[The following article appears in The Public Sector Network News,
Summer 1994 edition, pages 8 - 10.]

DRIVING HOME THE POINT OF TQM: SOUTH CAROLINA'S DMV EXPERIENCE  

     At the end of the 1993 legislative session, the South
Carolina General Assembly passed a concurrent resolution  
calling on the Division of Human Resource Management (DHRM) to
study and make recommendations on the Division of Motor Vehicle's
service to the public. The resolution was a scathing attack on the
perceived ineffectiveness of DMV operations. The resolution cited
long lines at DMV offices and employees who do not have the
"patience, proper attitude, or compassion to deal with the public"
as the major problems.  

     Also during the 1993 session, the DMV was moved from the
Department of Highways and Public Transportation to join the South
Carolina Tax Commission as the major components of a new
Department of Revenue (DOR). In the spirit of quality management
and interagency cooperation, Human Resources and the Department of
Revenue determined that the most effective way to answer the
resolution was through a team effort. A Quality Service team,
consisting of nine DMV employees from all levels, was charged to
study the systems that support quality service delivery in the DMV
and make recommendations for changes. This team was jointly
facilitated by Human Resources and Department of Revenue
personnel. In addition, a Guidance Team was formed from the
management of DOR and Human Resources.  

     The team faced numerous obstacles to meeting its mission.
First, although the former Tax Commission was a leader in South
Carolina's quality efforts, the DMV had little experience in this
process. The resolution required a report be submitted to the
General Assembly in January 1994, so the learning curve had to be
short. Second, neither the Quality Service Team members nor most
of the Guidance Team members had ever received any quality
training. The employees had to learn what to do and the management
had to learn what to expect from the process. All were
apprehensive about the prospect of being able to turn the critical
request for study into a positive team effort. Lastly, the
recommendations of the team were to go to the General Assembly. No
one knew what the legislative response would be.  

     After the team members received their training in the tools
and techniques of quality management, they began reviewing the
available data. DMV maintains a file of customer comment cards. A
total of 816 received during the most recent six-month period were
reviewed. The team found that 83% of the cards contained positive
comments. Most of the comments mentioned helpful and attentive
employees as a source of satisfaction. Other cards revealed a
number of customer concerns. To get more baseline information, as
well as to accurately determine customer expectations, the team
planned interviews with both the public and other DMV employees.
Over the next several weeks, every DMV branch office in the state
was visited by team members and over 350 employee and customer
interviews were conducted.  

     Three major service objectives were identified from both the
customer and employee survey responses. First, DMV had to find
ways to reduce the number of transactions that required visits to
a DMV office. Second, DMV had to find ways to simplify
transactions to reduce errors and rework on the part of both
customers and employees. Third, DMV had to identify strategies to
reduce wait times for customers. The linkages between these
strategies were critical. For example, reducing the number of
required customer visits to DMV also had the benefit of reducing
wait time because fewer customers had to be served. Simplification
of transactions could result in quicker processing, leading to
both shorter lines and fewer repeat trips by customers. Using
these three service objectives, the team began to sort through
numerous suggestions for change.  

     From October 1993 through January 1994, the team gathered and
evaluated nearly 100 possible improvement suggestions from DMV
managers, employees, and customers. Data were collected and
possible implementation obstacles were explored. The team found
that many initiatives already under way at DMV needed to be
publicized to both the public and the members of the General
Assembly. For example, in July 1993 the state had instituted
biennial vehicle registration to reduce the number of customer
visits for registrations from once per year to once every two
years. This change alone will reduce by half the number of walk-in
vehicle registration renewals, DMV's most commonly performed
transaction. In addition, the team proposed the expanded use of
roving information specialists in large offices, to ensure that
customers had the needed documentation to perform the desired
transaction.  

     Many other initiatives already under consideration by DMV
were supported by the team's review. The team suggested allowing
authorized automobile dealers to issue license tags and the
vehicle registrations at the dealership, thereby reducing
inconvenience for both the dealership and the purchaser. Also
recommended was the staggering of registration periods for all
types of vehicles. At present, some classes of vehicles, such as
motorcycles, require renewal during a specific month and this
causes bottlenecks in the branch offices. The elimination of
notarization requirements on certain transactions was also
recommended.  

     New initiatives, such as changing the driver's license
renewal period from four to five years and issuing new license
plates based upon the life expectancy of the plate rather than the
automatic replacement every six years as required by state law,
were put forward in the team's report. The latter recommendation,
if adopted, could save the state approximately $6 million over a
two-year period.  

     In all, the team made 43 recommendations to the management of
the Department of Revenue and the General Assembly in their
report. The team did not hesitate to make recommendations that
required legislative action, pointing out the role the General
Assembly must play in removing obstacles to providing more
effective service. A total of 12 legislation changes were
recommended by the team and supported by DMV management.  

     While the team was conducting its review, the director of the
Office of Human Resources and the executive director of the
Department of Revenue were developing a strategy to present the
report findings to the members of the General Assembly. The intent
of both the Office of Human Resources and the Department of
Revenue was not only to generate interest in the recommendations
of the team, but also to highlight the power of the quality
management process. The members of the General Assembly, although
supportive of state agency quality efforts, had never been
directly exposed to a project team presentation. With the help of
legislative staff, team presentations were scheduled before both a
House subcommittee and the state Budget and Control Board.  

     On February 1, 1994, the team made its initial presentation
to the House Ways and Means Management Accountability
subcommittee. The response was overwhelmingly positive. The
subcommittee praised both the team members and the agency
management for their approach to addressing the problem and
promised support for their recommendations. On February 16, 1994,
the team received a similar reception from the Budget and Control
Board, which includes the governor, state treasurer, controller
general, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and chairman of
the House Ways and Means Committee.  

     The author of the original concurrent resolution,
Representative Eugene B. "Mac" McLeod Jr., held a press conference
following the team's second presentation to announce his support
for the efforts of the team and his intentions to sponsor the
legislative changes requested by DMV. In his remarks to the press
he stated, "This is an excellent example of state government at
its finest - when employees have a voice in making things better
for their customers."  

     The DMV team report and the subsequent positive response by
several members of the General Assembly were important milestones
for South Carolina's quality process. By demonstrating what can be
accomplished by well-trained teams, the DMV has set the stage for
increased legislative and executive support for quality management
in the state. Agency managers and employees now have evidence that
the system is supportive of, and responsive to, the quality
management approach. Many believe that this team's efforts mark
the beginning of an new era.  

For more information or for copies of the report, please contact:
Nathan Strong South Carolina Office of Human Resources (803)
737-0910 or Suzie Rast, South Carolina Department of Revenue
(803) 737-4533.

[To join the Public Sector Network, call ASQC (800-248-1946).
There is no charge.]