EPA Quality Highlights
"...building blocks to successful environmental management."
January 1993
jQJL.
ADVISORY
GROUP
Office of Human Resources Management
-------
EPA Quality Advisoiy Group
Office of Human Resources Management
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-6241 • FAX: (202) 260-3885
OAG Staff
Lisa Barber
Brad Brittpn
Jim Mangino
Glen Mitchell
John Mullins
Cheryl Requa
Kerry Weiss
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
January 29,1993 OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
r* n . AND RESOURCES
Dear Reader MANAGEMENT
Sometimes it's difficult for those of us involved in working towards a Total Quality
culture at EPA to see the fruits of our labors. We believe that TQM is the right thing to do
and we have heard that some people are experiencing some real successes with it. Quite
frankly, neither the Quality Advisory Group nor the Agency has done a very good job in
communicating these successes. This publication is designed to begin correcting that
deficiency.
Early on, it was decided that there would not be a formal system for reporting on
Quality Action Team (QAT) projects and outcomes because it would be too reminiscent of
all the other mandatory reporting systems that have come and gone during EPA's history.
Individual organizations are aware of and can quantify measurable improvements resulting
from their TQM initiatives, but this is the first attempt at documenting quality improvements
on an Agencywide basis.
There's an old adage that "nothing breeds success like success." I believe that there
is a lot of truth to that saying and we all need to see that what we do makes a positive
difference. However, if we were to focus on successes only, we would be missing the
value of what we can learn from our mistakes -- let's call these "lessons learned." There is
a section in this booklet which discusses some of the lessons we in the Quality Advisory
Group have learned over the past couple of years.
This booklet encompasses only a small sampling of success stories we have come
across; we know there are many more throughout EPA waiting to be reported on. A group
of Quality Coordinators is currently developing a process to gather these stories so that we
can periodically pull them together and report on them in publications similar to this. In the
mean time, we would like your help. If you know of a success story or a lesson learned
that others should hear about, please submit them to us using the process provided in
Appendix A.
We hope you find this booklet of value. Any suggestions for improvement are
welcome, please send them to us as part of responding to our Satisfaction Survey which is
included as Appendix F. What you tell us in this survey will help us plan the frequency
and content of future communications.
Kerry M. Weiss, Director
Quality Advisory Group
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed on paper that contains
at hast 75% fscydod liber
-------
Contents
I. Lessons Learned
A compilation of some of the lessons the Quality Advisory Group
has learned either through first-hand experience or through observation.
For the most part, these lessons tend to focus on operational issues that
affect the performance of Quality Action Teams. "Big picture" issues such
as leadership, quality planning and deployment, communication and other
"ingredients" necessary for the successful implementation of TQM are
touched on lightly. We hope to address these important issues in future
communications and possibly through offering advanced training
opportunities. The items presented in this section are in random sequence
and are provided as general guidance and should not be taken as absolutes
that hold true in all situations.
II. Successes
These are a few of the stories the QAG has learned about. A
majority of the reported successes are those that have been completed,
implemented and have quantifiable results; however, we've also included a
few particularly promising projects that are near completion and some
statistics about our TQM training effort. Within those three categories the
stories appear in random order. If you wish to learn more about any of
these, the contact's name and phone number are included.
III. Appendices
A. How to Submit a Success Story or Lesson Learned
B. Guidelines for Chartering a Quality Action Team
C. EPA Quality Coordinators
D. Stages of Team Development
E. Sample Ground Rules
F. Satisfaction Survey
-------
I. Lessons Learned
• Selecting those first few projects . . .
After going through quality training it is often tempting to ask organization staff for
ideas on how to improve. Inevitably, a number of the ideas relate to organization culture
and what might be called "social issues." Issues such as poor communications among
staff, poor management, insufficient resources, etc. are very difficult to apply quality
problem-solving approaches to, especially when you're new at TQM. While it's OK to ask
the staff for ideas on where to apply TQM, there is nothing wrong with senior management
choosing the projects to work on. In any case, for the first few applications of TQM, try to
select projects based on the following checklist:
It's an existing process
. The process can be flowcharted
"V Specific start and stop points in the process can be identified
\ You control the process (or most of it)
\ The process causes sufficient "pain" that makes it worth the effort
y A process owner can be identified
You'll know improvement if you see it (e.g., reduced cycle time, lower
resource investment, fewer complaints, etc.)
You can identify the customer(s) of the process
The process can be studied in a relatively short period of time (2 -3
months perhaps)
• Keep Quality Action Teams small . . .
With TQM's tenants of "total involvement" and "customer focus" we sometimes
think that for a QAT to be effective it should include many people, including customers.
This is not the case, in fact, too large a team can yield less impressive results than assigning
the project to an individual. Current literature suggests that a team of five is the most
effective. Experience demonstrates that groups with ten or more people tend not to reach
consensus very well and often fail to really come together as a high performing team. It's
the team's responsibility to involve others (customers included) by collecting data from
them and by consciously working to build support for the effort and for the
recommendations.
• Managers need to be involved in choosing the projects ...
Management's role includes defining what is the "right" thing to do. This should
not be delegated, but we have seen many examples where it has been and as a result, the
Quality Action Team failed to live up to expectations. In summary, management's role
prior to establishing a QAT is to: (1) Identify improvement opportunities; (2) Identify key
customers and suppliers; (3) Establish agreed-upon requirements; and (4) Identify the gaps.
Once the gaps have been identified, then management knows enough to decide whether
further action is warranted and who would be best suited to working on the QAT.
-------
Page 2
• Begin with the end in mind . . .
It's OK to set a goal. Sometimes we think TQM calls for all decisions to be made
by staff with management's role being one of "rubber-stamping" those decisions. This is
not the case. Giving a QAT a goal to shoot for can be very beneficial. If managers have
been involved in selecting a project (as described in the previous paragraph) then they need
to articulate the desired outcome. The focus should be on one or two major outcomes.
These outcomes are not necessarily stated in numerical terms, but can be described using
words like "increase," "decrease" or "sharply decrease." Use numerical goals with great
caution; when they are used, they must never be used as a measure of team performance.
It's also important not to tell the QAT how to reach the goal.
• Put it in writing . . .
It is important that the QAT have a clear sense of what the parameters of the project
are, what resources are available, when they should check in with management, how much
time they have to work on the project and a number of other factors that will impact how
well the team performs. The way to do this is to charter the team as soon as it is
"commissioned." This chartering process often involves some "give and take" with the
team to come to agreement on a final charter. Appendix B provides guidance on
developing a team charter.
• Patience please . . .
Unless team members have worked together before, it's going to take some time for
the members to really perform as a team and start to produce. Management needs to give
them sufficient time to "get it together." Teams generally go through four phases: form,
storm, norm and perform. Even when a group reaches the "perform" stage, it may slip
back to a less mature stage during times of high stress; this is normal. Appendix D
provides detailed information about these stages of team development.
• Special QAT roles . . .
Effective QATs generally have a Team Leader and a Quality Advisor along with the
other team members. These two people have very specific and distinct responsibilities
which makes it difficult and risky to have one person serve in both roles. Their roles are:
•• Team Leader: The Team Leader is normally a more senior level
person (may or may not be a supervisor or manager) who has day-to-day involvement with
the process under review. This person's job is to provide direction to the team, serve as a
communication link with management, attain resources when needed, track team progress,
make assignments and plan (with the Quality Advisor) team meetings.
•• Quality Advisor: The Quality Advisor (often called a "Team
Facilitator") need not have any substantive knowledge of the process under review; in fact,
he/she can be from another organization. It is important that the team believe in the Quality
Advisor's neutrality. This person is responsible for facilitating the team, making sure the
proper tools are used, keeping the team on track, helping team members reach consensus
and working with the Team Leader to plan meetings.
-------
Page3
NOTE: The Quality Advisory Group is working on a course to teach team
leadership and facilitation skills. We hope to have this course available in late winter or
early spring. Currently, there is no "Quality Advisor Cadre" to draw on so if you need a
Quality Advisor we suggest you look for someone who is a certified TQM course facilitator
and has strong interpersonal skills. Contact your Quality Coordinator for assistance in
identifying potential Quality Advisors (see Appendix C).
• Prep time is important . . .
Each QAT meeting needs to be carefully planned. Normally, the team leader and
quality advisor should spend at least as much time planning the meeting as the expected
length of the meeting. The planning should result in a detailed agenda and meeting goals.
• Rules of the road . . .
Effective QATs have agreed upon rules that govern their actions — these are
commonly referred to as "ground rules." To assure ownership, the team must develop and
adopt then- own rules rather than simply use a set of "off-the-shelf rules. Ground rules
typically address such topics as: how consensus is reached, the "code of conduct" among
team members, responsibilities between meetings, attendance at meetings, how agendas are
developed, enforcement of rules, documentation of meetings and other factors that the
group thinks important to support team performance. Ground rules are usually developed
and adopted in the first QAT meeting. Appendix E is a copy of the ground rules the Deputy
Leadership Team abides by.
• Ready, Fire, Aim . . .
All too often in our rush to complete a project, we skip crucial steps. In particular,
we have noticed that some QATs don't spend sufficient time collecting and analyzing the
data necessary to develop sound recommendations. Instead of following EPA's problem-
solving process of "Focus, Analyze, Develop, Execute" all the way through, many teams
tend to jump from "Focus" to the later stages of "Develop." Real break-through changes
rarely result from teams that take short cuts. In addition, there tends to be heavy reliance
on brainstorming and multivoting. While these two tools are valuable and have their place,
few process reviews will be really successful without including the tools of flowcharting
and Pareto analysis. We encourage you to go back to your training material and review the
FADE problem-solving process and apply it rigorously - it will be well worth the effort.
• Program development and planning, the right tools for the right job . . .
Much of our work in EPA involves developing new programs and systems and
management planning (e.g., strategic planning). Although the traditional problem-solving
tools (i.e., the ones you learned in quality training) can be somewhat helpful in these
efforts, they are not the best tools to use. There is a second generation of tools that are
much more useful hi development and planning efforts, they are called the "Seven
Management and Planning Tools." If you're interested in learning more about these tools,
get a copy of "The Memory Jogger Plus+" by Michael Brassard. You can order it from
GOAL/QPC, 13 Branch Street, Methuen, MA, 01844, phone number 508-685-3900.
-------
Page 4
• Individual initiative ...
TQM is not the exclusive realm of Quality Action Teams. Individuals can make a
big difference simply by keeping a few key principles in mind, they are:
•• Decision By Fact: Whenever possible, back up your decisions and
suggestions with factual information.
•• Continuous Improvement: Everything can be improved. Our
challenge is to identify areas where improvement efforts can provide the largest return
(Pareto analysis) and then take action to make improvements.
•• Focus on the Customer: No single action is more important than
getting a clear sense of what our customer wants and then acting on that knowledge. Take
the time to identify your customers (they may be working at the desk next to you or right
across the hall) and ask them the three key questions you learned in your quality training
course: (1) What do you need from me? (2) What do you do with what I give you? and
finally (3) What are the gaps between wha.t you need and what I give you? Engage your
suppliers in a similar dialogue. Develop a habit of keeping in touch with your customers
and suppliers and you'll be surprised by how much the quality of your work will improve.
• Celebrate successes, even the little ones . . .
We tend to wait until the end of a successful project to acknowledge the good work
we've done. Why wait until the end? Every successful effort is made up of a number of
smaller steps which need to be done well. Celebrate the completion of those smaller steps;
it will help motivate the team and provide a sense of progress. The celebration may be as
simple as a round of applause. Use your imagination.
* Share the wealth and steal shamelessly ...
The biggest improvements from TQM come from improvements that can be
replicated in other organizations. The next section of this booklet lists some success stories
- there's a good chance that you'll see at least one improvement in there that can be applied
in your organization. Don't be afraid to take improvements made by others and custom-
tailor them to help improve processes in your organization (this is a form of bench
marking). In addition, we encourage you inform us of your improvements so that others
can take advantage of them (see Appendix A).
• Learn from mistakes . . .
One of the hallmarks of a quality organization is that it views mistakes as
opportunities. However, they can only become opportunities if we are willing to
acknowledge them, analyze what went wrong and build the lessons learned into future
actions. Much of the material in this section is drawn from mistakes that either we have
been directly involved in or have witnessed. We will all mess up from time-to-time, let's
take full advantage of our mistakes so that they don't occur twice. Please see Appendix A
on how to share your lessons learned with a broader audience.
-------
PageS
• Quality is real work . . .
During the early stages of implementing TQM many organizations treat it as an add-
on to the normal work of an organization. Teams are encouraged to meet over lunch, work
on weekends and otherwise focus on quality after the regular work is under control.
Although this attitude is to be expected, if left unchecked, it will ultimately lead to lower
morale, higher burn-out and a lack of true progress with quality. We all need to
incorporate quality techniques and philosophy into everything we do — if a project is worth
doing, it's worth doing well. When setting up a QAT, make sure to adjust priorities and
expectations so that the team has sufficient "on-line" time to make progress in its efforts.
• Set a vision . . .
How does an organization know where it's going or what success looks like if it
doesn't have an agreed to destination? Each organization should have a vision statement
which succinctly states what it will look like or how it will be viewed when it's operating at
peak performance. For example: We will be acknowledged by our peers as the best
information management support office in Government, or Our customers will look to us
as their premiere source for environmental compliance assistance. Generally, the
management of an organization will draft the vision statement and then work to build
consensus and enthusiasm for it with the organization's staff. Once a vision is in place,
you can check work and initiatives to see whether they support your organization's
movement towards that vision, if not, you have reason to question whether the activity is
worthwhile.
-------
Page 6
II. Successes
Completed Improvement Efforts
» Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model: At the beginning of FY '92, EPA
was strongly criticized for the slow pace of Superfund "completions" (63 completions
during 1980 - 1991) and for high overhead charges by pur cleanup contractors.
Headquarters and regional teams used quality principles to simplify cleanup procedures and
strengthen contractor performance. (Contact: Henry Longest, OSWER, 260-2180)
Results
1991 1992
Cumulative completions: 63 149
% overhead contractor charges 30-40% 14%
* Publication Management: EPA produces nearly 10,000 publications and
information packets. Copies of these materials are frequently provided to interested citizens
with an average monthly distribution of over a half a million. Publications used to be
housed by their originators. This led to much public confusion and frustration (a
librarian's convention featured a paper entitled "How to get a publication from EPA with 18
phone calls or less"). Using quality principles, a team identified practical solutions to the
problems associated with publication management. Based on the team's work, distribution
has been centralized at the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
in Cincinnati and the entire process has been streamlined. (Contact: William Henderson,
OARM, 513-569-7910))
Results
1991 1992
Average cycle time 60 days 2 days
Contact points multiple one
• Permits Cycle Time Reduction: In 1990, internal and external customers of
the RCRA permits Branch were dissatisfied with the lengthy time periods it took to finalize
RCRA/HSWA permits. A quality action team worked to standardize the process and
created a "paperless permit" which is run on personal computers. In addition to reducing
cycle time, this improvement has also allowed staff to concentrate on permit quality,
customer alignment, community relations, document filing and continuous improvement.
(Contact: Arnold Ondarza, Region 6,214-655-6790)
Results
1991 1992
Average number of days to finalize
RCRA/HSWA permits 69 15
-------
Page?
• RCRA Report Reduction: Region 5 routinely was sending each of its states
voluminous RCRA computerized status reports every quarter. As an individual quality
initiative, a secretary questioned if anyone ever used these printouts. She checked with her
state "customers" and confirmed that indeed no one read these reports. Empowered by her
supervisor, she now sends them precisely what they want on just a few pages. (Contact:
Kathy Gunn, Region 5,312-353-3405)
Results
Savings of 90,000 pages a year.
• Drinking Water Enforcement Procedure Streamlining: Region 10 was
concerned that too much time elapsed between initiation and issuance of drinking water
enforcement actions. Using quality principles, it was determined that excessive time was
consumed by cumbersome procedures and guidance, the need to verify and correct
inaccurate data, too many reviewers and concurrences, and mistakes leading to rework.
The notice of violation (NOV) format was simplified dramatically and no longer docketed;
NOVs are now based on the Federal Reporting Data Systems and no longer dependent on
the receipt of state files; and the Office of Region Counsel no longer reviews or concurs on
every administrative order since they approved the standard format and procedure.
(Contact: Jan Hastings, Region 10,206-553-8414)
Results
Cycle time reduced by 50 - 75%.
• Reducing Freedom of Information Act Appeals: In January 1991, the
Office of General Counsel began Operation FADE (Operation FOIA Appeals Declining
Effort) with an inventory of 489 FOIA appeals pending resolution. Operation FADE was
an evolving concept which had been influenced by staff suggestions, TQM training and a
commitment by involved staff to its goal of reducing the number of appeals. (Contact:
Andrew Moran, OGC, 260-5460)
Results
Jan. 1991 Dec. 1991 Apr. 1992
Inventory of
FOIA Appeals 489 326 275
• Phoning Made Easier: An Office of Emergency and Remedial Response QAT
looked into the issue where support staff often find themselves without the means to
accurately refer incoming telephone calls. Communication between EPA support staff and
callers (customers) had been impeded by the lack of necessary tools and information to
successfully refer questions regarding the Superfund program. This can leave both the
caller and EPA employee feeling frustrated. OERR has traditionally issued telephone lists
and organizational charts that contain an employee's name and telephone number.
Consequently, difficulty arose in translating Superfund acronyms and technical information
into lay terms and tracking down the appropriate individual. The QAT suggested the
creation of a telephone referral guide based on functional areas of responsibility and an
emphasis on maintaining a helpful attitude and providing the service that a caller expects.
The guide is intended to support the goal of 100% accuracy of referrals on the first call.
-------
Page 8
The telephone referral guide is a living document that is durable and provides space for
most frequently used telephone numbers. (Contact: Juanita Standifer, OERR, 260-6691)
Results
Much higher rate of correct referrals on the first customer call.
• Cost Recovery Streamlining: The length of time needed to prepare cost
packages results in a reduced quality of packages produced in any time period. This makes
it difficult to obtain a package by the required date and results in involved offices having to
plan cost recovery efforts earlier in the fiscal year. Using quality principles, a QAT
developed regional policies and procedures, trained participants and automated time sheets.
(Contact: Lance Richman, Region 2,212-264-6695)
Results
Cost packages can be produced in a shorter period of time.
Production of an increased number of packages within any given time period.
Increased cost recovery via litigation and settlements.
Easier to meet statute of limitations dates.
Greater number of referrals to Department of Justice.
Enhanced working relations among involved parties.
• Stretching State Grant Money: Using quality principles, members of
Region 10's Environmental Services Division launched a project designed to eliminate
waste and promote greater efficiency in the Region's air monitoring program. An
important milestone was reached when the team received Headquarter's approval for
waiving certain monitoring requirements that had little merit from the perspective of public
health and environmental protection. Not only has this waiver saved the states grant funds,
but it greatly enhanced Region 10's partnerships with the states it serves. (Contact: Jon
Schweiss, Region 10, 206-553-1690)
Results
State grantees are saving an estimated $100,000 per year.
• Targeted Permit Oversight: Traditionally, the Region 3 reviewed 100% of
major permits issued by the State in Pennsylvania. The state had been delegated
responsibility for issuing permits for 13 years and the Region questioned whether this
100% review was really necessary. A QAT looked into this and recommended that specific
targeted categories be reviewed instead of the entire permit. This limited review still
achieves up to 94% of the environmental benefit as results from a total review. With the
Regional resources saved, more effort is invested in other, more pressing, environmental
initiatives, such as biomonitoring, stormwater and sludge. (Contact: Robert Koroncai,
Region 3,215-597-6541)
Results
80% reduction in staff time applied to permit review process.
-------
Page 9
• Pretreatment Permits Streamlining: Region 6 was concerned that it takes
too long and there are too many delays in getting modification approvals from the Region
incorporated into cities' pretreatment permits. A QAT was established to look at these
issues and found that poor communications were primarily responsible for the delays. A
permittee checklist developed by the QAT ensures the modification packages are complete
before submittal, along with instructions that partial submittals will be returned to the
permittee for correct completion. The new procedures provide for timely, sound
pretreatment program updates while freeing staff time to focus on the actual environmental
impacts sustained from industrial user discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works or
water quality standards violations. (Contact: Lee Bohme, Region 6,214-655-7175)
Results
Before After
Average modification review
cycle time 3 years 6 months
• EPA's Information Products for the Public: The Office of
Communications, Education and Public Affairs led an Agencywide QAT to develop a
process for preventing embarrassing information from being provided (by EPA) to the
public. The team invested considerable work into prevention of mistakes by developing a
detailed guide on how to produce products for the public, by providing training and
consulting services to Agency offices and by setting up a fast-turnaround review process
for final drafts. (Contact: Helga Butler, OA, 260-4724)
Results
1991 1992
Publications with major substantive
inaccuracies and product duplications 6 0
• Personnel Services Made Easier: EPA's Las Vegas Human Resources
Office has been concerned about customer satisfaction for a long time. Some time ago,
they began to measure customer satisfaction after every personnel action by having the
customer complete a short satisfaction form. Based on customer feedback, face-to-face
interaction with customers and the application of quality principles, the HR staff created
several easy to use booklets to help managers deal with common, but sometimes difficult
personnel situations. Two of those popular booklets include "Recruitment Made E-Zer!"
and "Dealing With A Problem Employee." The Las Vegas HR staff continues to monitor
customer satisfaction even though they already enjoy high marks. (Contact: Art Sandoval,
OARM, 312-886-2407)
Customer Satisfaction Results
Report Report
Period 1 Period 2
Satisfaction with timeliness of
personnel actions 90.4% 95%
Satisfaction with quality of HR services 94% 94.7%
Satisfaction with being kept informed
of personnel action status 85.5% 90.2%
-------
Page 10
• Paying On Time: A QAT in the National Contract Payment Division (NCPD)
in OARM reduced late payments and interest payments to vendors and increased savings by
obtaining vendor discounts for prompt payment of invoices. NCPD has been recognized
for its accomplishments by receiving the President's Council on Management Improvement
Quality Award. (Contact: Willis Greenstreet, OARM, 919-541-2258)
Results
Over $600,000 saved in a two-year period.
• Training Made Easier: A QAT in the EPA Training Institute was concerned
that the process used for applying for training courses was overly burdensome on the
customers. With the application of TQM principles, the QAT managed to streamline the
process significantly. (Contact: Renelle Rae, OARM, 260-3297)
Results
Before After
Number of steps to complete training
form for external training 22 11
Number of steps to apply for in-house
training 10 1
• Reducing Advice of Allowance (AOA) Cycle Time: A Region 5 QAT
addressed the issue of flexible funding for Advice of Allowance actions. The QAT
proposed and received management approval for the following improvements: eliminate
duplication of effort; use concurrent rather than a sequential approval process; use
electronic mail for Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Plan amendments; and
placement of more trust in the "experts." (Contact: Jody Troud, Region 5, 312-353-9773)
Results
Before After
Average AOA cycle time 33.5 days 5 days
Reduction of reprogramming actions NA 82%
Region 5 FTE reduction NA . 7
OSWERFTE reduction NA 1-2
• Water Program Exceeds Enforcement Targets: A Region 3 QAT was
formed to decrease the time and resources necessary to issue enforcement action against
water systems violators. The team focused on eliminating rework which prevented
enforcement actions from getting "out the door" in a timely fashion. At the time, the
Drinking Water Program was meeting only 80% of its target for issuing enforcement
actions. The team implemented a number of improvements which streamlined the process
greatly. (Contact: Al Morris, Region 3,215-597-9410)
Results
Before After
Average final order issuance cycle time 62 days .. 6 days
Average % enforcement actions
target met 80% 150%
-------
Page 11
• Using TQM Techniques to Manage Meetings: Several EPA organizations
have had great success in using quality tools and techniques to plan and facilitate meetings
with external customers. Some of the following remarks from EPA customers are
illustrative:
"The meeting and presentation was different from meetings in the past it was
refreshing and we left with good feelings about the task ahead and with a positive attitude."
"I really felt that EPA was interested in what we had to say. I'll be speaking with
my colleagues to encourage them to work with the Agency."
"I found the meeting to be well organized, open, and productive.... During the
meeting there was an earnest attempt to get all comments and ideas on the table."
Meetings Referenced
•• Region 1 meeting with New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture. (Contact:
Stephen Perkins, Region 1,617-565-3355)
•• Grants Administrative Division meeting with American Indian
representatives. (Contact: Gary Katz, OARM, 260-5240)
•• EPA Watershed '93 Conference. (Contact: Louise Wise, OW, 260-7166)
• The Tissue Issue: Region 5's Office of Superfund which has 21
organizational units established a Tissue Issue QAT. Data was collected on the amount of
correspondence generated in the office and the usefulness of carbon copies ("tissues").
The data revealed that most tissue copies are not looked at again. Approximately 45 pieces
of correspondence are generated each month with an average of two pages and four tissues
each. Each secretary spends an average of 5 minutes running off and assembling tissues,
and another 5 minutes sorting/filing tissues after correspondence is signed. The office
instituted procedures to eliminate all tissues. (Contact: Kathy Gunn, Region 5,312-353-
3405)
Results
An average savings of over 90,000 tissues per year.
Approximately 9 FTE of staff-hours saved per year.
• Improvement in LIDAR Reliability: The Office of Enforcement's National
Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) in Denver used quality principles and a
problem-solving team to identify and execute solutions to problems that were impacting the
reliability of the LIDAR system. The LIDAR, a truck-mounted instrument for measuring
smoke opacity from industrial point sources, was experiencing operational problems. After
using quality principles to identify the root causes of laser malfunction and research
alternative solutions, the team recommended laser refurbishment over replacement and
specified areas to be upgraded. (Contact: Gene Lubieniecki, OE-NEIC, 303-236-5124)
Results
$30,000 saved in equipment costs.
LIDAR reliability enhanced quicker than expected.
-------
Page 12
Partnering With Our Customers . . .
• State Capacity Building • Region 7: Early in 1992, Region 7 asked
Missouri to consider participating in a QAT streamlining effort to speed up funding of
leaking underground storage tank cleanups. The state accepted stating "it is much more
palatable to focus on what we can do better than to focus on all that is wrong or
inadequate." In addition to receiving the Governor's Award for Productivity Improvement,
the group substantially reduced the funding cycle time. (Contact: Charles Hensley, Region
7,913-551-7519))
Results
1991 1992
Funding cycle time 6 months 2 weeks
• Tennessee Streamlines UST Corrective Action Process - Region 4:
With EPA encouragement to apply TQM to Tennessee's environmental protection
processes, state employees used quality principles to make significant improvements to the
state's UST Corrective Action Process. (Contact: David Hamnett, OSWER, 308-8880)
Results
Before After
Average cycle time to produce
cleanup plan 2 years 4 months
Staff hour savings NA 9,000 (4.3 FTE)
• Illinois Streamlines UST Cleanup Permits Issuance Process -
Region 5: With the help of Region 5's TQM-trained UST staff, the Illinois State Fire
Marshal's office looked at its process for issuing leaking underground storage tanks
cleanup permits. (Contact: Kathy Gunn, Region 5,312-353-3405)
Results
Before After
Average permit issuance cycle time 8-9 weeks 2.5 weeks
• Texas Error-Free Data, Region 6: The Texas Water Commission (TWC)
had too many errors in data submitted by hazardous waste handlers and too much time
taken from data submission to computer entry. With technical and grant assistance from
Region 6, a TWC team made recommendations to reduce the errors in data submission by
hazardous waste handlers and the time required from data submission to computer entry.
The recommendations included developing an electronic bulletin board for reporting, using
an optical scanner and developing an education/outreach program. (Contact: Allyn Davis,
Region 6,214-655-6700)
Results
An estimated savings of $43,000 per year.
-------
Page 13
• Minnesota LUST Program Improvements - Region 5: In cooperation
with Region 5, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) determined that a
mounting number of underground storage tank leaks and huge amounts of money required
to perform corrective actions led to an unexpected increase in workload that could not be
handled by the current process. MPCA first brought staff and management together to
form quality teams to choose the top problem areas that presented glaring opportunities for
program improvement and work on them. Staff redesigned the program and changes were
made within MPCA with a good deal of success. The workload is now manageable as the
number of sites MPCA is able to process has dramatically increased. Program performance
is continuously measured and talking with consultants and contractors is common practice.
A good rapport with the regulated community has also been established. (Contact: Kathy
Gunn, Region 5, 312-353-3405)
Results
1988 1991
Average elapsed time to approve a
corrective action design 546 days 82 days
• California RCRA Authorization Project - Region 9: On August 1,
1992, EPA authorized the State of California to operate the RCRA program. In order to
assure a successful transfer of responsibility for this program, Region 9 initiated a joint
implementation planning effort with the state. Working in equal partnership, EPA and state
staff used quality principles to: (1) Identify the most critical issues related to authorization;
(2) Develop solutions to resolve these issues; and (3) Prepare a transition plan to implement
die recommendations. In addition to effecting a smooth transfer of RCRA authority, this
joint project created an atmosphere of open and complete communication between EPA and
California. (Contact: Tom Webb, Region 9,415-744-1631)
Results
Development of a comprehensive transition plan.
Clarification of California's new roles and responsibilities.
Early identification and solutions to potential barriers to implementation.
Improved working relationship between Region 9 and California.
Improvement Efforts in Process
The Deputy Leadership Team and the Quality Improvement Board have
commissioned a number of improvement efforts directed at Agency core processes. A core
process is one that directly impacts virtually every organization within the Agency. Over
the past months, EPA has begun to apply quality principles to a number of these processes
with the prospect of making substantial improvements to them. Some of these efforts
include:
• Regulatory Development: The goal of this initiative is to reduce cycle
time and improve the consensus process for Agencywide decision making. (Contact:
Wendy Cleland-Hamnet, OPPE, 260-4335)
-------
Page 14
• Human Resources Alignment: This^effort consists of four separate
areas of focus: (1) Management development; (2) Position classification; (3) Performance
management; and (4) Rewards and recognition. The overall purpose is to streamline
operations and to align personnel system to TQM principles and the core values of the
Agency. (Contact: Ken Wright, OARM, 260-3271)
• Customer Strategy, Track II: The purpose of this project is to
design, develop and implement a systematic customer satisfaction system which will be
used to measure the effectiveness of the Agency's products and services. (Contact: Stan
Laskowski, Region 3,215-597-9812)
• Environmental Goals: Continuing a project originally staffed by a
task force of office directors, the DLT is overseeing an initiative to design, develop and
implement a new goal oriented measurement system which will be used to measure the
effectiveness of our environmental programs. (Contact: Wendy Cleland-Hamnet, OPPE,
260-4335)
• Permitting Process: The purpose of this effort is to design a
streamlined approach for issuing the various types of environmental permits that EPA and
states are responsible for. Currently, all 10 regions and two program offices have
demonstration projects underway. (Contact: Pam Herman, OPPE, 260-4335)
TOM Training
EPA has made significant progress in educating its work force to enable it to apply
the quality methodology to the work of the Agency. Some of the major accomplishments
in this area include:
• Current Curriculum: EPA has two courses that make up its current
TQM training curriculum; one course is for managers and Agency leaders and the other is
for the remainder of the EPA population. Rollout of these courses began in May of 1991
and since then nearly 8,000 people have gone through them. Within me first 6 months of
course rollout, over 90% of the senior mangers took the Executive Quality Course which
was instrumental in creating the necessary conditions for changing the work culture of the
Agency. (Contact: Quality Advisory Group, 260-6241)
• State Outreach: EPA's quality courses have been so successful that
several state environmental organizations are planning to use them as their core quality
courses. Some states have even had facilitators trained to deliver the courses. In a very
real way, this contributes to the Agencywide emphasis on building state capacity. (Contact:
Quality Advisory Group, 260-6241)
• Facilitator Development: Critical to the success of the TQM training
effort was the development of a team of respected Agency managers and employees who
would actually deliver the courses. The decision was made early on to use EPA employees
rather than contractors to deliver the training because the training would be better received
from our own people and it could be delivered much more cost-effectively. Since the
inception of the quality courses, more people have been trained to deliver them than for any
other courses in Agency history. At last count, 327 EPA employees have been
successfully developed as TQM Training Facilitators. Not only have these people done an
-------
Page 15
exemplary job of delivering the training, but they have also served as role models in their
own organizations as quality leaders. (Contact: Quality Advisory Group, 260-6241)
• New Course Development: The very success of the core quality
courses has made it clear that advanced training is required to support the continued
expansion of EPA's quality initiative. Over the past several months, work has been
underway on the development of two additional courses; one to teach people how to lead
and facilitate teams and the other to give supervisors and managers the necessary
knowledges and skills to support team work. (Contact: Quality Advisory Group, 260-
6241)
-------
Appendix A
How to Submit a Success Storv
or
Lesson Learned
1. Indicate whether your submission is a "Success Story" or "Lesson Learned."
2. If it's a Success Story, provide succinct information addressing the following:
a. Project Tide
b. Key Contact (name, organization, phone number)
c. Problem Statement
d. Process Used (brief description of analytical approach and TQM tools used)
e. Results (quantify if possible, e.g., cycle time reduction, dollars/FTE saved, etc.)
f. Key Customer(s)
g. Team Members (designate which members served as team leader and facilitator)
3. It it's a Lesson Learned, please address the following:
a. Brief Background Statement
b. What Was Learned
c. Advice to Others Based on What You Learned
4. Return Success Story or Lesson Learned by:
a. FAX: Quality Advisory Group - "Stories"
202-260-3885
b. Interoffice Mail: Quality Advisory Group - "Stories"
(PM-224)
c.Mail: U.S. EPA (PM-224)
Quality Advisory Group - "Stories"
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
NOTE: This process is subject to change based on the work of a Quality Coordinator
Process Development Team.
-------
Appendix B
Guide for Chartering a
Quality Action Team
Steering Committee Chair(s): Steering Committee Members:
Team Leaden Team Members:
Facilitator:
Desired Result: In this section, what we want to do is:
1. Clarify expectations
2. Identify key needs to meet
3. Establish time frames/schedule checkpoints
4. Set priorities
5. Make mutual commitments
Guidelines: In this section, what we want to do is:
1. Agree on the principles and values of the task
2. Identify the "No-No's" failure paths
3. Identify examples of success
4. Identify resources (people, budget, space, etc.)
5. Identify policies and procedures that should be observed
Resources: hi this section, what we want to do is:
1. Agree on the financial, human, and technical resources available to the
group
2. Agree on organizational and systems support
3. Agree on communications style, content, frequency
4. Confirm the role of Steering Group as "coach not cop"
Accountability: hi this section, what we want to do is:
1. Agree on standards of performance - how the workgroup will be measured
2. Agree on how results will be evaluated
3. Agree on when and to whom to report progress and difficulties
Consequences: hi this section, what we want to do is:
1. Understand the consequences of success or failure to the individual,
workgroup, and organization
2. Identify rewards and sanctions -- intrinsic and extrinsic
-------
Appendix C
Quality Coordinators
Name
Butler, Helga
Delaney, Maureen
Pritz, Michael
Vacant
Esanu, Diane
Heiss, Bob
Edwards, Eudora
Rdler, Joan
Maloney, Tom
Herman, Pam
Hooven, Tom
Alapas, George
Fill, Gerald
Allinson, Nancy
Alter, John
Perkins, Stephen
Sommerman, Alan
Naylor, Wayne
Koroma, Lala
Gunn, Kathy
Rhea, William
Hensley, Charles
Shank, Pam
Tudisco, Becky
Ward, Micheline
Org.
OA
OAR
OARM
OCLA
OCPA
OE
OGC
OIA
DIG
OPPE
OPTS
ORD
ORO&SLR
OSWER
OW
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
RegionS
Region 6
Region?
Regions
Region 9
Region 10
Phone
202-260-4724
202-260-7431
202-260-1101
202-260-2190
202-260-8786
202-260-8070
202-260-0076
202-260-2234
202-260-4407
202-260-2906
202-260-7500
202-260-4719
202-260-5615
202-260-4315
617-565-3355
212-264-0016
215-597-7808
404-347-3486
312-353-3405
214-655-2160
913-551-7519
303-293-1404
415-744-1533
206-553-0309
FAX
202-260-4852
202-260-5155
202-260-9887
202-260-3522
202-260-7839
202-260-0020
202-260-9653
202-260-6976
202-260-0275
202-260-1847
202-260-0552
202-260-2159
202-260-3527
202-260-7926
617-565-3346
215-597-8255
404-347-0199
312-353-1517
214-655-7257
913-551-7064
303-293-1647
415-744-1476
206-553-6647
Email Box Mail Stop
A101
6000 ANR443
30883 PM208
A107
LE133
LE130M
3568 A106
2069 A109
PM219
7416 TS788
8087 RD674
OS130
WH-556
9110 PAA
3DAOO
Personnel
MP-4J
9600 6AT
9780
8PM-HR
99124 P-6
9020 MD141
Room
1223WT
935WT
G014NE
311WT
112NE
3608-H
1133WT
314NE
1013 WT
635-ART
31 ONE
315SE
El 0008
13015
QC 5.00, previous versions obsolete
print date: 2/2/93, rev. 1
-------
Stages of Team Development
Form - testing and dependence
Storm - conflict
Norm - cohesion
Perform - capability
o*
,1*0
-------
STAGES OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT
What's
Happening
GOAL
TASK
CONCERN
PARTICIPATION
TRUST
FLEXIBILITY
HANDLING
DIFFERENCES
OWNERSHIP
FORM
INFANCY ............ ...
"Count me in*
Orientation
Inclusion
Uneven
Tentative
>
Feedback &
disclosure absent
Minimal risk taking
Easily swayed .,
Cautious
Quiet defiance
Differences played
down
Complaints about
organization or
others
Blaming
Intellectualizing
STORM
* "" *
'We're all in charge"
Organization
Control
Active
Influence
Cliques develop
Hidden agendas
sensed
Testing limits
Limited candor
Low tolerance for
others' input
Conflicting direction
Choosing sides
Bickering
Expressed
differences
Defensiveness
Impatience with
process
Selfish interests
Competition
Struggle for
leadership
NORM
"Speak your mind"
Communication
Openness
More balanced
Encouraging others
Confiding in each
other
Patching up old
conflicts
Personal sharing
Active listening
Willing to let go
Recognize and
discuss differences
High data flow
Sense of team
cohesiveness
Sense of
accomplishment
PERFORM
.i, MATURITY
"Damn, we're goodl"
Collaboration
Success
Balanced
Supportive
Experimentation .
Risk taking
Candor
Divide up tasks
Build on individual
strengths
Go with flow
Respect/yalue
differences
Catalyst for change
High commitment
Leadership shifts
easily
Loyal to group
I
z
-------
TYPICAL TEAM BEHAVIORS
Page D-3
FORM:
STORM;
NORM:
Signs of dependency on the leader or facilitator
Obedient • whatever you say...
Negative feelings may not be expressed publicly - may be privately
Polite and formal chit-chat
What are we to do?
Signs of conflict over leadership, authority, rules and the agenda
Interpersonal disagreement
Verbal/nonverbal resistance
Self-oriented behavior: dominating, withdrawing, blocking, recognition-
seeking
Arguments, counterproposals
Increased frustration
Challenge roles/responsibilities
Giving/receiving feedback
Personal sharing
Play instead of work
Harmonizing, gatekeeping, encouraging, compromising
Establish procedures for handling differences/decisions
Trust and comfort build
PERFORM:
Shift from play to task
Task-supporting roles: initiating, information-seeking, clarifying,
consensus-testing
Interdependence develops
Higfe energy
Have fun working
-------
Appendix E
Page E-l
Sample Ground Rules
(From the Deputy Leadership Team)
1. Ground rules will be posted and each person is responsible for abiding by them and
helping others to do the same; the facilitator is empowered to remind group if rules are
abused. .
2. The DLT will use consensus to set agenda items, define goals and make decisions.
The consensus approach is:
• Discussion and proposed decision
Test (thumbs)
Hear dissenting views
Modify
Dissenters reflect on "consensus box"*
Decide
• "I understand what most of you would like to do. It is not my
first choice, but I feel you understand what my alternative would
be. I have had sufficient opportunity to sway you to my point of
view, but clearly have not been able to do so. Therefore, I can
live with and support what I consider to be an acceptable
solution."
Agenda items are those that:
• The DLT can do
• Advance the DLT goals
• The DLT has control over
• Show a bias for results
3. DLT members will be candid in their discussions of all relevant issues. In their
process, DLT members will:
• Exercise Amnesty
• Respect the diversity of views
• Be honest!
• Individual/group has responsibility
to draw out and deal with above
4. DLT Goals will be:
Realistic, attainable goals (reality check-can we pragmatically do this?)
Limit goals to core agency issues
Relevant to day to day work
Priority given to short-term visible results
Reviewed and updated
Under promise & over deliver
-------
Page E-2
5. Final agenda & support materials will be provided to members one week in advance of
DLT meeting.
6. One hour will be on agenda each day to conduct other agency business among the
deputies.
7. Each agenda item will specify a DLT member as the lead who will ensure appropriate
facilitation, adequate preparation, the process to be used, the time allotted and the
desired outcome.
8. The QAG will maintain a running list of major decisions and review action items and
responsibilities at the end of each meeting.
9. Each DLT member commits before and after meetings to engage in give and take with
staff and AAs/RAs to promote the flow of information and to provide & to receive
direct feedback.
10. Decisions, including interim steps and resource commitments, will be recorded and
considered final once consensus is reached unless re-opened by consensus.
11. DLT members, including the Deputy Administrator, commit to making every effort to
attend all meetings and will:
• Abide by the" 100 mile" rule
• Come to the meetings on time
Actively participate
• Not send substitutes
-------
Appendix F
Page F-l
Satisfaction Survey
Quality Highlights • January 1993
Please take the time to complete this survey. As in all things we do, the voice
of the customer is most important to the members of the Quality Advisory
Group. Based on your comments, we will improve our products and services to
you—our customers. Thank You.
Part 1. Highlights Overall
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being non value added and 5 being value added, how
would you rate the Quality Highlights?
non value added 1 2 3.4 5 value added
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being too little information,3 being just right and 5
being too much information how would you rate this booklet?
too little 1 2 3 4 5 too much
Part 2. Specific Sections
I. Lessons Learned
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being non value added and 5 being value added, how
would you rate the contents of this section?
non value added 12345 value added
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being too little information, 3 being just right and 5
being too much information how would you rate the contents of this section?
too little 12345 too much
II. Successes
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being non value added and 5 being value added, how
would you rate the contents of this section?
non value added 12345 value added
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being too little information, 3 being just right and 5
being too much information how would you rate the contents of this section?
too little 12345 too much
-------
Appendix F
Page F-2
m. Appendices
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being non value added and 5 being value added, how
would you rate the contents of this section?
non value added 12345 value added
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being too little information, 3 being just right and 5
being too much information how would you rate the contents of this section?
too little 1 2 3 4 5 too much
Please provide any specific comments you may have below:
Please detach this survey from the booklet and mail or fax to the following:
U.S. EPA- Quality Advisory Group
Attn: Glen Mitchell (PM-224)
401 M St., SW
Wasnington, DC 20460
FAX: 202-260-3885
------- |