This document contains the text of the articles in the Fall 1995 ASQC Public Sector Network News. You can access past PSN News issues at: http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/psci/psn/psnnews.html Visit the PSN Web site at: http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/psci/psn/index.html The PSN began in 1987 as an informal network of state and local government employees. When joined with ASQC, in 1993. 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. Or email them (asqc@asqc.org), include: your name, organization, address, phone number, email address and mention you want to join the PSN. 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-------Fall 1995------- 1) The Role of Systems Thinking and Quality in the Transformation of Government A. Keith Smith 2) When a process isn't really a process: One team's journey into understanding the voice of the customer. Neil Richardson 3) What is California Issues Forums (CIF)? Jennifer Valiente 4) Academy for Continuous Improvement 5) 1995 Presidential Quality Awards Karen Bourgeois 6) Quality in Cyberspace John Hunter 7) A Message from the Chair R. Barry Crook 9) Total Quality Service in the Gwinnett County Katherine Sherrington 10) TQM -- Is a Standard Definition Needed? Tim Clark The Role of Systems Thinking and Quality in the Transformation of Government A. Keith Smith In the 1970s, after a generation of success unparalleled in history, much of American Industry lost customer confidence and market share to higher quality and lower cost products from abroad. The use of quality tools was a prime factor in bringing industry out of the crisis. The discipline of systems thinking as taught by Deming, Juran and others helped make industry competitive once again. Now American Government, after 60 years of unparalleled growth in power and funding, has reached a similar crisis in the eyes of its customers, the taxpayers. Government is seen as too big, too inefficient and intrusive into too many aspects of business and personal life. Government products and services are not seen to deliver customer value and processes for service delivery are viewed as cumbersome, duplicative and not customer friendly. America is not alone in its prevailing view of Government. This crisis of confidence is paralleled in countries throughout the world. In addition, how service is delivered and by whom is changing. The Federal government is proposing the transfer of up to $240 billion in block grants to the States. In many cases, private businesses, non profits and volunteer organizations will be the spenders of those federal dollars. Government's job will be to link these sectors in a partnership to deliver world class service. The crisis is upon us, and, as in the 1970s, we must search for theories, successful models and tools to transform government. Now, as then, the tools of systems thinking and quality are appropriate solutions. Federal, state, county and city governments throughout the country are experimenting with new forms of governance. Benchmarks and strategic planning, performance budgeting, privatization, competition, quality improvement, reengineering ..., these and many other experiments are being tried both in the USA and abroad. We are at that pivotal point in time when the old systems are collapsing and the new systems that will be their replacement are slowly emerging from the chaos of experimentation. Political rhetoric and destructive "solutions" are as prevalent as well thought out approaches. It is time to undertake a comprehensive review of the current turmoil of ideas and experiments. We must propose and test new models for government, from definition of appropriate roles and responsibilities to new organizing principles, operating philosophies and service delivery methods. Those of us in the public sector are in the best position to undertake such experimentation. And when we have so experimented, we must report on both success and failure, for only then can we learn from each other. PSN network news is your avenue to spread the word of our active participation in the reinvention of American government, so contribute to the change and contribute to the journal. For More information contact: A. Keith Smith California Department of Consumer Affairs 10240 Systems Parkway, Sacramento, CA. 95827 Phone: (916) 255-1340 Fax: (916) 255-1369 When a process isn't really a process: One team's journey into understanding the voice of the customer. Neil Richardson About two years ago we hired a consultant to make recommendations to strengthen and improve the level of service that our Administrative Services Group delivered to its customers, both external and internal. The functional area that received the greatest criticism and number of change recommendations was the Information Resource Management unit (data automation, telephone service, personal computer support, etc.). Some of the complaints and recommendations centered on the rapid pace of system growth and demand for resources. Some other issues were training for users, restrictive policies, lack of enforcement of policies, custom programming vs. off-the-shelf applications, central vs. de-centralized service centers, too many applications on the network vs. I want the software I want, too many hackers vs. I can't get support when I need it, and the list goes on. My guess is that people in most organizations can relate to these issues. The people who provide service think about how to be efficient in providing service and customers want services to meet their needs. As a result of this, the powers that be unanimously declared -let's form a team to improve this process. As the new kid on the block, I was picked to facilitate this -process improvement team. Apparently everyone else knew enough to hide, make excuses, or resign rather than take on the impossible. The first challenge faced by the team was to develop a process improvement plan. This task was delegated to the team leader and the team facilitator. Since I was still on probation, I thought that my future employment might depend on the success of this project. As a result, we researched past process improvement team documentation, and in particular, what had gone wrong. One team seemed to stand out in the power of the dissatisfaction of its team members with the results. This team was called the Human Resources Team and their charge was to improve the human resources process. Just like a light bulb suddenly appearing over someone's head in a cartoon, we realized that human resources is a functional area that provides a variety of services. It wasn't a process at all. A process improvement plan designed to improve a single process might doom the project right from the start. We needed to identify the distinct but interrelated services that the Information Resource Management unit (IRM) provided and develop individual, coordinated service delivery plans. The pressure was on to get this project rolling and we still didn't have a plan. We did the honorable thing, we stalled for time by forming the team. Since the issue here was information resources, two of our IRM staff participated, the unit manager and a programmer/analyst. If we wanted to become customer focused, why not include important customers on the team? We did; a couple of those hackers & tinkerers mentioned in paragraph two, two senior managers dependent on information for their units successes, and a couple of project managers who were responsible for specific large demands on our information resources. We were also fortunate enough to get two volunteers from local industry, one from Hewlett-Packard and one from CH2M Hill, to provide some completely different perspectives and possibilities. Now that we had our team we were back to the issue of developing a project plan. After more research, anxiety, gnashing of teeth, and crying, we learned, copied, and finally developed what we thought was a workable plan based on some fairly simple methods for identifying the "voice of the customer" and demanded dimensions of quality. Our first step was to identify who the customers were and then what the services were. Next we would identify what our customers really wanted from these services and survey them to measure the importance of these demands and how well we were satisfying them now. Once we had documented what our customers really wanted and the gaps in service delivery, we would develop a strategic plan for each of the service areas. The last step in this process would be to build an operational plan that would combine the strategic objectives with actions that already included countermeasures for all possible what-if type problems that might occur. That seemed simple enough. We should be able to get that done in a few meetings; We didn't want to get caught short so we told the people at the top we'd need six months. For our first real working meeting (we had a few to develop a formation plan, ground rules, etc.) we expected to identify the customers, services, and demanded dimensions of quality. The first step was to brainstorm a list of the customers. As a tool to facilitate this we used the affinity diagram, a way to find major themes from a large number of ideas, opinions, or issues. We were in trouble. Every team member had a completely different idea about who the customers were and each identified at least 1000 different customers (maybe I'm exaggerating here). The tool saved us, we were able to group all of the customers into nine categories in just two meetings. Affinity Diagrams CUSTOMER CATEGORY: Internal value-added customers Payroll clerks Line law enforcement officers Assessment clerks Health department line staff Fairgrounds staff & fair participants Accounting clerks Tax clerks SERVICE CATEGORY: Voice services Interactive voice response (future) Communication Telephone system support Voice mail box administration Move, add, change requests (phones) Call controller applications programming The same thing happened when we tried to identify the services that IRM provided. Who would have thought, when you put together a team of service providers, managers, line staff, customers, and complete outsiders, there might be some significant differences of opinion. Once again, the strength of a good group process tool pulled us through. It took the team two weeks for each step however, not three steps in the first meeting. The next step, identifying the demanded dimensions of quality, which was supposed to take 1/3 of a meeting, was our first real test as a team. As a first step in identifying what the customers really wanted, team members simply brainstormed statements different customers might make about specific services -- voice of the customer statements. A typical statement might be "geographically separated work units need access to data" or "data users need inter-operability and intra-operability of related information." The goal here was to identify which dimensions of quality applied to each service and customer group and use that knowledge to develop a customer survey. The survey would identify specific demand/importance of qualities and a measure of current satisfaction. So a statement like "geographically separated work units need access to data" would mean that accessibility was a demanded dimension of quality. Thinking about quality this way was new to most team members and proved to be an often frustrating exercise. It was particularly difficult for those who came to the team with what they saw as "the answer" and wanted to solve "the problem" right now. This step in the project took a full month and we ended up with a combination of quality dimensions and some voice of the customer statements. When it was time to create a customer survey or interview instrument, this combination of statements made it much longer than anticipated. So, for instance, when the team developed the questions for the telephone/voice services survey, it included some specific quality dimension statements like "the reliability of my equipment is" and "the ease of use of my equipment is." It also included statements like "communications between my office and state offices" or "communications between my office and other county/city agencies," which all related to the dimension of inter-operability, or inter-connectivity, or something like that. The final resolution to having a survey that was often too long and too specific for certain customers was to have team members help respondents answer; a combined survey/interview process. We were six months into the project! *** MISSING GRAPHIC *** Our next task was to analyze the survey data to identify actual customer demands and gaps in current service quality. This went far more quickly than some of the previous steps. There was some difference of opinion as to the validity of the data, methodology employed in choosing the survey population/sample size, etc. I think most people who have been involved in customer surveys have experienced that. We did, however, get past those differences on the strength of the idea that this data must be more accurate than 10 conflicting, strong opinions. The raw data was put into a simple spread sheet, tested statistically, and presented in both graphical and table format for team members. The compiled data was converted into a useful format using two more group process tools, a matrix diagram and a spider diagram. The team developed two matrices, a service/customer matrix and a service/quality matrix. The service/customer matrix allowed the team to compare each service group with each customer group in order to identify and document which services were important to each customer. This also gave us a method of inserting legal mandates into the mix of customer demanded qualities and services. The service/quality matrix allowed the team to do the same with demanded dimensions of quality and each service. Team members were able to influence this process using their intuition and personal opinion as valid tools as long as this was consistent to a significant extent with the survey data. For example, the team might identify ease of use of the local area network (LAN) as highly demanded quality or medium demanded quality from the survey results. The team's intuition and personal knowledge could lead to a medium designation without further need for specific data. The team now knew what dimensions of quality were demanded by the customers, but how were we doing at meeting those needs? To identify the gaps in current service, the team used a spider diagram. This tool (also called a radar chart) enabled the team to combine customer satisfaction data with "high demand," "medium demand," and "mandated" ratings from the matrices. This helped point out not only the service gaps, but also the quality dimensions to leverage in order to achieve the greatest improvement in customer satisfaction. For example, responsiveness to service requests was a highly demanded quality dimension for Personal Computer (PC) support. After all, many people absolutely depend on their PC's for most of their work. Having the most advanced technology was not a highly demanded quality. If we were doing a fair job of responding to PC service support requests but a less than satisfactory job of providing advanced technology, we should still focus our attention on responding to PC service requests. Even though the service quality gap is greater for technology, if we truly want to see the greatest improvement in overall customer satisfaction we need to act on the much higher demand for responsiveness. After eight short months, the team was ready to begin developing strategic plans for each of the service areas. This process was fairly simple, beginning with a SWOT analysis or environmental scan, where the team identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats involved in using and providing the information resource services. Once the team had a common understanding of the environment, the previously identified demanded qualities and service gaps were forged into individual service mission statements and service objectives. For the service area "Applications Services" which is defined as -assistance provided with programming and integration of existing software," the mission statement is PROVIDE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS TO MEET USER NEEDS THAT FACILITATE IMPROVED SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC. This service area has 11 objectives; other service areas have as few as two or three objectives. Once the team had the objectives, it was time to begin operational planning. The operational plan stage was really a case of the rubber meeting the road. Individual team members remembered their original agendas and opinions about what the "real problem" was and what the "answer" was as well. We needed a structured group process tool that allowed every idea to be considered without ridicule or conflict at first, and later to be somewhat objectively evaluated once all ideas were on the table. We discovered the Process Decision Program Chart (PDPC). This tool allowed us to list all of the ideas and then ask of each of them, "What can go wrong with this?". For each idea we generated a list of what-if possibilities as a team. For one possible idea, "Provide PC support from a commercial vendor," the team might come up with what-if problems like, "responsiveness level may not meet customer demand," "service representatives may not be able to develop the same rapport with staff as current internal providers," or "contracts may limit our flexibility." The next job for the team was to explore possible countermeasures to the problems. So, for a what-if problem like "poor quality control on spare parts," the countermeasures might be "write a good contract" or "develop a long term contract -- customer/supplier relationship." The team valued the concept of dialogue and the value of each person's ideas as valid; however, people are people. This tool can, and did at times, bog the team in detail; many what-if problems were sometimes a way of discrediting an idea rather than identifying a genuine significant problem. The team worked through these issues and finalized a list of recommended actions for each service area that included preventive and contingency measures for the identified likely or probable problems over time. The recommended actions, with their countermeasures/ contingencies were formatted into a table that also identified who the action owners were, estimated cost, estimated labor hours, and target time lines. *** MISSING GRAPHIC *** With the completion of the operations plan, the project team had completed its charge; all in 18 short months. And I was still employed. There were a number of significant learning opportunities for us in this project. The first was that not all improvement projects are or should be process improvements. This was improving how an internal provider delivers a variety of services. A second lesson was that for issues that are important to an organization as a whole, there will likely be great disagreement. In order to come to a satisfying end, a strong process is required and it's important to let people be people; keep everyone focused and talking and they'll eventually come around. Once again, focusing on the customer and understanding the voice of the customer was an important lesson for us. Last but not least, having an independent facilitator and using good group process tools really helped (as the facilitator and the one who suggested most of the tools, I may be a little biased here). All in all, we found that large scale team projects can be productive, inclusive and satisfying if done with care and patience. And remember, if you're having trouble identifying what process you're trying to improve -- look to the voice of your customers. Some resources that supported this team effort: -- Facilitating and Training in Quality Function Deployment by S. Marsh, J.W. Moran, S. Nakui, G. Hoffherr, published by Goal/QPC. -- Measuring Customer Satisfaction: Development and Use of Questionnaires by Bob E. Hayes, published by ASQC Quality Press. -- Process Design with Teams and Quality Tools by Joann DeMott, published by The J. DeMott Company, Philomath, OR. -- The Memory Jogger Plus+ by Michael Brassard, published by Goal/QPC.Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations by John M. Bryson, published by Jossey-Bass For more information contact: Neil Richardson County Administrative Officer Benton County 408 SW Monroe Avenue, Suite 11 P.O. Box 3020 Corvallis, OR 97339-3020 Phone: (503) 757-6773 neil.b.richardson@co.benton.or.us What is California Issues Forums (CIF)? by Jennifer Valiente California Issues Forums (CIF), part of a national network of non-partisan organizations, is dedicated to revitalizing the democratic process by promoting citizen deliberation on public policy issues. CIF produces issue books that examine multiple sides to major California public policy issues and sponsors community forums on these issues. The goal of California Issues Forums is to encourage Californians to come together and deliberate problems that the state is facing and that affects all of us. CIF believes that any state policy must reflect the will of the public to have sustained support. By deliberating together, the public can stop the trend of being marginalized into special interest categories and can increase the public's voice in the political process. This in turn may improve the effectiveness of state policy. The California Issues Forums network is a coalition of non-partisan California organizations interested in promoting citizen involvement in public policy development. The CIF network is coordinated by University Extension at UC Davis, which has been the state's main instructional facility for the National Issues Forums program at the Kettering Foundation. How does a Forum work? The Forum begins with a description of the problems associated with the issue, along with multiple perspectives, framed as choices, on how best to approach it. A trained moderator leads the group through a discussion of the choices, examining the advantages and consequences of each one. Participants try to reach a group agreement on what they could all live with. This is the first step in creating common ground for action. The choices for each issue are a way of ensuring examination of multiple perspectives. The purpose of the Forum is not necessarily to choose one of the given choices, but to understand the merits and drawbacks of each one. With this knowledge, the participants can begin to work on the tough trade-offs inherent in any complex policy issue. In CIF Forums, citizens are the experts on how the public is experiencing the problems with the issue and how different solutions would affect them. Forum participants learn abut the key facts on an issue and also learn about the perspectives of other Forum participants. Many find the experience of tackling a complex problem together stimulating and leave the Forum with renewed commitment to the democratic process. Most participants find they are even more interested in the issue after the Forum and share their experience with friends and colleagues. How can CIF Forums impact state policy? At the end of every Forum, the participants fill out questionnaires on what they think about different views on the issue and policy approaches to address the problem. These questionnaires are collected and tallied by CIF and are shared with California policy makers. There are now available three current issue books: Reforming Government in California: What Do We Do?, Politics in California: How Can We Make the System Work? and Education: How Can We Get the Results We Want? To obtain the CIF issue books, contact Jennifer Valiente at the address or telephone number listed below. The Reforming Government in California book costs $4.95. The original edition of the Politics book costs $7.00; the general edition costs $3.00. The Education book costs $2.95. For More Information contact: Jennifer Valiente, CIF Coordinator University Extension University of California at Davis Davis, CA 95616-8727 Phone: (800) 752-0881 or (916) 757-8663 Fax: (916) 754-5015 Academy for Continuous Improvement Where can you receive quality management training that is specifically geared for the public sector, presented by public sector professionals who know the ins and outs of the public sector, and is still well within the training budget constraints of the public sector? One such place is the Academy for Continuous Improvement at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. The Academy is a consortium formed by and for public sector professionals (municipal, county, and state government, K-12 school districts, and institutions of higher education) to learn and advance continuous quality improvement in the public sector. The Academy's mission is to act as a catalyst for improving public sector organizations through the learning and application of continuous quality improvement principles, concepts and techniques. Of special importance is the Academy's commitment to offering affordable training while maintaining small class sizes which allows for a participatory/hands-on learning approach. This fall and winter the Academy will offer workshops which will meet a variety of needs. From those who are new to quality, to those who are old hands at it. From top leadership to the "in the trenches" employee. Of particular interest to managers and leaders is a new offering entitled Leadership Practices in a Learning Organization. This workshop will help you explore the key concepts of Peter Senge's Learning Organization and learn how these concepts relate to and integrate with significant organizational change initiatives occurring in many schools and government entities. Special emphasis will be placed on moving from theory to practice, particularly as it relates to the changing role of leaders in the public sector. Other offerings available this fall are Visions of Quality, the 7 Step Problem Solving Process, Managing Daily Work, Facilitation Skills, Focus Groups, Experienced Facilitators Workshop, and Customer Feedback Strategies. These, plus additional offerings will be available during the winter session. If you are interested in any of these workshops, or are interested in more information about the Academy, please contact Sue Roberts at 608-265-5450 or by mail at: Academy for Continuous Improvement University of Wisconsin-Madison 610 Langdon Street, Room 516 Lowell Hall Madison, WI 53703-1195 1995 Presidential Quality Awards Presented by Vice-President Gore by Karen Bourgeois The Eighth Annual National Conference on Federal Quality, held in Washington, DC, was the setting for the Presidential Quality Awards Celebration. At the August 2nd awards ceremony, the Secretary of Defense, William Perry, assisted Vice-President Al Gore in presenting the Presidential Award for Quality to the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC). The Quality Improvement Prototype (QIP) Awards were presented to the U.S. Army Red River Army Depot, U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and General Services Administration's Federal Supply Service, Region 2. Recognized as finalists for the QIP Award were the Tennessee Valley Authority's Fossil and Hydro Power, the IRS's Fresno Service Center, the U.S. Air Force's 46th Test Wing, the U.S. Navy's Naval Station Mayport, and the Defense Logistics Agency's Defense Contract Management Area Operations, Garden City. The President's Quality Award Program began in 1988. The awards are given annually to Federal organizations that have implemented quality management, and provide high quality services and products to their customers. The Presidential Award has been awarded to only four other organizations in its seven year history. Judges and examiners from public and private quality organizations partner in the application evaluations, site-visits and final selection of the awardees. The Federal Quality Institute has administered the awards program since its inception. TARDEC, the Presidential Quality Award winner for 1995, was the recipient of a QIP Award in 1994. The continual improvement of their processes and strategies moved them further ahead in the "TARDEC Quality Journey" which began just five short years ago. TARDEC's President and CEO, Wayne Wheelock, took steps which were unprecedented in an Army organization. He began abandoning operational and organization procedures, rearranging organizations that "were artifacts of another age and were barriers to satisfying TARDEC's customers." The organization has turned into one of self-managed, integrated product teams. One of their greatest accomplishments is the elimination of five layers of management and 140 supervisory positions as a result of the formation of the product teams. TARDEC's workforce is primarily scientists and engineers who's mission is to "conduct research, development, and engineering to maintain global technological superiority in military ground vehicles and to advance the role of science in the broader national interest." For those of us who know little about battle tanks or other military vehicles, we can understand time and dollar savings. With the process of Virtual Prototyping, TARDEC associates have changed the world of manufacturing military vehicles. This new process allows engineers to "create, design, test, evaluate and manufacture new military/automotive vehicles within the confines of the computer without bending sheet metal..." Virtual Prototyping has resulted in a four year reduction in production time and projected savings of $168 million. TARDEC is very proud of the fact that this process is being used as a benchmark by companies such as Ford and Boeing. Congratulations TARDEC. The Quality Improvement Prototype Awardees are equally impressive in their accomplishments: ARDEC's mission is to conduct and manage research, development and engineering for weapon systems... In today's downsizing and cost reductions, ARDEC says from them you really do get "more bang for your buck." ARDEC has been using quality control methods in their processes for years, but in the 1980's, they moved into process improvement. Each new commander has taken them to the next level, allowing the organization to grow and mature. ARDEC has grown into Integrated Product Teams (IPT) which involve "a disciplined approach to achieve concurrent engineering and integrated, concurrent design of products and their related processes." One of the members of the IPT is the customer. With this interface, the customer is aware of any design features which must be reviewed and perhaps modified. One of the achievements of the effort includes a 60% reduction in Quality Deficiency Reports on products used in the field. This is a result of improved design quality and product reliability. For the combat soldier on the front lines, this translates into a significant increase in safety and combat readiness. Red River Army Depot (RRAD) is a maintenance depot, repairing, rebuilding overhauling, and converting light tracked combat vehicles. It also has an ammunition storage mission and the Missile Recertification Office, a separate specialized activity that monitors and certifies the readiness of the Hawk and Patriot missiles. RRAD has teamed with Saturn Automobile Corporation of Spring Hill, Tennessee on their training program called "HEARTS" - Honesty, Ethics, Accountability, Respect, Trust, and Support. The training program combines classroom instruction and outdoor adventure training, "challenging individuals to go beyond perceived boundaries, encouraging them to work with others as teams to solve problems and attain their goals." The foundation for RRAD's transformation is a strong union and management partnership. As the depot reorganized, in order to ensure fairness, the unions were actively involved. The relationship of management and union moved from the old adversarial way of doing business to cooperation, collaboration, and coownership. More than 70 self-managed work teams and 100 process action teams helped RRAD end fiscal year 1994 with $14.8 million in savings. NASA's John F. Kennedy Space Center is home to the Space Shuttle fleet. Their primary mission is "to provide the prelaunch checkout, assembly, testing and processing of the Space Shuttle and payloads that fly aboard it..." KSC turned to Continual Improvement as a means to "cut cost and maintain an ambitious launch schedule, while emphasizing safety as the top priority, when the Space Shuttle returned to flight status 32 months after the 1986 Challenger accident." KSC has cut the cost per Shuttle flight by $43 million, and reduced processing time from 1.6 million hours per mission in 1989 to 800,000 hours in 1994 with one-third as much labor. This all adds up to a savings of $340 million per year, and quality and safety are way up at the same time. On the environmental side, KSC recycled more than 7 million pounds of paper saving the equivalent of 58,000 trees. As one of the most visible of the organizations receiving the award, KSC's progress is apparent. By using a balanced approach with performance focused on working faster, cheaper, better, and safer, KSC will continue to be a model of quality improvement in the federal government. General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service, Region 2 (FFS R2) had hit rock-bottom in the late 1980's as "stock levels were inadequate and backorders had skyrocketed; products were sometimes of an unacceptable quality; and customer dissatisfaction was widespread." FSS R2 management believed "an innovative and far-reaching action plan, with quality as the centerpiece" could offset what was happening to the organization. The first step was to learn about the customers' requirements. In August 1989, over 500 of FSS R2's customers and suppliers attended a conference which included focus groups and other sessions in which customers were able to express their needs, expectations and complaints. From there, FSS R2 relied on its "most valuable resource - its employees." One of the major accomplishments of the new quality journey was the improvement of product quality, which in turn improved customer satisfaction. In order to increase product quality, FSS R2 implemented Statistical Process Control (SPC), a method for controlling quality in the development and manufacturing of a product. The traditional method for ensuring quality was inspection of the final product; defect detection, not defect prevention. Many of FSS R2's suppliers have voluntarily implemented SPC which helps them reduce rework, scrap, and waste. This team effort has been validated in customer feedback in which end users report they are receiving the quality products and services they require. As a coordinator for the Awards Ceremony, I had the pleasure to work with and get to know the Quality Leaders and Managers at all of the winners and finalists organizations. If the cooperation I received from them is an indicator of the type of organization they really are, then each is deserving of the honor bestowed upon them. In his speech, Vice-President Gore remembered the phrase "Good enough for government (work)... It means low quality - it means junk..." He went on to say "But, just imagine a future - not so far from now ... when people say it differently - "That's good enough for government (work) - top quality!- world class quality! ... That's the future we all want - the future America needs - civil servants proud of their jobs, and Americans proud of their government." Each of the winners are that future - producing products of world class quality. Each has accepted the challenge to continue to improve their performance, with even less money and fewer people. They have achieved a great deal and this American is proud of them. For more information contact: Karen Bourgeois OSD Quality Management Office Room 3A345, The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1155 Phone: (703)697- 7171 Fax (703)693-1099 Quality in Cyberspace by John Hunter I set up a Public Sector Continuous Improvement site at Clemson University in June. We aim to help Public Sector employees improve their organizations by focusing on Dr. Deming's System of Profound Knowledge, System Thinking, SPC, Joy in Work, Customer Focus, Learning Organizations and Innovation. To reach the site using the World Wide Web: http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/psci/ The site has links to all the locations I have mentioned in previous articles and includes a larger list of Public Sector online improvement sources. In addition it features links to other organizations of note and includes traditional means of contacting them. Of course, you can also find all sorts of information on the PSN here also: online versions of PSN News, our plans, announcements, list of the PSN Council members... Let me know what you would find useful to your effort. The PSCI Page strives to help you improve your organizations. Specific suggestion would be greatly appreciated. I also encourage you to share desires which you don't think could be accomplished given your understanding (or lack thereof) of the WWW. I hope we can find innovative ways to meet your needs in ways we cannot fathom now. Consider sharing your articles, case studies, reports, training material... with your colleagues through this site. If you wish you can attach a way for them to feed their ideas (suggestions, how the used it...) back to you so you can benefit from their collected wisdom. Also this delivery vehicle can remove some of the requests to your office to provide the material. Let me know what sources you find useful and what topics you would like me to address in the future. A short list of useful resources follows: World Wide Web Air Force Quality Institute http://www.au.af.mil/ HERPOC Education http://www.digimark.net/educ/WWW/quality/ Learning Organizations http://world.std.com/~lo Public Innovator Learning Network Alliance for Redesigning Government (National Academy of Public Administration) http://www.clearlake.ibm.com/Alliance/ Quality Resources Online http://www.quality.org/qc/ UW-Madison Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement reports and Madison Quality Improvement Network site. gopher://gopher.adp.wisc.edu/11/.facstf/.tqm Internet mailing lists; include your full name in each request to join a mailing list -- at the "" below. CQEN Community Quality Electronic Network write: cqen.list-request@deming.eng.clemson.edu in subject: subscribe Local Government not focused on Quality Management write: listserv@wln.com in body: subscribe localgov "" Total-Quality-Statistics Statistics for continuous improvement write: Mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk in body: Join Total-Quality-Statistics TQM write: tqm.list-request@deming.eng.clemson.edu in subject: subscribe For more information contact: John Hunter U.S. Office of Personnel Management Mail Stop 102-268 2200 Wilson Blvd Arlington, VA 22201 (202) 606-1322 E-Mail: asqcpsn@aol.com http://pages.prodigy.com/john/ A Message from the Chair by Barry Crook Your PSN Council met in Portland in early September for our regular business meeting. We had the opportunity to spend a few hours in a conversation with Deborah Hopen, the President of ASQC, about the work of the Society and PSN and how they relate to one another. As I have reported in the last newsletter, the Society has authorized $50,000 in additional funds for PSN-related efforts during the next year. It has been assumed that this will fund the development of the networking database. We are moving forward top satisfy the needs of the Society's Board of Directors regarding the database and I hope to be able to report to you soon on that effort. Deborah has encouraged us to begin thinking about our transition to Division status, and we have put a committee together to develop those plans. On Saturday morning, we heard from Tim Houchen, the Acting Director of the Oregon Progress Board and from Beverly Stein, the Chair of Multnomah County on the Oregon Benchmarks and the Portland/Multnomah County Benchmarks. This is an effort at both the state and local level to identify the factors that are of concern to the residents of the state and the locality and that define the quality of life that is important to them. These items are then measured, and stretch goals are identified around these benchmarks. These benchmarks are then used in making funding decisions -- making sure that dollars are spent in pursuit of one or more of these benchmark goals. Oregon was the first state to adopt such a system, and has been followed by many others. We intend to make these "Learning Opportunities" a feature of our Council meetings and would like to see more of you attend the business meetings and take advantage of the learning opportunities. Our next Council meeting is tentatively scheduled for Charlotte, North Caroline the first weekend in February. We hope to arrange for people from the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County to come talk to us about their transformation efforts. We spent much of the Saturday afternoon portion of our meeting discussing the state of transformation in government today and how quality relates to it. The essence of our conversation was that there are many forces working today to try to effectuate systemic and fundamental change in government: reinvention, reengineering, TQM, privatization, labor- management cooperation efforts, downsizing , rightsizing, partnering, performance-based budgeting, outcome-driven systems, benchmarks, state-federal cooperation efforts, block-grant proposals - things are being tried out at all levels of government in an effort to be more effective and efficient. Some of these efforts are under the quality banner and some are not. We wanted to think out loud about how the PSN relates to these efforts and what we might do to come to the table and engage in a dialogue about what direction government is taking as we prepare to enter the 21st century. Our belief, quite naturally, is that the tools and techniques of quality provide a sound basis for addressing the needs of the customer in today's government. We see how this is working in our jurisdictions, or how it is not working and why. We believe that quality philosophies and practices can, and does, provide a model for restoring the confidence in government that is so sorely needed in today's climate. So we have tasked Keith Smith with writing up a proposal that we can use to engage the Society leaders in that would make ASQC and the PSN a forum for this dialogue to occur. I hope we can devote a future newsletter to this topic. I want to take a moment to thank two people from the Society headquarters staff. First to Linda Milanowski for her continued work as our link to the Society and its Membership Services division. She has, and continues to be a critical piece of the Network's operation. Secondly, I want to acknowledge the fine work that Jennifer Thisted at headquarters did in developing the PSN membership directory. I think through it all the time and find it a wonderful resource as I network with other public sector quality practitioners. If you don't yet have a directory, call ASQC headquarters at 1-800-248-1946 and order one. Finally, I want to acknowledge the many contributions to the Public Sector Network made by Chris Dillon of GOAL/QPC. Chris has decided to end her service to the PSN Council. She has been with us from the beginning of our journey, even before we affiliated with ASQC. Her energy, her voice and her ability to bring us back to the essential tasks before us will be sorely missed. I speak for all my colleagues on the Council in saying "Thanks, and good luck Chris!". If you want to get in tough with me, my internet address is rbcrook@aol.com, or you can always call me at (503) 248-3575 at my office in Multnomah County. Total Quality Service in the Gwinnett County by Katherine Sherrington Never before has local government in the United States been under greater pressure to constantly improve its quality of services as it is today. Contemporary public administrators find themselves in an environment where job responsibilities and citizen expectations are increasingly more demanding. In this era of taxpayer revolt and citizen distrust of government, public agencies must adapt if they are to survive the changes presented by the new millennium. The Gwinnett County Tax Commissioner's Office is facing this challenge with innovative programs. Through a complete dedication to customer responsiveness, the office continually strives to offer the highest quality and most cost effective service. For its customers, the Gwinnett County Tax Commissioner's Office remains committed to a single vision ... to be "A Leader in Public Service." The Past and a New Beginning Historians will surely record what today's Gwinnett County citizen already knows... the 1980s and 1990s produced far-reaching and lasting changes in the nature of Gwinnett's lifestyles and government. Within the span of 20 years, Gwinnett County evolved from an agrarian community north of Atlanta to the fastest growing county in the United States. These decades were a period of profound and lasting change. A change that was no more evident than in the daily operations of the Tax Commissioner's Office. Ten years ago, when dealing with the Tax Commissioner's Office, Gwinnett residents faced ten hour motor vehicle registration lines, deplorable customer service, six-week processing delays, and a non-existent cash management process. The office had lost the respect of the business and government communities. Management lacked the strong leadership and vision necessary to articulate a firm and coherent business approach to local government. Beginning in January 1985, with the inauguration of Katherine Sherrington as Tax Commissioner, the office embarked on a journey to dramatically change the culture of the Gwinnett County tax Commissioner's Office. With the introduction of continuous quality concepts into daily operations, the office has been rebuilt and Gwinnett's property tax and motor vehicle registration functions revolutionized. For the past decade an intense focus on the needs of the customer and an absolute commitment to continuous quality improvement have defined office goals and mission. As a result of office dedication to quality customer service, Gwinnett residents can now register a vehicle at one of four locations without standing in an hours-long tag line or receive a license plate by mail in less than a week. Today, more senior citizens are receiving their deserved tax exemptions than at any time in Gwinnett's history. And, the office has moved decisively to pursue delinquent taxpayers, resulting in 99% of all taxes being collected. Employee-led Quality Member of the Tax Commissioner's staff, in cooperation with private sector corporations, have developed a quality process founded on employee empowerment, trust, statistical measurement, and personal development. Companies such as Delta Airlines, First Union National Bank of Georgia, Mayer Electric Supply, Xerox, and BellSouth provided valuable insight into the development of a quality organizational structure. The process is structured around the Quality Council. Council membership reflects all levels of employees. Its purpose is to promote, oversee, and coordinate the planning and implementation of the "Total Quality Service" (TQS) process; foster an environment conducive to quality improvement; and manage all facets of TQS. Working with the Gwinnett Community 1993 and 1994 marked the inaugural years for the Tax Commissioner's Business Advisory Council and Customer Advisory Council, respectively. The purpose of these councils, comprised of civic, business, and academic leaders, is to provide suggestions and recommendations in order to create a more responsive and effective operation for the benefit of Gwinnett's citizens. Members representing such diverse organizations as BellSouth, the University of Georgia, Trust Company Bank, and Re/Max Realty provide valuable insight into customer needs, opinions, and expectations in relation to sound business principles. Members on the Customer Advisory Council include representation from most geographical locations in Gwinnett County. The roundtable discussions held once a quarter focus on analyzing office operations, regulations, and processes from the customer's perspective. As an integral part of the office's Total Quality Service approach to activities, these two advisory councils assist the office in monitoring the needs of its customers. A recent initiative of the Business Advisory Council includes the creation of business function study teams. "Business Review Teams" are formed to examine all major functions in the office for the purpose of suggesting improvements. Quality Action Teams Since the implementation of TQS, numerous employee-led Quality Action teams have met to review various aspects of office operations. using data from benchmarking against private sector corporations and other governmental agencies or collecting in-house statistics, the teams' efforts have recommended improvements in such areas as accounting, the reconfiguration of work stations, customer traffic patterns, and switchboard operations. A recent quality action team, charged with streamlining the homestead exemption application process for senior citizens, created a more "user friendly" application that replaced nine complicated State-issued forms. The end result of this initiative has been an increase in the number of people mailing in their applications. In return, the office saves thousands of dollars in processing, storage, and printing costs. Involving employees in the investigation and decision-making system has encouraged the staff to become even more customer focused in their daily responsibilities. Shopping and County Tax Commissioner's Office The most successful enterprises are generally marked by a capacity for continuous quality improvement. To be deemed effective in the 21st century, local governments must become more adaptive to changing demands, challenges, and popular mandates. Like business entrepreneurs, public administrators and elected officials must find innovative ways of dealing with the ever-changing needs of the customer. One of the ways the Gwinnett County Tax Commissioner's Office measures the success or failure of its quality initiatives is through the implementation of a shopper program. The shopper program was developed by the Customer Advisory Council as a means to regularly collect, report, and review information directly related to how customer service is handled to Tax Commissioner employees. By evaluating office visits and telephone contacts, "shoppers" measure various aspects related to the quality of service provided by the staff. Data obtained from the program assists office personnel with planning and improving internal procedures. Of a possible 20 points, the average score for telephone contact has been 18.25. Shoppers evaluating the switchboard operations have remained on "hold" for approximately two minutes. With a maximum score of 21, office visit shops have resulted in an average 18.7 rating. Typical shopper waits have been approximately 7 minutes. A Leader in Public Service Radical change has been the hallmark of Gwinnett County during the past decade, and change in the future will be even more rapid. These trends will continue to affect the way the Gwinnett County Tax Commissioner's Office delivers services to its customers. Meeting the challenges posed by Gwinnett's vibrant community will be no simple task. It will require the dedicated efforts of public administrators, elected officials, business leaders, and citizens working together, planning goals, and developing strategies. The Tax Commissioner's Office has been at the forefront in developing initiatives to meet the challenges of public service and has found new approaches to ensure the efficiency in which the services are delivered. Such a commitment to quality has resulted in an operation that is more professional, more flexible, and better equipped to handle the complexities of tax collection than at any time in Gwinnett's history. While the Tax Commissioner's Office has made great strides, there remains much more to accomplish. For more information contact: Katherine Sherrington, Tax Commissioner 75 Langley Drive Lawrenceville, GA 30245 Phone (404) 822-7300 Fax (404) 822-7343 TQM -- Is a Standard Definition Needed? by Tim Clark Total Quality Management or TQM, is a term that is defined, understood, and interpreted differently by almost everyone that uses it. The purpose of this article is to suggest a need for a standard definition for TQM in the hopes that it will lead to a greater understanding of quality. Background The term Total Quality Management (TQM) was a term first counted by the Department of the Navy and adopted by the Department of Defense (DOD). The DOD total Quality Management Guide, 5000.51G (Draft 8-023-89), offers the following 84 word definition: Total Quality Management (TQM) is both a philosophy and a set of guiding principles that represent the foundation of a continuously improving organization. TQM is the application of quantitative methods and human resources to improve the material services supplied to an organization, all the processes within an organization, and the degree to which the needs of the customer are met, now and in the future. TQM integrates fundamental management techniques, existing improvements efforts, and technical tools under a disciplined approached focused on continuous improvement. The late Dr. W. Edwards Deming, who was considered one of the foremost experts on quality, remarked that if he was to reduce his message to management to just a few words, it all had to do with reducing variation. Variation is the difference between the ideal outcome and the actual situation. Thus, TQM could be defined as reducing variation. Experts tend to agree that to improve quality, you must reduce variation. In an attempt to reduce variation in how TQM is defined, interpreted, and understood, I offer the following 15 word definition as a compromise between Dr. Deming's two words and DODs 84: Total Quality Management is finding the best way to continually improve quality by reducing variation. This definition summarizes the key aspects of TQM, i.e. continuous improvement and reducing variation, might be easier to remember, and may eventually lead people to a level of understanding so that one day, the term total quality management will no longer be needed. What do you Think? If you agree that a standard definition is needed, have a better definition, feel that "It's not broke and doesn't need fixing," would like PSN to take on the challenge of developing the best definition for TQM, etc., let me know. I will consolidate and summarize responses in a follow-up article. For more information contact: Tim Clark email: tjclark@aol.com TQM Definition P.O. Box 19752 Indianapolis, IN 46219-9752 PSN Officers Past Co-chairs Tom Mosgaller, City of Madison, Wisconsin Michael Williamson, North Carolina Governor's Office Chair R. Barry Crook, Multnomah County, Oregon Chair-elect Rebecca Meyers, New York State Governor's Office of Employee Relations Secretary John Hunter, United States Office of Personnel Management Newsletter Editor A. Keith Smith, California Department of Consumer Affairs Committee Chairs Database Cheri Howe, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Regional Councilor Co-chairs Nathan Strong, South Carolina Office of Human Resources Donna Crocker, Prince George's County Department of Family Services, Maryland Programs Kim Peterson, City of Austin, Texas Information Packets Howard Schussler, Benton County, Oregon Nominating Anne O'Connor, Office of the Secretary of Defense Regional Councilors Jim Carlson, Multnomah County, Oregon Michael Dubrow, Mercer County, New Jersey Barbara Jones, Quality Service Georgia Phil Landesberg, Naval Ordanance Center, Maryland Tom Tiedeman, City of Minneapolis, Minnesota