[The following article appears in the February 1995 edition of
_The_Public_Sector_Quality_Report_, pages 3 and 4.

            STATE TQM SURVEY DETAILS "OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE"

     The Council of State Governments (CSG) is just out with a
survey of TQM initiatives at the state level in the United
States. In it you might find some useful insights for your own
quality improvement effort, or at the very least some possible
benchmarking contacts within state governments.
     The survey findings are compiled in a report titled TQM in
State Government: Options for the Future ($15, with 20 percent
discounts for state employees). The report proposes to answer
common questions and concerns a state government official might
have about TQM, including "How are other states using TQM?" and
"Is TQM the right management strategy for my organization?"
     CSG's report also offers state leaders what are called five
"broad options" to consider (each with its advantages and
potential drawbacks) in deciding whether and how to implement
TQM.
     Based on the survey results, plus "brainstorming sessions"
with a panel of seven public sector TQM practitioners (including
Melanie Kennedy, Arkansas' state quality coordinator; Timothy
Boncoskey, director of Arizona's Office for Excellence in
Government; Don Giek, New York's state quality director; Joseph
Sensenbrenner, a leading consultant on public sector TQM) the
report points out the following options:
     * No interference. The first option, and certainly the one
most open to argument, is what's otherwise known as the "zero
option." In other words, press ahead with current management
practices and organizational structures rather than introduce
"another management tool." The report notes that, as of mid-1994,
at least six states had not adopted TQM to any appreciable
degree.
     The report cautions that a state "may appear to fall behind"
the private sector in terms of customer service and quality
standards if it chooses to ignore TQM. At the same time, the
report concedes there might be situations when maintaining the
status quo is best, if only temporarily. For example, when state
employees are just recovering from a failed management "fad," or
the "budget crisis is too great, employee unions are strongly
resisting, or workforce layoff is imminent."
     (In PSQR's view, the CSG report does no favor to state
officials or their customers by painting the "zero option" as a
credible alternative. Consider: The report notes that "state
leaders and managers who are not prepared to give higher
priorities to customer service, process improvement and employee
empowerment should not use TQM as their management approach."
We'd suggest the sentence be edited to read: "State leaders and
managers who are not prepared to give higher priorities to
customer service, process improvement and employee empowerment
should not be state leaders and managers."
     It seems clear no organizational leader in the mid-1990s can
seriously lay claim to that title without placing at least some
added emphasis on customers, systemic improvement, and/or
employee involvement. Some TQM practitioners might even argue
that budget crises, sour labor relations and looming layoffs are
the kinds of catalysts which can galvanize an organizational
change effort.)
     * Agency Initiatives. CSG found more than 30 states where,
lacking a statewide directive from the governor, individual
agencies and cross-agency teams were the first to implement TQM
concepts and tools. Among them: Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Utah,
Vermont, Washington, Minnesota and South Carolina.
     * Governor's Initiatives. CSG identified at least 25 states
where the governor is, or lately has become, the most visible TQM
advocate. Often a governor will signal intent to lead on TQM by
establishing a quality management task force, council, steering
committee, etc. At least 17 states also have used public-private
partnerships to assess the need for, plan, then implement a TQM
effort.
     * Full Executive Branch Implementation. CSG says about 40
states now have implemented TQM in the executive branch, on
either a mandatory or voluntary basis. Thirteen states did so by
executive order, 11 by agency head directive, while two passed
special legislation.
     * Transformation of Government Culture. The survey
identified one state, Maine, where the push is on to implement
TQM in all three branches--executive, legislative, judicial.
There, for example, the state Supreme Court's chief justice sits
on the state quality management council.
     The report concludes with some very broad advice on
improving one's prospects for successful TQM implementation,
including: total leadership commitment and changing systems
(human resources, purchasing, information technology) to align
with the quality emphasis. Perhaps most useful of all, the report
has an appendix listing 40 state TQM coordinators, complete with
addresses and phone numbers.
     Incidentally, to address any lingering doubts about whether
TQM (apparently still considered by some to be an exclusively
private sector concept) can be applied to the public sector,
CSG's survey found that 33 of 35 state TQM coordinators or
facilitators who responded to that question said "yes," TQM has a
role to play in government.
CONTACT: Council of State Governments,
Lexington, KY, (800) 800-1910 or (606)
244 8000.

[For further information about PSQR or to subscribe, contact:
Public Sector Quality Report
17733 Kingsway Path
Lakeville, MN 55044-5209
Phone: (612) 898-5058
Fax:   (612) 892-7710
e-mail: 74363.3644@compuserve.com]