FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY QUALITY NEWSLETTER FALL 1994 To Team or Not To Team Fortune Magazine's September 5, 1994 issue had an excellent article titled, "The Trouble with Teams." The author, Brian Dumaine, quotes Eileen Appelbaum in the New American Workplace: "It's not that teams don't work. It's that there are lots of obstacles." FLH has a variety of teams with the overall objective of institutionalizing teamwork as the work approach of choice. In order to assure our teams are as successful as possible, it is important to be aware of potential pitfalls. According to Fortune, there are five primary problems with teams: 1 - Leadership rushes out and forms the wrong kind for the job. 2 - Managers launch teams in a vacuum, with little training and support. 3 - Supervisors shoe-horn workers who are lone wolves or are very creative into teams where they are frustrated and non-contributing. 4 - Teams try do a job which would be better done by a single person. 5 - Top officials erode team spirit and morale by downsizing the organization. Teams can be a lot of trouble, expensive, and risky -- but teams can provide such marvelous performance that they are the necessity of the 90's. Let's think of teamwork in terms of a game of golf to see how we can have and maintain successful teams in FLH today. 1 - Use the right team for the right job. When the golf ball is in the bag or in the hole, you don't need a club. When the ball is ready to be hit, you identify how far you want it to go before selecting the club. The variety of teams, like a set of clubs goes from hard-hitting executive or management teams, to multi-Divisional cross-functional teams, to local work teams, to problem-solving teams. Each one has its place. Any successful golf shot contributes significantly to the total score regardless of the distance achieved. Likewise, any successful team which is aligned to the organization's goals, is a meaningful contributor. 2 - Unfortunately, a golf club doesn't swing itself. A team cannot perform without proper handling. Management must give the team members time to work on the team and provide resources and guidance and training as needed. Resources must come from managers and supervisors. Guidance is available in the new FLH Team Guide. 3 - Team members must trust themselves and those who are sponsoring the team. Sponsors must trust the team. Teams and sponsors must have a clear understanding of what is on the table. If it is a self-managed team, the definition must be clear. If it is a team working on an office environment issue, they need to know the limits of their budget authority. 4 - Everyone needs to know when the team is finished. Work teams, such as a design squad in FLH, are never finished -- they work as a team to get the job done. Process teams and multi-Division teams may be long- term. Problem solving teams need to go through the steps to solve the problem and then disband. When done, a team needs to document its results and move on to new opportunities. We don't need any relic teams in FLH -- they are too expensive to maintain. Brian Dumaine closes his excellent article, "Yes, teams have troubles. They consume gallons of sweat and discouragement before yielding a penny of benefit. Companies make the investment only because they've realized that in a fast-moving, brutally competitive economy, the one thing sure to be harder than operating with teams is operating without them." Process Teams Reinventing FLH Vice President Gore's Reinventing Government initiative has four primary themes: Cutting Red Tape Putting Customers First Empowering Employees to Get Results Cutting Back to Basics These are the same success factors that are making FLH's Process Action Team (PAT) approach so effective. [These teams have been called Process Management Teams (PMT) but there has been concern about use of a proprietary term, so we are trying to convert our thinking to "PAT's", ed.] Within several hours of meetings PAT's develop a list of quick hit improvements which get back to basics and often cut red tape. The meetings are held with a stakeholder and customer emphasis. The very fact that the PAT's are made up of employees who work in the process shows it is a strong empowerment tool. The FLH PAT effort is exactly on target to improve our little corner of government. Here are the essentials of the FLH process action team work: Why have PAT's? Understanding work processes and then improving them using people who perform the work and use the products or services reduces waste, saves time, and frees up resources for other work. What are PAT's? Groups that are uniquely qualified to document and improve a key work process in FLH. When do PAT's meet? A series of five to seven intense team meetings begin within a few weeks after a PAT is formed. The meetings last several hours and are held over a 6- to 10-week period. How are the meetings conducted? A detailed agenda and reporting scheme assures the PAT meetings move through the steps in order. A specially trained PAT facilitator assists the team. Where do the teams meet? Each FLH field Division holds meetings in its facilities. Who is involved? The Executive Quality Council charters FLH-wide PATs. HFL-20 (Tony Welch) coordinates reporting. Division Quality Coordinators arrange for facilitation and meetings. Leaders, managers, and others who work in the process, affect the process, or are recipients of the product or service are either members of the team or are participants in the team's work. The Wisdom of Teams Recently retired FHWA Executive Director E. Dean Carlson gave a book to each FHWA Unit Manager, including FLH Program Administrator Tom Edick. The book is "The Wisdom of Teams" by Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith. After reading the book, Mr. Edick has indicated his belief that the book could be considered a "standard" for FLH. On August 4, copies of the book were sent to every FLH Division. Some highlights from the book: "We believe that teams -- real teams, not just groups that management calls `teams' -- should be the basic unit of performance for most organizations, regardless of size." p. 15. "A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable." p. 45. "...Teams are tougher to form at the top [executive levels of an organization]" p. 216. "When should you use teams? ... Whenever a specific performance objective requires collective work and real time integration of multiple skills, perspectives, or experiences ... [not whenever you need to empower people or need to get things done across `silo' or functions.]" p. 268,9. "Teams do not seek consensus; they seek the best answer. They argue, debate, and work to a decision, sometimes made in common, sometimes made by the leader, and sometimes made by the most logical skill set." p. 290,1. FLH Streamlining Study One of the key parts of the FLH Strategic Business Plan for the next 3 years is a special organization study. This study is the direct result of performance measures which have been conducted over the past several years. The overall results of the FLH Cultural Survey, the Quality Improvement Process (QIP) assessment, the annual listening sessions with employees, and feedback from customers show that the FLH organization is progressing across a plateau. Cultural survey results have been up every year, but are not increasing as fast as they were 4 years ago. The QIP assessment scores have a similar trend over five years. Our employees and our measurements are indicating that we know what it takes to do quality work, but our systems and our organization are getting in the way. Beginning in October 1994, Jim Hall has responsibility for an FLH Streamlining Task Force. The Executive Quality Council will select eight to twelve team members from across FLH. Jim's style is to share leadership so team members will be leading various elements of the study. The team will also be assisted by a consultant. One of the first things that comes to mind when employees hear that an organization study is taking place is the potential threat. Will I have to change jobs? Will my family have to move? Will I lose my grade or my job? Of course, no one knows the future. We can be assured, however, that if FLH does not study and structure the organization itself, another part of government may do it for us with a lot less empathy. Most U.S. Employees Are On Teams According to the June 1994 issue of Total Employee Involvement newsletter, 8 in 10 U.S. workers are involved in work teams. The American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) recently had the Gallup Organization conduct a survey. With a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points, the survey of 1,293 adults employed full-time showed that team members recognize great value in teamwork: Ninety percent say they are more willing to try new ways of doing things than they were 3 years ago. Eighty-seven percent agree that quality efforts enable then to make an individual contribution within a team. Eighty-three percent say they believe they are empowered to stop work in progress. Eighty-two percent say quality efforts encourage them to put their own ideas into action. Eighty-one percent would intervene on behalf of a customer. Seventy-four percent, up from 66 percent in 1990, say they have been asked to be involved in making decisions about significant aspects of their job. Sixty-one percent would make an exception to formal procedures or would rework a product or service. What To Do About Creeping Cynicism by Mark Chatfield Talk about mixed signals! Many organizations today are overtly or covertly telling their workers, "We really don't need you. Why not take this incentive to leave our organization?" At the same time they are also saying, "We want you to spend extra time and effort doing excellent work around here." While this is going on, ABC's Prime Time Live highlights anecdotal instances of government waste, fraud, and abuse. This is followed by some U.S. Congressman lambasting Washington bureaucrats for terrible inefficiency and paperwork nightmares. Then we have Federal Quality Week and hear praise of the government worker. I'm so confused! Vice President Gore addressed the issue in a July 1994 speech at the Federal Quality Institute awards luncheon. I'm not sure he would give the same speech in Peoria, but it seems to be an appropriate message for all government workers, including us in FLH. He said that cynicism, "the public's willingness to believe the worst," has increased because of the Nation's speedy and unsettling transformation from an industrial-based economy to an Information Age economy. The news media feeds "voraciously on the failures of government" and politicians often fail to deliver on their promises. The public's cynicism, "has fallen heavily on the largest institution in America -- the Federal Government -- and it has worn heavily on Federal employees for much of the past two decades." He wants "our government to address head-on the public's distrust of us." That is what is behind the administration's push to challenge "agencies to provide services to their customers equal to the best in business," to cut red tape, tolerate risk, and encourage innovation. "As you can imagine, cynics need not apply. Leaders must move from control to trust if they want organizations that are the best in business." Later in the session, Vice President Gore said cynicism is the principal enemy of change. He defined this as, "a belief on the part of those who deep down would like to see change that we who are in the Federal Government are basically not serious about it and not good enough or well-motivated enough to really bring it about." The cynics think the administration's initiative "will sputter out and there will be some sound and fury signifying nothing," he added. He urged Federal employees to "find your own personal strategy for resisting and defeating the temptation to surrender to that kind of cynicism." It is not difficult to relate those thoughts to our experiences over the past 5 years of the FLH change initiative. We have had our share of cynics -- and there are still some around -- I suppose it is human nature. The primary things that have kept us going, in my opinion, include: The constant, active leadership by the FLH Program Administrator and the rest of the Executive Quality Council, in spite of some very tough times. The patience in not giving up when immediate tangible savings could not be shown. The emphasis on undertaking new activities using teams which caused participants to recognize that no matter how good we think we are, improvement is always appropriate. The leaders sincerely trying to serve, involve, and listen to employees at the working level. The measurement of our overall performance and keeping all employees informed of the good news as well as that which is not so good. Given the fact none of us down here in the trenches can change the cynics of the media, the public, other agencies, or even in FLH, it's hard to argue with the Vice President's advice to find our own personal strategy to resist becoming cynics ourselves. It might help to remember, "We Engineer America's Scenic Highways" -- in spite of the cynics. Teamwork by Walter Juras, EFL The first time I was introduced to the word "team" was in my elementary school during the physical educational class, when the teacher asked students to form a group of students to play soccer and compete in upcoming games between local schools. We called my group the Team of 11. The purpose of creating a team was not only to learn how to play soccer but also how to coordinate and cooperate with each other, plan the strategy to pass the ball and score to win the game and, of course, be the champion. Today, in a global economy and corporate workplace where tough competition exists among countries and companies, I understand how important the word "team" really is. In many, if not all, industrial countries, teamwork is discussed in managerial meetings in terms of improving the quality and production emphasizing how it is important to any successful organization. Why is it so important to have teams at the workplace? Why should they be encouraged? First, there are many people with the ability to create and improve an organizational function. An individual working person may not produce up to his or her full potential because there may be limited communication with the manager or head of organization. Working with a group of people, the person will be able to communicate and share knowledge with other coworkers. As a team, any problems that arise will be solved much more quickly and smoothly. Second, a team will work more independently from managers. Decision making by the team on smaller issues will save a lot of time and money, because the managers can't always be with employees. This, in turn, gives more responsibility to the team. Third, teamwork not only means that the lower level or lower grade employees have more responsibility, it also means that the greatest responsibility and skills are required from a leader. This happens as managers incorporate themselves into teams. They let the team know that they are part of the effort and goals to do the best job. In some organizations there are many teams doing different jobs. This may create some problems with one team communicating effectively with others, especially in case a need for an opinion or in solving a major problem. Someone from one team may say that this is not his or her job and may be afraid that he or she may get behind on the team's own assignment. It is necessary for managers to see coming problems, arrange meetings among teams, discuss, and communicate. There can't be competition between a teams inside the organization. That may create an employee relations problem which can effect quality and production. As a team, quality and production will improve and there is more pride from job and mutual friendship between employees, To share the commitment to perform work using the resources of all members assigned to a project within an organization, To increase employee empowerment and involvement. To foster participation, and To improve productivity and quality. So let the teams, just like my Team of 11, pass the ball to the 21st Century and score and win. [Walter recently participated as a key team member in FLH's assistance to Russia. He speaks Russian fluently and was able to provide both engineering expertise and translating services. He expanded his involvement to become an ambassador and host to Russian engineers visiting in the Washington, D.C. area, spending a great deal of time in evenings and on weekends to make sure our guests felt welcome. His personal interest and participation makes the whole FLH team look better. ed.] Self-Directed Teams Some teams may have more authority than others. The most powerful and authoritative team is an executive leadership team like the FLH's Executive Quality Council. The next most powerful team is one that is self-directed or self-managed. Here are some of the characteristics of self-directed teams: They do the "regular" work, They are permanent, They plan, operate, and control their part of the work, They rotate team leadership, They each know more than one part of the work to be done, They are highly skilled in team processes and operations, They train others on the job, They have a lot of management support, They make decisions within their boundaries, such as who performs certain jobs, work schedules, vacation schedules, discipline, and They are accountable for work getting done. The Quality Coordination Team recently benchmarked several high-performance teams at a conference in Florida. One of the speakers pointed out that teamwork is not the objective. Performance is the objective. If your part of the organization can achieve the best performance using a team, then a team is necessary. If the best performance is achieved by one person's creativity, then you should let that person do his or her "own thing." Current management thinking suggests that the concept of people having "jobs" is rapidly evaporating. Rather than having the boundaries of a "job," all members of an organization rally to the work that needs to be done, contributing to the best of our ability. Whether in a team environment or not, keep in mind that we are seeking the best answer, the best product, or the best solution. 1995 Unit Plan The FLH's Strategic Business Plan is available in each Division. Divisions all have their own strategic plan. Some branches and even some individuals have long-term plans tied to the agency's plan. The FLH plan is provided to the FHWA as a Unit Plan. All the FHWA operating units provide their unit plans which represent the detailed efforts which will accomplish the FHWA's National Strategic Plan under the Department of Transportation's Strategic Plan. All this amounts to a hierarchy of plans. On September 1, FLH's Unit plan provided an overview which shows some background and the general emphasis. GPRA Pilot, Performance Management, and Reinventing Government Initiatives The FLH is proud to have been selected as one of four Department of Transportation units to serve as a Pilot Agency for Performance Measurement under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Since 1989, the FLH has been aggressively pursuing performance management, continuous improvement, customer focus, employee involvement, and reinventing initiatives. In 1991 an American Society of Civil Engineers' Peer Review conducted at the initiative of FLH provided planning information. Beginning in 1992, the FLH proceeded with strategic planning work to develop a unit-wide comprehensive business plan. In 1991 and 1992, FLH contributed to and followed FHWA 2000 planning initiatives. In 1991, the Office of the Administrator initiated a management review of FLH. In 1993, FLH developed a comprehensive Strategic Business Plan (SBP) and Unit Operating Plan integrating quality initiatives. The FLH Strategic Business Plan is an ongoing process involving management, employees and partner/customer agencies. The FLH SBP includes all "regular" FLH business as well as change initiatives. It accounts for all FLH resource estimates used in strategic improvements and the FLH's four business/mission areas. It also incorporates overall outcome performance indicators which meet the requirements of GPRA. The abbreviated plan shown herein has been developed as a "Unit Plan" for use by FHWA and others as part of the FHWA Strategic Business Planning Process. Organizational Development FHWA's Organizational Development goal calls for an organizational plan and structure to accomplish the mission and goals. The National Strategy is to develop target Unit and subunit organization structures based on defined roles, responsibilities and resource allocations. This objective and its related strategy are considered to be ongoing activities in the FLH. However, in an effort to optimize human resource use and respond to employee and customer needs, the FLH is embarking on an in-depth organizational assessment. The study is to be done by December 1995 and recommendations implemented by September 1996. The FLH is continuing a long-term goal for defining and initiating improvements in the delivery and quality of the FLH programs by improving work processes in all key planning, project development, construction, procurement, and administrative systems. This initiative was started in 1992 and is being done in several phases over a 4-year period. Key Issue The major barrier to improving the timely and effective delivery of the FLH Program is inadequate personnel resources. To help overcome the personnel resource obstacle, the FLH has steadily increased the use of contract engineering and technical support services. Although we have targeted an optimal contract support level at 10 to 15 percent and maximum tolerable level to be less than 25 percent, the program delivery demands have forced the cap to as much as 55 percent in one Division in order to meet program delivery schedules. In FY 1994 the FLH used more than 210 contract work years which is up from 185 work years in FY 1993 to support its direct operations. This constitutes over 35 percent of the total FLH work force and is in excess of 39 percent of the design and construction direct work force which is clearly the cost avoidance, quality, and program effectiveness danger zone. Even with the major use of contract services, many of the key FLH strategic business objectives were unavoidably deferred. The direct cost impacts to deliver the same program with lower overall quality, timeliness and effectiveness exceeded $8 million (2%) more than if direct forces were available to accomplish the same program level. New Quality Coordination Team Members Phyllis Chun ... I was born and raised in Honolulu, Hawaii and graduated from the University of Oregon. Have worked for Federal Highways since I got out of college. All my working career has been in the human resource management field working with Federal Lands since 1982. I've always worked with people, and am convinced that everyone wants to do to a good job, but that sometimes we inadvertently put barriers in their way. My interest in this position is to help set up the environment so that people can do their best (and will consequently be happier). I've always thought that it would be a thrill to be the best in the world at something Usually I thought in terms of being the best (Olympic champion!) at some sport, and I want to be a real part of making FLH the best. Not only in words, or on paper, or as part of a vision, but doing concrete things to make it a reality. I'm a very results oriented person and like to see things happen/get done. I also want our employees to like their work so much that they want to come to work because it is fun, and they like what they are doing. I think that being a part of an organization that was recognized as the best at what it does, would help create that environment. Phyllis Bob Lale ... In preparing this article for the fall edition of the FLH Quality News, I thought that it would be a good idea to first look back at what my predecessors, and contemporaries said in their initial articles. While looking for their articles, I was reviewing the back issues of the FLH Quality News that Charmaine saved (Thanks Char!) and something became very apparent. We have come a long way in the journey toward a quality organization! By my calculations, we have been on this journey for 6 years already. The amount of effort that we have put forth and the accomplishments we have achieved are no small feat. What is really evident is that people seem to have become more educated about the functions and efforts of our organization, and have become more accepting of the idea of working in a quality establishment. You see new authors writing in every issue about subjects that they probably didn't know much about before TQM. This shows that the word is getting deeper into the organization and spreading throughout the ranks. During the last 6 months (it is hard to believe that it has already been 6 months) I have realized that I really didn't know much about our quality efforts. I learned that what appeared to be many different initiatives, was really part of the big picture. Each effort that we have undertaken is only a tool to get us closer to a continuously improving quality outfit. I have also learned that no matter how hard the Quality Coordinator markets, trains, and communicates (pulls, pushes, and shoves) the program to the staff, the real change comes from the effort put forth by each person. When this sincere commitment comes from the individual (and it is beginning to show up here and there) the rest is easy. What do I bring to this position? My experience of working with many various areas of the organization has helped me to understand some of the frustrations and complications of their diverse work environments. I also have a motivation to tackle difficult assignments, and a commitment to effect change in how we work, hopefully to make our jobs less stressful, more satisfying, and rewarding. My primary focus as I see it today will be to try and get everyone to understand how they can directly affect the mission of the organization, and also to establish meaningful measures that will show us how we are doing. With tangible results, I think it is easier to convince people that we are on the right track. One final thought. Over the last six months, I have had the opportunity get to know the individuals that make up the QCT and must say that we have been in the past and are now very well represented by "quality" individuals who sincerely have the organization's best interest at heart. I hope to eventually be included in this group by living up to their established standards. Bob Benchmarking High Performance Teams by Phyllis Chun What do Walt Disney World, Frito-Lay, and the Eddie Bauer Company have in common? They are all world class-companies that have transformed their work environment into a successful team-oriented operation. The QCT, Jim Hall, and Gary Klinedinst participated in a 2 1/2-day conference on "Benchmarking High Performance Work Teams" in August. Ten companies that produce a wide variety of different products or services described how they approached team implementation, what worked for them, and some of the lessons they learned in the process. In spite of the variety of products and services produced (ranging from "fun" produced by Walt Disney World, to insurance services from AllState Insurance Company), several key requirements for successful teams emerged from all of the presentations. There must be a business need for the change to teams. It won't work if the sole motivation is "It's the right thing to do". Everyone involved must understand WHY an organization is moving to teams. There must be real TRUST among those involved. This means trust between management and staff, AND trust between teams and team members One size does not fit all. Different organizational structures, goals, and end products demand different kinds of teams. Task teams, process teams, functional teams, self directed teams, etc. all have their appropriate place in the team environment. Educate, educate, educate and train, train, train. We cannot expect teams to be successful unless we provide the information, tools, resources, time, and management support to learn and practice their new roles and functions. A system of measurement must be in place. Team members need to know exactly what they are expected to do, and how success will be measured. In fact, successful teams often develop this information for themselves. Teams need direction. They don't need to be told what to do, or how to do it, but they need to have a clear idea about what the goal is. The conference provided many useful ideas for us to consider as we strive for high performance work teams in Federal Lands. Western Federal Lands "FEQAT" by Paul Rettinger When I was asked to write an article on my involvement with the Field Engineering Quality Action Team (FEQAT) for the FLH Quality newsletter, I had to struggle with doubts. My mind told me "You don't have time" or "you'll look foolish" and "it won't make a difference". These are the same messages that came up when considering whether to join in the TQM process. I am sure some of the people who will read this piece have gone through similar battles. All I can say is that for me the last few years have been exciting, hard, challenging, and worth it all. The FEQAT was formed approximately a year after the commitment by FLH to implementing and supporting TQM within this agency. The FEQAT vision is "an organization inspired with teamwork, pride and dedication". Our mission is "To identify field concerns, improve inter-branch communications, and implement solutions". So what does that mean without all the buzz words? We care about each other. We care about the work we do. If there is a problem, lets find out what it is and fix it. Let's talk to each other and work together. The FEQAT is a group of employees that are elected by the construction field engineering pool on an annual basis. Participation is noncompulsory. There are six field representatives, who are spread from the GS-5 to GS-12 level. The Deputy Division Engineer (QAT sponsor), and the Construction Resource Manager are also on the team. The success of this team would never have been possible without the combined commitment by FLH management, the Division Engineer, and the "on the line" employees to make a difference. The team has addressed topics which, prior to TQM, would have been considered "Taboo" or politically incorrect. Some of the issues which the FEQAT has worked on are: Method of determining Per Diem. Field morale. Electronic progress estimates for construction projects. Communications between Construction and Project Development. Construction Manuals. Sample field notes for the contractors. Winter training needs. Coordination with ADP on construction/field computer needs. Construction project signs (identify FHWA to the public). FEQAT meetings are held an average of every 2 months, with longer breaks during the summer construction peak periods. The meetings typically last a full day, and are facilitated by a different team member each time. Another of the members takes notes of the meeting, develops the minutes of the meeting, and these minutes are distributed to the rest of the engineering pool. Each team member represents about nine engineering pool employees. The team members are encouraged to actively talk to the nine employees which they represent, and provide an active two-way communication channel between the team and the employees. The team regularly invites guests to the meetings from the Division Office. Past guests have been from ADP, Design, Administration, and Construction. A survey was conducted in 1993 by the FEQAT to determine how the engineering pool employees felt we were doing. The response was overwhelmingly positive. The feeling within the team is that we are making a beneficial difference. Employees can see in their everyday lives the positive impacts that this team has generated, facilitated or even just brought to focus. Often a small "fix" to little problem can have enormous benefit. Perhaps the clearest benefit of the FEQAT to this agency in general and the engineering pool in particular may be the clear lines of communication. Good communication is the essential key to success for this or any group. When possible, the FEQAT in Western Federal Lands sends a member to the FPQAT (in Central Federal Lands) meetings to enhance inter-divisional communications. One outcome of this QAT "sharing" is that CFL has made available their video library (300+/- tapes) to WFL. Additionally, the solution to Per Diem problems developed by Western's FEQAT were adopted by CFL. An old saying goes like this: "There are three kinds of people, those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wonder what happened". Changes in how we do business, solve problems, and manage our lives will happen with or without our input. Its good to know that in FLH we have the opportunity to choose which one of the three types of people we want to be. September EQC Meeting Top priority agenda items at the September meeting of the FLH's Executive Quality Council included the proposed FLH Organization Study, National Performance Review Streamlining, Strategic Business Plan, Division Action Plans, and Self-managed Teams. Since the theme of this newsletter is teamwork, the following is excerpted from Jim Hall's handout to the EQC. It was put together by Scott Rustay. Please note that one of the results of the EQC's discussion of the subject was to call these, "Self Managed Teams" because the term "Self-Directed" suggests more than FLH is able to deliver under current laws and regulations. The EQC also decided to nominate at least one self-managed team in each field division and in headquarters. This is to be done at the November EQC meeting. A self-directed team (or a self-managing team or high-involvement work group) can be defined as "a group of employees (anywhere from 5 to 15 on average) who are responsible for a whole product or process. The team plans the work and performs it, managing many of the things supervision or management used to do." (Source: Skill Building for Self-directed Team Members, by Ann and Bob Harper). A self-directed team is a "functional group of employees (typically 6 to 10); sharing responsibility for a particular unit of production (including unit of service or information); cross-trained in technical skills; having authority to plan, implement, and control all work processes; having clearly defined responsibility for scheduling, quality, and costs. They may assume responsibilities for performance reviews, hiring, and training." (Source: Career Track course on implementing self-directed work teams). "A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable." (Source: The Wisdom of Teams, by Katzenbach and Smith). Eastern Federal Lands PAT (PMT) Status Report by Jim Amenta In the Spring issue of FLH Quality News I reported the facts related to the PAT process. [See the note on the PMT vs. PAT nomenclature in the article beginning on Page 2.] Well, here it is 6 months later and where do we stand now? I have some good news. The PAT process reviews are alive and thriving in all three divisions. Eastern has completed two more PAT's at this time and a third is due for completion in November. This initiative has been the focus of quality improvements at the division level over the past two years. The reason being the benefits reaped from the results. Let me give you some more hard hitting facts. Remember I said that the first two PAT's used approximately 27 work weeks (1080 hours) each. The last PAT recently completed (ROW/Utilities) used approximately 17 work weeks (680 hours). This is a 37% reduction in resources from the initial PAT resource usage. The process was modified to fit into our cultural at Eastern. The reduction can also be attributed to the tremendous team effort put forth by the members working as a high powered team with a mission. The PAT process review has become a part of our continuous improvement effort to improve the quality. Another fact is that we decided to look at some of the smaller work units and analyze their processes via a Mini PAT. This Mini PAT reduced the number of PAT sessions from five to three. The same format as the full scale PAT's were followed but were compressed into three meetings. The process wasn't as involved as the larger processes, such as Bridge. The Mini PAT selected was the Bridge Inspection Program (BIP). This PAT used only 7.7 work weeks of resources. This resulted in a 71% reduction in resource utilization versus the initial PAT's. Even though the scope of work was reduced, the same results were achieved. Perspectives of the PAT (PMT) Processes by Charmaine Farrar These are my perspectives since becoming the Process Owner of the Surveys and Mapping Process in March of 1994. Positives The Surveys & Mapping PAT [See the note on PMT vs. PAT nomenclature in the article beginning on Page 2.] gave us an incentive to develop a measurement system; with the help of Brenda Povsha I have developed a Historic Survey Work Database that will include most of the information that we need to measure: $ per hour of survey, type of survey, type of terrain, number of regular hours, number of overtime hours, breakdown of total cost into personnel and equipment costs, and planned hours (from the PRMS). This information is collected for in-house, A&E, and our new GPS surveys. The PAT process encouraged us to go ahead with our ideas for technological advancement in the area of surveying and mapping, specifically the GPS. It encouraged us to create a better communication link with our customers. We will be holding a "SURVEYING 101" course in November to help everyone understand how to use the surveying data and how to supply the correct information to the Surveys Office so that they can in turn provide the customers with usefully data. One of the most important positives of the PAT is that it has helped those involved understand our processes better. I learned a great deal about the P&C process when Butch Wlaschin participated on the P&C PAT. Negatives Many of the improvements identified in the Surveys and Mapping process relate to problems in an upstream process of our system -- namely, P&C. This should have been the first PAT. We did it third. The first process in the system must work before all those downstream can work. Management does not seem to be taking the PAT process or results seriously. It appears that they are looking at it as another assignment from Headquarters. I believe this is the best idea that has came out of TQM. Maybe more PATs and less Strategic Planning would be beneficial. The results from the PATs should be driving part of the Strategic plan A lot of time is needed to maintain the measurement systems. We need about 25% more employee time to maintain the systems.