Municipal Building, Room 305 215 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Madison, WI 53710 Phone (608) 267-1136 Growing Quality Communities by Howard Schussler For those of us who endeavor to serve the public, one of our greatest challenges is to think and act as part of the greater system of needs and services. Traditionally we change in our own organizations because we know we can. With the current anti-government mood of the public, we must learn to work with other government agencies, schools, nonprofit agencies, and our private sector community partners to provide more and better services to our customers. Community quality efforts make us all winners whether our focus is on economic development, children and families, criminal justice, or quality in general. In my organization we are partners in several efforts defined by systemic needs rather than organizational or political boundaries. We participate statewide on issues of economic development and quality in general, similar to efforts elsewhere. Our community partnerships also include several issue-oriented local efforts for improving service delivery. These efforts create a dialogue between government, schools, health industry, non-profit organizations, private business, and ordinary citizens in planning for the future and trying to solve today's problems. One of the biggest barriers to engaging in a community dialogue is fear. Fear of loss of control, fear of the unknown, fear of making mistakes, and fear of not knowing how to begin and sustain the dialogue. My county organization began barrier- breaking ego-smashing, boundary-challenging efforts by using quality tools. Tools such as affinity diagrams, tree diagrams, and criteria matrices leveled the playing field. All community participants were equally uncomfortable, but recognized the inherent pragmatic fairness or even-handedness of the tools. Our experience has been that the tools serve as a hook. The perception of neutrality, the focus on issues rather than agendas, and the productive synergy of the dialogue all seem to draw people to work together and support continued use of tools. While it takes a sincere effort to sustain these quality ventures, the use of tools always seems to keep people involved, talking, and productive. When my organization began focusing on the systems we are a part of and getting our partners in these systems to engage in a productive dialogue, we didn't know how or where to begin. One great advantage of being part of a Public Sector Network is sharing our stories. I would urge anyone who reads something of use in the PSN News or talks to someone via the network to share your stories, too. Trading our experiences, successes, and nightmares will raise our collective awareness a few notches and help us all deliver services that will (we hope) delight the citizenry. Howard Schussler, Associate Editor Benton County Board of Commissioners 180 NW 5th Street, Corvallis, OR 97330-4777 Phone: (503) 757-6853 Fax: (503) 757-6752 A Message From the Chair by R. Barry Crook I attended the PSN's winter meeting of the Network Council (our board of directors) held February 3 and 4 in Charleston, SC, and I want to share with you my thoughts on our meeting. We welcomed a new member to the council--Carolyn Farquhar of the Conference Board of Canada--and several of the people who have agreed to act as regional councilors for the network. Those regional councilor nominees attending the meeting were: Suzie Rast, with the state of South Carolina; Tom Tiedemann, with the city of Minneapolis; and Chris Dodge, with the national Government of Canada's Treasury Board. In our newsletter, and subsequent to a planning session at the AQC with our regional councilors, we will detail our expectations for the regional councilors and how they can assist the membership. The focus of the meeting was on the development of our strategic plan for the next year (the fiscal and planning year begins July 1). This was an effort entrusted to a subcommittee composed of Chris Dillon (GOAL/QPC), Rusty Borkin (city of Milwaukee), and chaired by Becky Meyers (state of New York), and me. We followed the planning model used by the Society, and presented the Network Council with an assessment of our work on the prior year's plan, the strategies not addressed, and our human and financial resources. We outlined our observations regarding the key external and internal trends, articulated our premises that flow from this environmental assessment and extracted the issues that we face. We began to define our objectives, measures, and strategies relative to the issues. This work goes back to the Planning Subcommittee to refine, select our areas for concentration and develop annual plans to achieve our chosen objectives. We will finalize the plan at the AQC meetings in Cincinnati, scheduled for Saturday, May 20 (noon to 5PM) and Sunday May 21 (8AM to 5PM). Anyone attending the AQC in Cincinnati is welcome to attend the PSN Council meeting. Some other updates from the meeting: work continues on the creation of the proposed business plan for the Database Referral Project (under the direction of Cheri Howe, State of Washington); the newsletters continue to improve (thanks to Keith Smith); and new member and information packets should be available soon from Society headquarters (many thanks to Nathan Strong with the state of South Carolina, Howard Schussler, Benton County, Oregon and Tim Boncosky of the state of Arizona for their work in developing these packets). We will be joining other technical committees in sponsoring a booth in the Exhibit Hall during the AQC (thanks to Kim Peterson, city of Austin); stop by and say hello. Through Kim Peterson's efforts as the program subcommittee chair, the PSN will be sponsoring a session at AQC entitled "Quality in the Public Sector Through Union-Management." This session will be moderated by past network co-chair Michael Williamson (state of North Carolina) and will feature the state of Ohio's effort, "Quality service Through Partnerships," presented by Steve Wall (Ohio Office of Quality) and Paul Goldberg (OCSEA/AFSCME). Hope to see you all there. Remember to send your stories about quality in your public sector organization to Keith Smith so they can be published in this newsletter. We can greatly accelerate our understanding of quality if we learn from one another. Quality in Cyberspace by John Hunter The widespread explosion of electronic communication continues to provide rich resources for Quality practitioners. A recent National Performance Review (NPR) experiment, using internet, allowed thousands of people from around the globe to participate in a virtual conference. Participants indicated the areas they were interested in and received documents relating to those areas. Next the participants could comment on the documents and each others comments. The NPR provides another working example of powerful new methods for efficient and effective communication. write: almanac@ace.esusda.gov in body: send npr catalog Their response provides instructions on how to get e-mail documents, gopher info and more. The resources they guide you to include past archives relating to the NPR, up to date information and sources for further information on the "open meeting" experiment mentioned above. The TQM BBS provides another example of how to use electronic communication to help with Quality efforts. The TQM BBS includes over 700 files to download, special areas for various organizations (including the PSN), forums for exchanging thoughts with other users and more. You can connect to the TQM BBS via modem (301) 585-1164 or 1) Gopher to quality.org or www to http//www.quality.org/qc 2) Select Quality Control-Groups and Resources(13) from the menu 3) Select TQM Bulletin Board (11) from the menu The files cover 17 topic areas including; government, education, tools and techniques, case studies.... The following list gives a limited idea of what topics the articles cover: Management by Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Transformation by David and Sara Kerridge, Mt. Edgecume High School by Myron Tribus, QFD by Del Kimbler, Leadership by Tom Glenn, Quality in America by Dr. Kano, Community Quality by Carole and David Scwinn, Quality improvement in Government by David Couper and many more. Other text files: address for over 500 local community quality organizations, bibliographies, past PSN newsletters, the initial NPR report, the NPR 1 year self assessment, agencies NPR reports.... Also you can download software to help with pareto charts, to demo Dr. Deming's funnel experiment using Windows... You can also read information on the a number of organizations including the PSN. In addition, You can participate in discussions on a wide variety of topics. For example, you can share ideas, or ask questions in the Quality mailing list. Your message is then sent to the participants (1,800 spread across the globe). Or you can participate in more focused discussions on the Re-inventing Government movement (REGO-L), Community Quality efforts (CQEN) and more. Good luck with your adventures in the electronic information maze. Let me know what has helped and what topics to address in the future. A short list of resources follows: Internet Clemson Gopher deming.eng.clemson.edu:70/1 WWW http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/. FEDWORLD http://www.fedworld.gov Mailing Lists include your full name where "" appears below CQEN Community Quality Electronic Network write: cqen.list-request@deming.eng.clemson.edu in subject: subscribe CQI-L Continuous Quality Improvement focused on higher education, list is moderated write: listserv@mr.net in body: subscribe CQI-L "" Learning Organizations write: majordomo@world.std.com in body: line 1>info learning-org line 2> end. Quality write: quality@pucc.princeton.edu in body: subscribe TQM "" TEAMNET-L Devoted to research on work teams write: roquemor@terrill.unt.edu in body: subscribe teamnet-l "" For a listing of more resources relating to Public Sector improvement efforts via the WWW: http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/psci/online.html John Hunter, U.S. Office of Personnel Management E-Mail: asqcpsn@aol.com WWW: http://pages.prodigy.com/VA/hunter Creating Conditions for Organizational Transformation by A. Keith Smith Background "Good enough for government work!" These pejorative words have strayed far from their original, late 19th century meaning of "best in class." Government desperately needs models of effective change and excellent service as well as descriptions of the events and theories surrounding such performance improvement. The books Incredibly American by Zuckerman and Hatala and Riding the Tiger by Harrison Owen both indicate that Americans are at their most creative and innovative in times of uncertainty, rather than in a planned and organized change effort. This is the story of how such a period of uncertainty produced a dramatic improvement in performance. The California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) regulates the automotive repair industry, including the Smog Check program. Established in 1972, BAR representatives mediate over 40,000 complaints annually and investigate violations of the Automotive Repair Act of 1971. In 1984, BAR implemented a Smog Check program, licensing some 9,000 stations and over 20,000 technicians as well as investigating violations. In late 1991, the bureau's Field Operations Division was organized into four regions, with centralized control exercised through a powerful "compliance unit." Within each region, a small cadre of consumer services representatives (CSRs) mediated about 20% of the complaints. The more technically qualified program representatives (PRs) also mediated complaints, performed initial and periodic inspections, cleared lockouts on Smog Check analyzers, performed random undercover citation runs on Smog Check stations, and conducted auto repair investigations. Each region also had shops to document undercover vehicles. In 1990/91 the bureau filed the following enforcement actions related to fraudulent practices. YEAR 90/91 | Administrative | Civil/criminal _____________|____________________|________________ Auto repair | 18 | 22 _____________|____________________|________________ I/M | 46 | 8 _____________|____________________|________________ An internal program review conducted in late 1991 showed little difference between the types of complaints mediated by CSRs and those handled by PRs. CSRs also handled the complaints in one-third the time using telephone mediation, whereas PRs usually conducted face-to-face mediation as well as limited investigation and vehicle examination. There was no significant difference in customer satisfaction between the two methods of mediation. The effectiveness of periodic inspections (as measured by number of notices of violations issued) was 0.7%. The effectiveness of the undercover citation runs had fallen from over 50% at the inception of the Smog Check program to a steady level of 16%. Lockout clearances were taking up to 10% of total time. There were indications of considerable fraud in the Smog Check industry and a limited, but consistent, pattern of consumer fraud in auto repairs. Particularly, regulatory activities, which had been appropriate for a new Smog Check program, were ineffective in a mature industry with considerable fraud. Management Role Management first identified outcomes that would effect positive change in the repair industry; it increased enforcement and analysis and feedback to the repair industry of their performance problems derived from customer complaints and investigations. It was also necessary to find time to develop new ways to investigate fraud and to perform more investigations. Reorganization delivered the first wrenching change to the BAR. The twofold purpose: to create teams responsible for improved performance in each area of bureau responsibility and to create the conditions under which creativity could flourish, unencumbered by prior rules and past practices. Complaint mediation was centralized in five regional centers. At each, work teams handled complaints requiring mediation with no investigation. Auto repair investigation teams were formed in 17 offices to handle complaints requiring investigation and to improve and increase fraud investigations. Seventeen Smog Check investigative teams were formed to handle complaints, investigate and prosecute fraud, and detect and correct or sanction incompetence. A vehicle documentation team, centered in 13 regional shops, was to provide timely and high-quality documented vehicles to the investigative divisions. The second change was to eliminate all nonvalue-added work. Up to 60% of the complaints were appropriately handled at the mediation centers. Periodic inspections and random undercover runs were suspended, and a method to clear up to 75% of Smog Check analyzer lockouts, using computer and modem, was developed. This created a "time vacuum" that investigative staff in each office were asked to fill by developing new approaches to investigation. Bereft of existing practices on which to rely for guidance, the initial atmosphere was one of uncertainty. Management turned to the on-the-ground knowledge of the front-line people and their supervisors to perform local problem diagnosis and solution experimentation. Quality expectations, outcome measures, and checkpoints were established at key points in the investigative process, and the results fed back to field supervisors. Supervisor's Role as Team Leader The role of the field supervisor changed from office caretaker and order giver to team leader and coach. A "fast experiment" strategy was employed that encouraged office work teams to collect and analyze information about industry practices and to experiment with new approaches to investigation. A statistician analyzed the rich flow of data from the over 10,000 Smog Check analyzers to create "triggers" that identified those Smog Check stations showing patterns of potentially fraudulent activity. Another experiment involved the formation of a small team in the Los Angeles area to develop new methods to investigate so-called "cert mills": Smog Check shops issuing certificates to a "failing" car while testing another "clean" car. In five months, this four-person team concluded the investigation by closing 24 fraudulent Smog Check shops and arresting 42 suspects. This paved the way for similar investigations in all 17 offices. A statewide investigation involving 38 vehicle repair shops of a major chain was successfully completed and record penalties levied. This led to a reassessment of repair and sales practices throughout the auto repair industry. Partnerships New partnerships were developed with insurance industry investigators to provide insight and resources into auto body repair fraud. Partnership with the Los Angeles district attorney's office led to a new approach to the immediate closure and rapid prosecution of "cert mills," using statutes against computer crime. Local office supervisors were encouraged to develop resources to perform investigations, rather than wait the 18 months for the budget process. One team partnered with the Los Angeles city police to build an undercover van that was instrumental in numerous successful surveillances. Results Early failures were diagnosed and learned from rather than criticized. Early successes were publicized and celebrated both internally and externally. This enabled the bureau to spread the message of the new capabilities and effectiveness to both employees and industry. Employees were encouraged to identify for elimination rules that prevented intelligent action. As expected, progress was slow and halting at first, with doubts, setbacks, and opposition slowly being overcome. Some supervisors were uncomfortable taking independent action in this new era of uncertainty, and required considerable management support and coaching to take their first halting steps. Can total success in this effort be declared? The organization is less than three years into the change effort, yet the results are impressive, as evidenced by the table below. YEAR 93/94 | Administrative | Civil/criminal ______________|______________________|__________________ Auto repair | 248 | 263 ______________|______________________|__________________ % change | | from 90/91 | 1,278% | 1,095% ______________|______________________|__________________ Smog Check | 658 | 374 ______________|______________________|__________________ % change | | from 90/91 | 1,330% | 4,575% ______________|______________________|__________________ A clear and focused mission for each part of the organization, freedom to experiment within key result areas at the front line, and an effective evaluation and feedback system have produced successes for mission-driven teams. This "planned crisis" has provided the impetus for dramatic improvement and is preparing the organization for the inevitable changes in strategy that this successful effort will bring. For further information contact: A. Keith Smith Bureau of Automotive Repair 10240 Systems Parkway Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone: (916) 255-1340 Fax: (916) 255-1369 TQM as a Philosophy by Ron Safran I am often asked to provide a labor perspective on TQM because of my job as senior labor relations representative for a union representing 64,000 state employees in California. I have decided to write about a related, but actually broader perspective on TQM--a philosophical one. Labor's difficulty with the TQM movement is not only the fear that it will destroy job security, collective bargaining, and unions themselves, but something even more basic. Humans commonly see things in black and white, good or bad, without paying attention to the fine shades in between. In the case of TQM, those unionists who react negatively see absolutely no merit in TQM whatsoever and tend to view it as another example of warmed-over exploitation of labor and surreptitious union busting. Other unionists, not quite so prone to this black and white approach, have difficulty because there doesn't seem to be one common philosophy that all TQM proponents espouse. There are two or three main prophets who have lead the way in proffering TQM principles, and even among the following of these individual gurus, there are vast differences as to what the gurus really mean in terms of empowering employees and so forth. This leads to excessive variance in theory and application, hardly in keeping with quality. What is missing, not only for unionists critical or wary of TQM, but for anyone concerned about improving organizations and making them more effective is a truly common set of clear principles that do not beg the questions by utilizing terms like quality. I attend a lot of meetings where people talk about "implementing quality" or "adding quality" to their organization as if it's something you can install like a new lightbulb. It should be clear that quality is a concept that describes the state an organization is attempting to reach by making constant improvement in tune with specific principles. Clearly, it is the changes that are made and the principles upon which they are based that are important, not simply adding quality. Quality can be achieved but not implemented. By the same token, I am less than impressed with the over-reliance on graphs, charts, and statistical processes, often referred to as the metrics. At meetings with management, I often hear talk about the importance of measurability. Statements like, "If we can't measure it, we need to get rid of it" are often made. Measurement certainly is important, although I often feel that the progress of Deming's principles would have been served better if he had majored in poetry. Quality is not the implementation of statistical tools. People make quality possible. You cannot espouse quality without believing that people are capable of achieving it. The tools are useful, but they are not magic. A concept such as quality does not say anything meaningful to the suspicious unionist who is asked to help empower employees, when the unionist has spent his or her life working under the paradigm that the union empowers employees, and management merely uses their labor for profit and/or to provide services. Hidden in that adversarial paradigm is a certain view about human beings and relationships, and it is that view that underlies the paradigm and translates into the thinking and behavior of the labor and management relationship. It is a shared view of human beings (human nature) and how they relate to one another that is critical. This is why my own simple definition of TQM is "pleasant relationships." To me, it captures the essence of what the goal of TQM is all about. Quality is not the state achieved when profits are maximized by selling more widgets because the widgets are the best obtainable in global markets. Quality is the state that inheres in an organization when the relationships between people have been maximized to be the most pleasant possible, resulting in the work of those individuals becoming the best possible that humans can achieve. The principle involved here is that good things happen when people relate well with each other. There are some skeptics who have suggested that humans in groups are really only capable of very basic kinds of accomplishments and, over the long haul, cannot make important changes in the human condition. This is the hero theory or only-the-individual-can-make-a-difference philosophy that has held sway for much of human history. What makes TQM so revolutionary is that it suggests that humans are at their best, and achieve more, by working together in ways that produce a state that can be called quality. The important element in achieving that state is not the tools used, such as statistical methods, type of diagrams, or flowcharts, but the changes made in how people interact with each other and how this affects their interaction with their work. This is exactly the same thing that the collective bargaining process is all about. Most collective bargaining laws covering public and private employees in the United States and elsewhere contain some vision statement about harmonious relationships between the parties and talk about achieving the mission or goals of the organization, state, county, enterprise, and so on. It is curious, therefore, that anyone would even suggest any antipathy between the collective bargaining process and TQM, when in fact they're really about the same thing. Ideally speaking, the collective bargaining and TQM processes should meld together to create a new, better kind of relationship, not only between labor and management, but between all workers at all levels within the organization. Obviously, I am being optimistic about human nature, intelligence, and behavior. I am not suggesting that TQM is a panacea. I am suggesting that, if humans wish to achieve group behaviors that are beneficial to human beings, the use of TQM principles is one of the ways of doing that. I would also suggest that the concept of pleasant relationships is not only at the core of TQM as it applies to business and public enterprises, but that it also needs to be at the core of government and society itself. For most philosophers, the basic philosophical question is how to live. A perhaps too pat, but nevertheless correct answer is pleasantly, and if a methodology such as TQM is to be salable and acceptable to broad numbers of people (and union leaders), it will need to be expressed in terms that enable individuals to see how it makes their lives more pleasant. Of course, there will still be those skeptics that say pleasantness is really just a trap, that it's another management technique to lull the union into being less vigilant so that the rights of workers can be done away with and their jobs can be transplanted overseas. I certainly do not doubt that there are employers who have, are, and will use TQM as a front for attempting to achieve those goals. Obviously, this is a perversion of TQM and I think these perversions and a lot of the confusion surrounding TQM exist because of a lack of focus on what the essential philosophy of quality really is. Many unionists decry TQM because they simply see more measurement of job performance and no real change in the structure of work that provides any benefit to either the workers or to the enterprise itself. In my own experience, I can state definitely that most management people I have talked to about TQM appear to regard TQM along the lines of the additive paradigm that I described earlier and not along the lines of changing or building pleasant relationships which would require structural changes within their organization. While such structural change may also be frightening to unionists, if the changes can be achieved with the participation of the union and the employees, and can be achieved by first agreeing upon some common vision of what better or more pleasant relationships would or should be like (the key element in relationship building), the process of building better labor/management relations will make the process of quality transformation much more effective and meaningful. For more information contact: Ron Safran Sr. Labor Relations Representative California State Employees Association 1108 "O" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 326-4269 Fax: (916) 326-4215 Team-Based Performance Ratings by Ken Doby While everyone seems to be jumping on the let's-put-together-a-team-to-look-at bandwagon, and everyone also has a step-by-step approach in place to ensure success of that project, there is still a bigger issue. How can we really evaluate the success of a team over the long haul? If we agree with W. Edwards Deming that individual performance appraisals are not the ultimate way to go, then how can we accomplish team-based performance appraisals? Most governmental agencies currently have in place a system to appraise the individual performance of their employees. It usually is some form of supervisor-directed or joint supervisor- employee system looking at a number of broad area of the employee's performance and determining whether or not the employee was successful, and, sometimes, to what degree. Occasionally, specific performance objectives are included in the process. But what happens when you now have teams working together, or even self-directed work teams that don't have a direct supervisor "controlling" their actions? Do you still need to evaluate the level of success of those teams? The answer, in most cases, certainly is yes. But exactly how you evaluate their success is more difficult than the simple process followed by supervisor and employee. The dynamics are different because you have many people involved. You have a team composed of anywhere from 4 to 12 members, you have a better-defined set of customers for that team, and you still have someone at the management level who is ultimately interested in, and probably responsible for, the team's success. What comes out of this bigger cast of characters is the realization that in order to evaluate the team's performance, you will need to use more than just one form or instrument to measure all the aspects. You will need, in the current jargon, to look at 360 degree feedback. Unfortunately, the only systems anywhere in the market are designed to look at how well a team followed a specific quality process in order to solve a problem or improve a system. The systems available don't look at year-long performance. So modification is needed. There is only one good reference available on the subject--a book by Richard Y. Chang, Gloria E. Bader, and Audrey E. Bloom titled Measuring Team Performance, published in 1994 by Richard Chang Associates. It does a good job establishing a way to measure success, but it still does not look at everything needed. There are, however, two tools in the book I found very useful, with some modification. They are the reproducible forms for a Team Success Survey and a Peer Feedback Survey. Both cover most of the aspects I feel are important, and only slight revisions and additions are necessary to make them more useful. The areas that still need addressing are customer input and management input. I developed a Team Customer Survey to gather feedback from customers and used the Team Success Story as a tool for managers/team sponsors to also evaluate the team success. I also included a Team Member Participation Assessment, which can be used as an optional tool when there may be differences in the level of participation among the members of the team and the team exists in a system where incentive awards are given to the team for their performance. The entire system, then, consists of a Team Success Survey, which is completed by each team member and the manager/sponsor; a Team Customer Survey, completed by all, or a representative sample of the team's customers; a Team Member Peer Evaluation, which each team member completes on all other team members; a Team Performance Objectives form, which the team completes together; and a Team Member Participation Assessment, which each team member completes. While having so many instruments may seem a bit much, it is necessary to use them all in order to complete the full picture of the team's performance. Each instrument only takes a short time to complete by itself, and the entire process is relatively short. The most time-consuming piece is the Team Customer Survey. So who decides which instruments to use, or should all of them apply? This may depend on the level of autonomy given to the team. I believe that most teams should determine the makeup of their evaluation. The team should select, at the very least, the relative importance of each assessment tool. Agency management may decide which tools to include, or that determination can be a joint team-management decision. At the start of each year, the team should meet with its manager/sponsor and select the tools to be used, determine the measurable objectives that the team will work to accomplish, and set the importance of each tool in the overall picture. This is very similar to the performance planning process now followed in most governmental agencies between individual employees and their supervisors. The success of this system is dependent on the openness and participation of both the team members and the manager/sponsor of each team. In an atmosphere where teams are encouraged and valued for their capabilities, this team-based performance rating system will work well. If teams are just thrown together because everyone else is doing it, then there likely will be misuses, and this system will become just another way that employees perceive the "system" doesn't work. For more information, contact: Ken Doby Technical & Consulting Services Division State Personnel Dept. 1313 Sherman St., Room 115 Denver, CO 80203 Phone (303) 866-4264 A Process Improvement Model That Works by Karen Bourgeois The Air Force Quality Institute has developed and implemented a process improvement model that works. They expanded the traditional seven-step implementation model to include tools and checkpoints for each of the steps. This expanded tool has been used successfully by process action teams all over the world. Two success stories come from the 18th Wing, Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. Continuous Improvement Process 1) IDENTIFY IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITY Objective: select the appropriate process for improvement * Must address why the process was selected and how the improvement effort supports organizations plan, goals, and objectives. * Research for improvement opportunities Review metrics/indicators Survey internal/external customers Standard procedures Interview personnel *Flowchart *Run Chart *Project schedule *Brainstorming *Control chart *Pareto chart *Multivote *Checksheet Checkpoints a) Organization's key process identified. b) Reasons why a key process was selected for improvement and its relationship to organization's plan clearly understood. c) Customer-defined critical success factors identified. d) Macro-process flowchart developed. e) Candidate processes prioritized. f) Process to be improved identified. g) Process owner, customers, suppliers, and stakeholders identified. h) Indicator established to measure process performance. I) Scheduled for completing the CIP and leadership reviews developed. 2) EVALUATE THE PROCESS Objective: Select a challenge/problem and set a target for improvement *Checksheet *Run Chart *Histogram *Pareto chart *Control Chart *Flow chart *Brainstorming *Problem statement matrix Checkpoints j) As-is flowchart developed to task level. k) Measurements of process relevant to customer identified and data collected. l) Problem stratified to a specific level for analysis. m) Most significant portion of the problem selected. n) customer requirements validated against process capabilities. o) Problem statement addresses gap between ideal and actual state. p) Target for improvement established using data. 3) ANALYZE Objective: Identify and verify the root cause(s) of the problem *Cause and effect diagram *Pareto chart *Histogram *Checksheet *Scatter diagram *Brainstorming Checkpoints q) Cause and effect analysis is performed on the problem. r) Potential causes analyzed to actionable root causes. s) Root cause with the greatest probable impact selected. t) Root cause verified using data. 4) TAKE ACTION Objective: Plan and implement actions that correct root causes *Take action matrix *Cost-benefit analysis *Action plan chart *Brainstorming *Force field analysis Checkpoints u) Possible actions developed and evaluated. w) Actions were cost beneficial. x) Action plan developed (which addresses what, who, how, when, resources needed). y) Actions tested (if possible) prior to full-scale implementation. z) Cooperation and approval obtained. aa) Action plan implemented 5) STUDY RESULTS Objectives: confirm the action taken achieved the target *Run chart *Checksheet *Pareto chart *Histogram *Control chart Checkpoints ab) Indicator was the same as the one used in identifying the process. ac) Results of actions met or exceeded target. ad) Reasons target was met, or not met, understood. ae) Additional actions taken (if target not met) 6) STANDARDIZE SOLUTION Objective: Ensure the new level of performance is maintained Checkpoints af) Revised methods and procedures published. ag) Training on new process took place. ah) Periodic process review points established. ai) Areas for replication considered. 7) PLAN FOR FUTURE Objective: To plan what is to be done with any remaining problems and evaluate team effectiveness Checkpoints aj) Remaining problems analyzed and evaluated. ak) Future actions planned (if necessary) al) Team evaluated their problem-solving skills and effectiveness. The mission of the 18th Wing at Kadena is to "provide dependable, integrated, deployable, forward-based airpower for the United States and allies." In 1991, the Wing Quality Council was formed. One of the goals identified by the council is to "maintain ready aircraft, munitions, and support equipment." This goal was transformed into the key process, because without the ability to meet the goal, the primary product, airpower, was not achievable. In order to achieve the goal, something had to be done about some of the problems the 18th Wing was experiencing. The first success story concerns the AIM-9 missile. A performance problem that could not be resolved was identified through pilot discrepancy reports. The Intermediate-Level Repair Enhancement Program (IREP) identified the improvement opportunity, which was the high number of in-flight missile malfunctions per month. The rate made the AIM-9 one of the top five failing systems in the Wing, and its high failure rate was a life-threatening concern of the primary customer, the pilot. The AIM-9 Process Action Team was chartered by the IREP, with representatives from all the areas involved in the repair process and, most important, the pilot. The team followed the process improvement model, working through each step with a fine-tooth comb. First, the team brainstormed for an opportunity statement. The repair process was flowcharted and customer satisfaction was measured by reviewing discrepancy reports, a data base, and feedback from pilots, maintainers, and senior leaders. Pareto analysis was done to identify which malfunction had the greatest opportunity for improvement. Additional process improvement tools were used to analyze further the top malfunction to determine root causes. In the action phase of the model, changes were planned, tested, and implemented. The team followed two six-month plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, making appropriate adjustments. The result was a 67% decrease in the number of pilot-reported discrepancies. The final process changes were published in training plans, checklists were developed, and maintenance operation instructions were updated. Flowcharts and metrics were incorporated into the instructions. The improvements translated into 1,262 staff hours and $17,000 in savings the first year, growing to 3,118 staff hours and $42,100 in 1994. The second success story of effective use of the process improvement model concerned the Fire Control Process Action Team. This team was chartered by the IREP as a result of data collection that showed the fire control system to be the top pilot-reported discrepancy for a period of six months. The opportunity for improvement was to "improve fire control system reliability for assigned F-15C/D aircrews. " As before, the team brought together those directly involved with the process including the customer, the pilot. The team first established a baseline from the data on fire control systems discrepancies. The radar subsystem caused 68% of the malfunctions. The team identified eight line replaceable units in the system as possible root causes. Pareto analysis was used to determine the units with the greatest potential for improvement. As part of the analysis phase of the model, the team used benchmarking. Two of the team members were on Kadena's team that won the 1992 William Tell competition. The contest evaluates a Wing's ability to prepare and maintain fighter aircraft during an intense six-day aerial combat competition. The team decided the maintenance principles used for the competition should be adopted. Further analysis and contacts with other repair facilities helped select areas for greatest improvement. Implementation involved incorporation of preventive maintenance plans into the aircraft inspections. A test was done on four aircraft for three months before and after the inspection. As a result, fire control reliability improved 27% and malfunctions that could not be duplicated decreased by 37%. The final step was to standardize the new procedures. Briefings were given to all squadrons at all levels, making them aware of the changes and gaining their support. The Avionics Shop was briefed on the importance of adopting the new process and training. Operating instructions were published, and technical data changes were submitted in addition to rewriting the inspection procedures. Finally, radar specialists received training on analyzing equipment. The importance of following new procedures could not be stressed enough. When the Wing's success rate started to regress, affected leadership was challenged to demonstrate they had followed the prescribed instructions. Not once was a failure due to factors not already discovered and accounted for in the process improvement. These are only two of the process action teams that have adopted the use of the Air Force process improvement model. The Fire Control Team won one of the Air Force team quality awards and is a semifinalist in the Rochester Institute of Technology USA Today Quality Cup competition. Other examples of successes abound. The use of the correct tool at the correct time and asking the right questions at the right time add to the chances for success. The tools and checkpoints found in this model could contribute to the success of any organization working on any process. For more information contact: Karen Bourgeois Office of the Secretary of Defense Quality Management Office Room 3A345, Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1155 Phone: (703) 697-7171 Fax: (703) 693-1099 For information on the Air Force model: Air Force Quality Institute/Operational Consulting Group 625 Chennault Circle Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6425 Phone: (334) 953-6490 Fax: (334) 953-3132 Pioneers in a Customer Driven Administration Services Division by Wendy Wohl-Shoemaker In the good old days (not very long ago), running errands was just that. You ran from the grocery store to the drug store, from the hardware store to the florist. The 1980s saw the emergence of the superstore, and today running errands means going from the food aisles to the pharmacy, from the hardware aisles to the greenery section--all under the same roof. The concept of one-stop shopping meets customer expectations of ease, convenience, and efficiency. One-stop shopping was also the watchword of the Division of Administrative Services within the California Department of Consumer Affairs when it set out in 1993 to reorganize and restructure the way it provided service to its internal clients. These clients, the components of the Department of Consumer Affairs, include 14 internal divisions and offices, plus more than 35 independent boards, committees, and programs--all of which license and regulate more than 200 businesses and professions in California. As it existed, the Division of Administrative Service was typical of administrative organizations everywhere. The functional units of personnel, budgets, business services, and accounting were structured for internal ease in managing and supervising employees, processing work, and training staff. It was a control-oriented, functional hierarchy. From the customer's standpoint, there were a number of problems, including: * Not knowing whom to contact for service or problem resolution, because it was unclear if or how each function overlapped or interacted. * Difficulty in tracking down a request as it moved from unit to unit for processing. * Multiple layers of supervisory and management review which relieved employees of responsibility for completed staff work. * Lack of clear responsibility for specific tasks or projects because review and control authority either overlapped or failed to mesh at all. * Administrative staff who did not know or understand the goals and needs of their clients. * Lack of dedicated resources in three key areas: technical staff training; two way communication on state-dictated policies, rules and procedures; and development of customer service guides and other job aids. Once problems were identified, the Administrative Services Division management took an approach to reorganizing that was akin to reengineering. The old structure was abolished and a new one created in its place, based on a concept of multidisciplinary client service teams that would provide all administrative services to a specified group of clients. But it was a long way from a concept to reality. First, the division needed to articulate a new vision, a new mission, and a statement of values. All were based on a commitment to meeting and satisfying customer needs and expectations. The primary components of the division's reorganization strategy were: * Flattening the organizational structure to facilitate employee empowerment, streamline communications, and maximize limited resources to front-line employees. [The organization of more than 225 employees would include no more than three layers of manager/supervisors (which we prefer to call team coordinators and leaders) requires the leaders to be just that--leaders--while the employees assume more responsibility for their actions.] * Organize to satisfy our customers' needs, not our own. [To accomplish this component of the strategy, all administrative services and their customers were identified. Each service was evaluated to determine if it could be offered more cost-effectively in a cross-functional team environment.] The division's new vision is to be the premier administrative service division in state government. Who will tell us when we succeed? Our customers! One way we thought we could raise the level of customer satisfaction was to provide a single point of contact in the Division of Administrative Services. If they had only one place to shop for their administrative needs, instead of many, it would encourage cooperation and communication. Today, the Division of Administrative Service has seven multifunction client service teams comprising 15 to 20 technical and support staff who serve a dedicated customer group. This new arrangement enables administrative services employees to build a relationship with now long-term customers and to understand client needs and goals. By fostering teamwork between the administrative staff members and their program-based clients, we are able to deliver timely services that meet customer expectations. In the area of personnel services, backlogs have been eliminated and hiring and separating of employees and processing of benefits have been greatly streamlined. Gone are the days when clients sent paperwork into the "black hole" and months later heard that the paperwork, and months later learned the paperwork was approved. Now there is a face behind the paperwork, and, in many cases, just a phone call initiates a personnel request. Because of the closer link between client and administrative staff, most personnel documents are processed within two weeks, and we've even done one-day processing for mission critical hires. Through greater understanding of a client's needs to hire and pay subject matter experts, a new contracting process was created that enables customers to hire needed experts more quickly, pay for services faster, and reduce administrative processing time. Many years worth of policies and procedures have been replaced by a single page of ideals we call the Universal Administrative Services Team Rules. They are: * It is okay to challenge and recommend changes to existing laws, rules, and policies; but it is not okay to break them. * If you cannot provide your client with the requested service, provide alternatives. It is not acceptable to say "no." If you are unable to offer alternatives consult with your team leader. * Put service before self-interest. * Know your customer's expectations. Your service goal is to meet or exceed those expectations the first time, every time. Client Service Teams should demonstrate the Seven C's of Service: 1) Courteous: Welcome the customer and use his/her name; use eye contact, a smile, and a pleasant voice; thank your customer. 2) Clear: Instructions and explanations should be simple; avoid jargon. 3) Concise: Provide accurate explanations and instructions; respond quickly; explain delays; very understanding. 4) Correct: Ask if you do not know; learn from mistakes; do it right the first time; double check. 5) Complete: Do it all the first time; understand policies and procedures; anticipate needs. 6) Concerned: Take time to listen; give full attention; explain; learn program needs; ask; take it seriously. 7) Commitment: Follow up; provide feedback; do what you promise to do. Division leadership and employees worked cooperatively to develop a mission statement that is reflective of our division's goals. It is: Provide customer-oriented, streamlined services that have high customer satisfaction ratings. A set of values was developed for staff and managers to guide daily interactions. The values are: * The customer is always first and foremost. * Most often, systems and processes are the problem--not people. * The best quality improvements come from asking and listening to employees who do the work. * Believe in, foster, and support teamwork. * Strive for mutual respect and trust among employees. * Recognize employee participation and performance. * Leaders are coaches and should encourage participation in decision-making and tolerate mistakes. Shifting paradigms and adjusting to a new culture has been difficult. One of the most notable side effects was the loss of staff throughout the transition period. Those who stayed throughout the turmoil grew, developed, and made the reorganization possible. Much time and effort, though never enough, went into training managers to be coaches and facilitators, and in training staff in group processes and continuous improvement. One possible effect of the chaotic six months was the reexamination and reinvention of old broken processes. Guidelines and procedures that were followed and had remained unchanged for 20 years were looked at fresh by a new group of staff who had no ties or allegiance to the old way of doing things. Although the reorganizations occurred more than six months ago, the division is still in the midst of transition. The first six months were focused on changing the organization structure, roles and responsibilities, and training, and getting a clear understanding of values. No effort was spent on shoring up the reorganization with information technology support systems. Without this critical component of reengineering, it is difficult to make major changes in processes. The division's effort over the next six months will be to install information technology systems that will enable any team member to take, and ultimately handle, a customer's request for a variety of services with the aid of automated decision tables. The automated systems will provide the necessary performance tracking mechanism to determine how well teams are doing in meeting customer expectations for timeliness and quality. Embarking on such a major transformation of a large division is not for the weak of heart. Leaders must have courage, conviction in what they're doing, and tenacity when confronted with difficult change. Support of the vision must start with subordinate managers. They play an integral role in the success of the reorganization. They must sell the change to the front line staff and encourage input and support from their team members. Staff throughout the organization have to volunteer feedback and communicate openly about problems and ideas. Above all, commitment and dedication from the top of the organization are imperative. You must believe with all your heart that you have set out on the right course, an you must lead by actions, not platitudes. For more information contact: Wendy Wohl-Shoemaker California Department of Consumer Affairs 400 "R" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 323-0396 Fax: (916) 323-9019 Improving Oregon's Natural Resources by Improving Learning with Adults Across the State by Ute Vergin Oregon State University Extension Improving relationships Between Regulators and Farmers In recent years, the Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service has--with considerable success--employed techniques of collaborative learning, systems thinking, and participatory research in its efforts to facilitate natural resource issues in Oregon and to help stakeholders jointly find ways to resolve disagreements. "Improvements occur" explains Professor Ray William, "because diverse groups meet, explore common interests, develop trust, and create consensus actions. Interactive techniques such as mind maps, relational diagrams, and/or listing and arranging items in groups help them target different levels within a hierarchy such as farm, community, and watershed systems." Extension Service success stories include discovery/listening sessions of diverse users within the Klamath River system; diverse participants targeting public land management in Central Oregon; rural communities planing interactively for the future; and timber-dependent communities in the Coos Bay area interacting collaboratively. The facilitators' method of choice is an interactive learning approach including three basic steps: the situation (what is), the target (what ought to be), and the pathway (how to get there). "Initially," says William, "we focus on the existing situation or concerns and perceptions of a particular natural resource issue. We encourage listening, respect, and postponing judgment while common interests and different world views are explored. People often express skepticism about collaborative learning among citizens who differ in their views. The alternative may be worse. It is our experience that individuals or groups who choose to litigate rather than collaborate may find themselves isolated on the fringe. Our method encourages the discovery of common ground between "former enemies." In the target phase, groups facilitated by Extension Service agents often struggle with the development of strategic goals and future visions. They prefer to focus on problem, find a quick fix, and move on. As an alternative, groups are taught brainstorming ideas and improvements, search for common interests, and work together to develop goals acceptable to everyone. Goal statements often focus on overarching improvements such as "affordable housing" rather than "cutting trees" or "saving owls." The method that has proven most successful is an approach of classifying situations into a matrix by problem contexts (simple or complex) and relationships between participants (unitary, pluralist, or coercive). As groups move into their analytical pathway phase, their facilitators help them develop and explore multiple alternatives. They establish diverse criteria (economic, personal, social, environmental, ecological) and examine a range of consequences for each alternative. Again, participants are asked to identify various stakeholders and consider their respective view. "As consensus develops," explains William, "groups or individuals take ownership. This greatly enhances implementation. We continue to be fascinated by the energy and enthusiasm groups devote to the exploration of these issues when "nudged" by a facilitator and provided with the appropriate tools to make their sessions productive." A Dozen Things They've Learned As OSU Extension agents and faculty continue to explore the complexity and diversity of Oregon's natural resource issues with their stakeholders, they find that their efforts lead to success as long as they: * Respect diverse people, values, ideas, and approaches * Listen and learn * Postpone judgment; consider multiple alternatives * Draw pictures; blend visual and verbal communication * Practice inclusive thinking * Think rationally and sequentially * Promote success by going slow at the start * Build trust as an important step toward working together * Discover and invent increases to ownership by participants * Share vision and action results for fundamental improvements * Tell stories to communicate emotion, feelings, and reality * Appreciate the power of collaborative learning as it grows through exposure For more information contact: Ute Vergin Office of Quality and Continuous Improvement Oregon State University ADS A-500B Corvallis, OR 97331 Phone: (503) 737-0909 e-mail: verginu@ccmail.orst.edu