TABLE OF CONTENTS
      Mission	  1
      Definition of Teamwork	  2
      Vision of Teamwork in OPPT	  3
      Methodology	  4
      Literature Review  	  5

      Organization of the Findings	  6
      Findings Related to Organizational Systems	  7
      Findings Related to Line Managers	11
      Findings Related to Team Leaders  	14
      Findings Related to Team Members   	16

      Office Priorities	18
      Team Coordination and Control	19
      Customer Service	22
      Individual Performance  	23
      Cultural Issues  	25
      Implementation Strategy	26


Appendix A  - Details of Recommendations	A - 1

Appendix B - Data and Analysis	B - 1

Appendix C - Bibliography, List of Teamwork QAT Members   	  C - 1


      In February 1992, the Teamwork Quality Action Team (QAT) was formed to address
three items in the OPPT Action Plan developed by Mark Greenwood. These Action Items were:

      1.     How to devise an \incentive structure "for OPPT  managers to  support inter-
             divisional teams.

      2.     How to provide effective feedback from Work Group chairs to OPPT managers
             on the quality of their unit's contribution.

      3.     How to sort out conflicts  among  priorities in the  branches to assure  that the
             Office's agenda is achieved.

      Volunteer QAT participants were  solicited from  all OPPT divisions.  The goal was to
include representatives from each division, and to have membership composed of staff from
different organizational levels below the Division Director level.

      The QAT had  representatives from all divisions at one time or another and included two
Branch Chiefs,  three Section Chiefs,  and staff from a  various of specialty areas.  All QAT
members had been team members on numerous cross-divisional teams, some had functioned as
team leaders and some had been line managers of team members. Thus, a variety of experience
and points of view was  represented.


       The Teamwork QAT clarified and stated its mission as:

                   To improve the effectiveness of cross-divisional teams.
       To carry out this  mission, the QAT decided to examine the concept and practice of
teamwork in OPPT and to identify problems that impede the effectiveness of cross-divisional
teams.  In this  way, the QAT expanded  the scope of the original assignment from the OPPT
Action Plan.

       The purpose of improving teamwork in OPPT is to improve the productivity of the Office
as a whole, the quality of OPPT projects, and the processes by which work is accomplished
The focus is on  improving products and decisions by  improving how work gets done rather than
on the results of the work. A core premise of Total Quality Management is that if you improv. e
the processes by which work is accomplished, results are automatically improved in terms 01
quality, efficiency, and productivity.

Definition of Teamwork

      The first task was to define the concept of teamwork.  The working definition that the
QAT used was:
     Teamwork:   Work done by several associates  with each doing a pan but all
     subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole.
       With this definition in mind, the QAT decided how teamwork could apply to cross-
divisional teams in OPPT.  Further, although not specifically addressed by the QAT,  many of
the principles described in this report should also apply to teams which include representatives
from offices outside of OPPT, such as the Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM), the Office
of General Counsel (OGC).  From this definition, a vision of teamwork was created.

Vision of Teamwork in OPPT
     The Teamwork QAT's vision for cross-divisional teamwork is of active involvement
     at every level within OPPT in making teams successful.  This means that:

     Senior Managers create organizational systems and make decisions that enable
     teams to function effectively, and remove organizational obstacles to the functioning
     of teams.  They set an example for the rest of OPPT by modeling teamwork among
     themselves and in their interactions with staff.

     Line Managers view teams as customers of their division/branch/section.  They
     understand and support the goals of the team, provide guidance to team members,
     help solve team problems, and take steps to make sure that products provided to the
     team are high quality and meet the needs of the group.

     Team  Leaders practice good  leadership  and  project management skills.  They
     interact effectively with management and staff at all levels. They communicate with
     the team suppliers about the quality of input to  the team and keep the team focused
     on the team's mission and goals.

     Team  Members  are focused  on  helping the team  meet team goals through a
     commitment to providing high quality work products,  practicing effective team
     skills, contributing to the planning  and functioning of the  team, and communicating
     effectively with their line manager about team  issues, progress, and status.  Team
     members take ownership of the team's mission, goals, and work projects, and do
     whatever is necessary to make the team successful.

     All managers and staff involved in a team are  responsible and accountable for the
     success of the cross-divisional teams.
      The findings and recommendations of the Teamwork QAT are intended to make this
vision a reality in OPPT.


      The QAT used a variety of sources to gather information about teamwork and about the
problems impeding teamwork in OPPT cross-divisional teams.  They are as follows:

1.     Observations of QAT  members.  Because of the representation of different divisions
      and organizational levels within the QAT membership, the perceptions and observations
      of QAT members were considered a reliable source of information. However, additional
      data were collected to confirm these  perceptions.

2.     The Functional Study of the Office of Toxic Substances, November 1991. This study,
      compiled by Stonnell Associates, Inc., provided information about problems  related to
      cross-divisional teamwork.

3.     Surveys of OPPT staff and management.  Specific surveys were as follows:

      •      Firedrill survey - A subset of branch chiefs was asked to keep "firedrill" logs to
             determine the impact of high  priority, unexpected projects on OPPT staff.

      •      Tune Utilization Survey - All OPPT branch chiefs and section chiefs were asked
             to estimate the percentage of  time that they were engaged in activities related to
             five different job areas. The  goal was to determine how much time was spent
             supporting the activities of cross-divisional teams and to determine the obstacles
             to spending more time in this area.

      •     fcOPFEt^orkgroup'-Suryey -^This survey of OPPT managers and team leaders
             was initiated to  determine how many workgroups exist in OPPT.

4.     Focus-groups.  Focus groups were conducted with:

      •      Line managers - These groups included branch chiefs and sections chiefs who
             L,..„.;_.	9«.:.»««iii.--ii ~«f'-- -r  ..      -   -
             supervise workgroup leaders  and/or members.

      •      Team leaders - These groups were made up of individuals who lead cross-
             divisional project teams in different program  areas.

5.     Individual Interviews. Interviews were conducted with:

      •      Division Directors - All but  two Division Directors were interviewed.

      •      Team members - QAT members interviewed co-workers  who were members of
             cross-divisional  teams.

Analyses of data obtained through these sources are included in Appendix B.

                                 LITERATURE REVIEW

      The QAT searched the available literature to  learn how other  organizations practice
teamwork.  As one would expect, the concept of teamwork is not new.  While many groups
attempt to practice "good  team skills," few understand what teamwork  means and, therefore,
how to successfully implement it.

      Over the past twenty years, various public and  private sector groups have incorporated
the team ethic  in their organizations.   Their collective experience is similar: teamwork,  as
advocated in  the literature, entails a sharing of power between management and staff and a
commitment to a management style that fosters cooperation  between management and staff.

      In  recent years,  corporate investment  in  teams has increased  in hopes of regaining
economic competitiveness.  Many view this change as a shift in paradigms from the top-down
form of management to that of the team concept.  Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich has written

      In  this paradigm,  entrepreneurship isn't the sole province of  the company's
      founder or its top managers.  Rather, it is a capability and attitude that is diffused
      throughout the company.   Experimentation and development go  on all the time
      as the company searches  for new ways to capture and build on the knowledge
      already accumulated by its workers.2

This thinking posits that frontline workers best know the production processes and that they are
the most capable of recommending changes to these processes  to improve quality.   Some
companies even delegate personnel matters such as hiring, firing, and awards to teams. Overall.
the private sector is trying to become more competitive, resulting in organizations with  less
management oversight and more direct responsibility and accountability for products produced
by teams.

       According to the literature, teamwork does not mean that management cedes all power
of decision-making to staff.  What changes are the roles of the  manager and staff member
While still overseeing the work of employees, supervisors must also become advisors, coaches.
and facilitators.3 Managers must open the lines of communication in both directions as well
as give  performance feedback whenever possible.4  Despite this increased ability to influence
decision-makers, staff must accept that final decisions rest with management and that, as staff
members, they share with  management in both the successes and failures of their organization's
    'John Hoeir, "The Payoff from Teamwork," Business Week, July 10, 1989.

    :Chns Lee, "Beyond Teamwork," Training, June 1990, p. 26.

    '"Beyond Teamwork."

    'Edgar H. Schein, "Corporate Teams and Totems." Across the Board: The Conference Board Maga^mt  M



      The QAT discovered both positive teamwork practices  and problem areas in OPPT.
Because the mission of the QAT was to improve teamwork, the findings listed in this report
outline the problems only.

      The different program  areas in  OPPT  have established their  own  processes  for
accomplishing work.  Some program area teams demonstrate  better teamwork than others.
Therefore, the findings listed in this report may apply more to some program areas than others.
When a finding only applies to certain  programs, it is stated that way.  When the finding is
stated as a general  rinding, it points out problem areas in OPPT as a whole, but the problem
may vary in degree from program to program.
                          ORGANIZATION OF THE FINDINGS

       The findings are organized by four major roles related to cross-divisional teams. These
four team-related roles are defined for the purpose of this report as follows:

1.      Organizational Systems.  This refers to the overall management policies, practices, and
       processes of OPPT.  This category refers to areas which are under the control of the
       Office Director,  the  Deputy Office Director, division  directors, and deputy division

2.      Line Managers.  Line managers are generally not members of a team,  but have an
       impact on the day-to-day operations of teams. They directly supervise the team leader
       or a team member and may be a section chief, branch chief, deputy division director, or
       a division director depending on their role in relation to a particular team.

3.      Team Leaders.   Team leader refers to the individual who is charged with leading any
       type of cross-divisional team. This includes project work teams, quality action teams.
       budget  workgroups, etc.   It does not include individual section chiefs in  their role of
       managing a section.

4.      Team Members.  Team members are the participants on cross-divisional teams. OPPT
       staff and management may fulfill the role of team member on teams.


1.     No collective sense of responsibility or accountability exists for the success of a
      team's effort. Management and staff seem to accept little personal responsibility for
      helping teams succeed.

      Whether  or  not  a cross-divisional team succeeds  has little impact on the support
      divisions' managers.   The  sense  of  responsibility  seems  to end  with the  technical
      contribution to the team; the contributions which would help the team as a whole succeed
      are not viewed as  part of the job.

      No structure or work process exists to help support divisions gain ownership over the
      performance of the team. They generally have no input into decisions about team goals,
      strategies, and activities. They get little or no feedback about how well the team is doing
      or about whether the team met its objectives.  Support divisions are much less visible
      than the lead division when issues are brought to the attention of upper management.

      Without a sense of responsibility from other divisions, the burden  for getting the team
      to succeed rests squarely on the team leader and the lead division.  This approach is
      contrary to teamwork.
2.     OPPT's performance evaluation, promotion, and rewards systems place little or no
       emphasis on supporting inter-divisional team efforts. Individual effort and work are
       the basis of ratings in the performance standards and in Office awards.  Individuals seem
       to be promoted based on their technical work only, and not on how well they work as
       a team member, or on how well they are able to promote teamwork in others.

       There are  no clear benefits to  managers for supporting teams.  No rewards exist  for
       managers who are  good team players.  They  may actually find themselves  penalized
       because .their  attention to teamwork  caused  them  to  fall short in  their divisional

       Evaluations and rewards are given vertically in the organization, rather than horizontally
       There is no  system to evaluate whether or not a manager or team member has been
       supportive in helping a team reach its goals.
3.     Teams are not viewed as important customers by OPPT staff or management.  When
       managers and teams meet, teams are nearly always considered the supplier while the
       managers are the customer.  Managers do not .take the extra step of identifying ului
       teams need and then taking the steps to supply that need.  Managers often do not prov idc
       the direction, guidance, and resources needed for the team to be successful.

4.    Office  priorities  are not clearly communicated  or disseminated. Lacking  such
      direction, individuals at all levels within OPPT base their own activities on  their
      perceptions of what the Office priorities are.

      The way division management sets priorities tends to be according to the programmatic
      or the division agenda. This sets up competition between divisions instead of cooperation
      within the Office. The result is "turf battles" and managers competing with one another.
5.      Office priorities change throughout the year, but there is no office-level coordination
       of changing priorities.  When a new project or activity  needs to be performed, each
       division  adjusts their own priorities  largely based on  projects  for  which they are
       accountable. Resources will generally be pulled from another division's project, and not
       from a project which  their own division  is leading.  By  six months into the year,
       divisions are operating according to different priorities than originally planned.  This
       causes major problems when working on cross-divisional  projects.
6.     There are over 350 workgroups in OPPT.  While some workgroups may be well
       managed, there isTho system in place to manage this many teams efficiently.

       There is no office-wide system to charter new teams, set goals for new teams, track
       existing  teams,  evaluate each team's performance,  administer team and individual
       rewards  for  teamwork, or to note completion of the team's  work.   One result is
       overlapping activities between teams. While two teams may have different goals, some
       of their'activities'may be the same: Without an office-wide tracking system, there is no
       way to coordinate efforts and share information.

       Many teams  have become "never-ending workgroups."  Sometimes teams  just stop
       meeting, but are never formally disbanded.  Some workgroups have long penods of
       inactivity and then suddenly become very active again.  This contributes to the difficulty
       in knowing what staff are working''on'and'how much timers  committed to different

       With so~ many teams and no team management system, it is very difficult for  managers
       to set up new teams, understand the purpose, goals, and strategies of teams,  evaluate the
       level of commitment needed by the team, select appropriate team members, and support.
       provide guidance, and assist in problem solving with teams.
7.     Organizational processes' and procedures have not been established to facilitate
       cross-divisional teamwork.  OPPT teams that are viewed as successful  have well-
       established and understood intra- and inter-divisional processes. The Existing Chemicals
       Program appears to lack processes- and' deadlines that TRI and "the New Chemical
       Program have that promote a clear sense of purpose and teamwork. Team members and
       team leaders in these two programs have a good understanding of their role on the team
       and what is expected of them.   Many of the same line managers  and team mer


      support all three of these programs,  so the difference cannot be attributed to the people

      Branches  and programs  within branches that  have established processes for  quality
      control work better than those that do not.  Some review each product before it is
      submitted to a team. This seems to result in a  higher quality product than those which
      have no review process and those where  managers sign-off without actually reviewing
      the document.

      Division Directors disagree about the appropriate role of a team in OPPT. Some think
      that the role of a team is to provide technical input, gather data and formulate options
      and that all judgement and decisionmaking should be left to upper management.  Others
      feel that teams should be empowered to make more decisions. They should still present
      the options, but that they should also provide  a recommendation.  This disagreement
      sends mixed messages to teams.

      Ongoing training in team skills is lacking in OPPT. Staff at all levels need to continually
      develop their knowledge and skills to work effectively in teams.
8.     The administrative support systems for teams are unsatisfactory. Team leaders spend
       a great deal of time finding meeting  space, preparing meeting materials,  setting up the
       meeting room, and obtaining equipment. Secretarial support is often not available.
9.     The matrix management system used in OPPT is not understood or practiced. Most
       of the people interviewed provided a different explanation of how the OPPT system of
       matrix  management works.  Some admitted that  they didn't know how it worked.
       Without this basic general understanding, the matrix management system is considered
       by many to be ineffective.

       This creates problems in how well people function in teams.  For example, line managers
       plan and manage their functional areas. They are not always able to plan for resources
       they will contribute to teams.  Requests for team members are viewed as a request to
       take resources away from the functional work of the division.  Managers and staff, while
       committing to participate in a project, do so unhappily, thereby inhibiting teamwork.
10.    The Office Director, Deputy Office Director, and Division Directors do not function
       as a team. They often make decisions independently of one another, even when other
       divisions will be impacted.  Pulling resources from another division's project is one
       example.  An adequate forum for discussing office-wide issues and problems does not
       exist.  Leadership in team decision making is lacking.

      There  is no method or procedure in place to resolve differences on  issues between
      divisions.  As a result, problems are often ignored or left alone.   Failure to resolve
      important issues undermines the team process for upper management and for all OPPT
      cross-divisional teams.

      Trust among Division Directors is low.  Most feel that they need to protect their own
      division's interests and position rather than considering the good of the  Office.

      There  is also the perception  that some  Division  Directors  are working on Mark's
      priorities  and  some are working on Joe Carra's  priorities  rather than  all  divisions
      working according to the Office's priorities. Integration of these perceived differences
      in priorities does not take place. The result is that teams and team members are unable
      to resolve differences in priorities among  projects.

      Lack of teamwork among upper management presents a poor foundation and model of
      teamwork for the rest of OPPT.
11.    The culture in OPPT is adverse to teamwork.  People are rewarded through informal
      as well as formal ways for putting their own interests ahead of the interests of the team
      and of OPPT. Team spirit and cooperation, and subordinating personal prominence for
      the good of the whole are not valued or rewarded.

      Emphasis is not placed  on running teams well.  Team leaders who demonstrate good
      interpersonal skills are often passed over for promotions because they are viewed as "not
      tough enough" for management positions.  Team leaders who lack good team skills
      continue to run  new teams without additional training, coaching, or guidance to  help
      them develop these skills.

      At all  levels, respect for one's peers is lacking.  Little or no credit is given to peers.
      Competition is much more prevalent than cooperation and support for others.

                             TEAMWORK QAT FINDINGS
                           RELATED TO LINE MANAGERS

      Teams are not viewed as customers of the branches.  Line managers are not involved
      in  finding out what  the team needs  or in  taking  steps to  supply what  is  needed.
      Frequently, products submitted to the team are poor in quality, do not meet the needs of
      the team, and are turned in late.  Quality control at the line manager level is lacking in
      many cases.  Some branches have processes to review the technical quality of the product
      before it is  submitted.  Other  branches consider the absence of complaints as an
      indication that the product  was adequate.  In general, line managers  do not ask for or
      receive feedback from team leaders about the  quality of their branch's contribution to the
      team.  Poor  quality work from a branch means that the team leader has to  spend a lot
      of time making up for the deficiency.
2.     Communication between line managers,  team leaders,  and  team  members  is
       inadequate in some program areas.  Line managers frequently do not know the goals
       or purpose of cross-divisional teams or what their staff is working on to support that
       team.  Often, discussions between line managers and team members only occur if the
       team member perceives a problem.  Otherwise, there is  "non-communication by mutual
       consent," meaning that the staff member is trusted to handle the work for the team on
       their own.

       Some branches have an internal system to track staff activities on teams.  Others rely
       primarily on discussions between section chiefs and staff. Branch Chiefs rely on section
       chiefs for information  about cross-divisional  teams.  Division Directors rely on branch
       chiefs to brief them on  team activity. Therefore, the communication between the Section
       Chief and the staff on teams is the primary source of  information  for most of OPPT

       Little communication and coordination occurs between line managers  and team leaders
       on team  goals and purpose, what is  needed from the  branch,  project schedules and
       deadlines, major issues, and obstacles.

       Line managers  usually do not communicate and  coordinate with other line managers
       involved in the team.
3.     Line managers  are unclear about OPPT priorities  and the priority of different
       teams.  Line managers and staff are constantly making  decisions about where to spend
       resources and time.  In the absence of clearly communicated Office priorities, the criteria
       for making these decisions vary greatly among the branches and  divisions.   In lead
       divisions for projects, the branch and division priorities are with the project.  In  suppori
       divisions, team participation on  these projects is often a lower priority than projects  for


       which  the  division  will  be held accountable.  Therefore,  branches  and divisions
       participating on the same team have different perceptions about the importance of the
       team project in relation to other programs and projects within OPPT.

4.     There is a lack of understanding and agreement about the role that line managers
       should play in supporting cross-divisional teams.  In  general,  line managers do not
       view supporting teams as their primary role.  Functional responsibilities are considered
       more important because they are the basis of performance evaluations and rewards.

       Line managers do not feel a sense of responsibility for  the success  of cross-divisional
       teams unless they are the  lead division.   They feel accountable  for the work  product
       submitted by their branch, but not for whether or not the team's goals are accomplished.

       Line managers are not sure how to support teams. Many  are concerned that too much
       involvement in the team would be micro-managing the staff. Managers are unsure about
       how to support the team without micro-managing. Because of this, many line managers
       do not monitor the status of teams on a regular basis. Many managers lack the skills
       necessary to support teams (e.g., coaching, team problem solving, group facilitation).
       Line managers do not  always provide strong direction  when the team has a new or
       inexperienced team leader.
5.      A number of obstacles make it difficult for line managers to support cross-divisional
       teams.  Many of the obstacles  faced by line managers are systems obstacles which are
       described in the organizational systems section of this report.  However, a few stand out
       as particularly relevant to the issue of line manager support of teams.

       Unless they are leading a project, line managers have no real incentives to support teams.
       But they do have disincentives.  Most line managers are rewarded for what their division
       or  branch  accomplishes,  not for  what  is accomplished  by other  lead  divisions.
       Therefore, if they send a good  staff person to participate on a team, they have lost that
       person's time to work on  a project that they are accountable for  in the division. So,
       supporting the team  can have  a  negative impact on the manager's own performance
       evaluation. The line managers who support projects, unlike their counterparts in the lead
       division, get no credit for supporting the team.

       Performing technical work interferes with the amount of time a branch or section  chief
       spends managing and supporting teams.  Section Chiefs,  on average,  spend the  same
       amount of time doing technical work as they do  managing staff on  workgroup projects.
       Branch Chiefs spend less time doing technical work than  section  chiefs, but they also
       spend less time managing staff on workgroup projects.

Managers are overloaded.  The responsibilities involved in performing technical work,
performing administrative tasks, managing staff on numerous workgroups, performing
other management responsibilities and numerous other tasks make it difficult to support

There are so many cross-divisional and inter-agency teams that it is difficult for line
managers to keep track of staff activities on each.  Many branches have regular meetings
to discuss staff activities, but there are too many projects to be able to get a good handle
on all of the teams.

                             TEAMWORK QAT FINDINGS
                            RELATED TO TEAM LEADERS

       Team leaders often do not establish  the goals of the  project.  Lack of clear goals
       makes it very difficult to manage a project and develop a cohesive team. Team leaders
       need to keep the team focused on goals throughout the process to provide direction for
       team activities. Most teams do not spend much time upfront agreeing on ground  rules,
       a  mission, and goals.   This results in a lack of direction and focus  for the project,
       meetings without  clear goals,  wasted  effort,  and a high level of frustration for all

       Teams need to have  clear goals against which to evaluate their work.  OPPT  teams
       generally do not evaluate  their work, their work process, or the quality of interactions
       between team members, the leader, and line  managers for the purpose of improvement.
2.     Team leaders have the responsibility for the project, but no organizational authority.
       For example, team leaders have  little control over who  is assigned to  their teams.
       Divisions select staff to participate on teams and the team leader generally has no input
       into this decision. Yet they are responsible for getting these team members to perform.

       Team leaders have no managerial authority with team members.  Team leaders do not
       evaluate the member's performance or give input to  the line manager for use in
       performance appraisals. Team leaders are not comfortable discussing  a team member's
       performance with that person's line manager.
3.     The abilities and leadership skills of team leaders vary greatly.  Whether or not a
       team functions well is largely dependent on how good the team leader is in managing the
       project and in interpersonal skills. Team members who have confidence in the leader are
       much more committed to the team than when confidence in the leader is lacking.

       Many team leaders have little or no training in leadership and management skills, project
       management skills, meetings management, interpersonal skills, etc.  Ongoing training is
       required to continue improving skills in these areas.
4.     Frequently, team leaders have too many other responsibilities.  In addition to team
       leadership responsibilities, leaders  are often members of other workgroups and have
       additional functional responsibilities. They are frequently spread too thin. For example.
       RM "pool" managers have a full workload in their specialty area  in addition to their
       project management responsibilities.

5.     Communication between the team leader, team members, line managers, and upper
      management is inadequate.  Team leaders don't always keep team members, line
      managers, and others updated on the status  of the project. They don't check in with
      team members often enough between meetings to find out the status of tasks or potential

      There is no communication between the team leader and the line manager on the quality
      of work submitted by that branch.

      Team leaders often  do not receive information about Office priorities that affects the

      Team leaders find it difficult to meet with division directors on a casual basis  to get
      feedback, ideas or guidance.  They have to get on his/her calendar or relay information
      through other layers of management.

      Team leaders don't always elevate problems to their manager soon enough, which leads
      to ongoing conflicts and frustration which can have a negative impact on the team.

                             TEAMWORK QAT FINDINGS
                           RELATED TO TEAM MEMBERS
       Team members'time is overbooked. Their time is spread among many tasks.  Often,
       team members agree (or their manager assigns them) to participate on a project without
       knowing how much time they'll need to spend on that project and on other team-related
       activities. This creates a situation in which they are unable to spend enough time on any
       one team or project.
2.      Team members lack information on or do not always agree with team goals and
       their responsibilities on the teams.  They are frequently not  involved in discussions
       about team mission and goals with line managers, upper management, or the team leader.
       Team  members do not always have a clear sense of what the team is supposed to

       One result is confusion about what role team members should play and what they need
       to do to contribute  to the team.  Team members may come to a meeting to  represent
       themselves, their science, their division, the "public interest,"  or some other interest
       There is no clear sense of which role is appropriate.
3.      Decisions which affect the team are often made without adequate involvement of the
       team members.  Team members  often do not have an opportunity to contribute  their
       views on team issues.  This leads to a lack of ownership for team decisions and products
4.      Team members often lack enthusiasm for team efforts. On many occasions, they have
       been told to report to a team without being given a choice to participate.  Many are
       reluctant to express their views and interests or to challenge positions taken by other
       team members.  Rather than focusing on helping the team meet its goals, team members
       are usually only focused on their part of the project work.

       In some programs, team members rarely see the results of their efforts.  Teams and
       individual members receive little or no feedback about whether the objectives of the
       project were accomplished.
5.     Work as a team member is not valued in the Office culture.  Contributions to the
       team process  and  function are as  important as the technical contribution.  Yet.  team
       member's performance on teams  is  not  a  factor in performance appraisals and
       evaluations.  Generally, the team leader gets the credit (and blame) for team projects
       Members do  not get to "share  the spotlight."  There is  generally no team or  team
       member recognition  for completed projects.  There are few rewards for being a  good
       team player.


       These recommendations are intended to address issues in all of the findings categories:
organizational systems,  line  managers,  team leaders,  and team  members.   Many  of the
recommendations cut across  these categories and propose solutions  to  problems that are
described in a number of the findings.

       The  QAT organized  these recommendations  into  five clusters.   The clusters  are
sequenced  in an order  in which they might  be ideally implemented.   Each cluster  of
recommendations is a building block for the clusters that follow. If resource constraints  limit
implementation of all of these recommendations,  several could still be implemented and would
help improve teamwork within OPPT. The rationale for the sequencing is as follows:

1.      Office Priorities.  A common understanding among management and staff of the Office
       priorities  is the foundation for the QAT's recommendations.  Upper management, line
       managers, team leaders, and team members need to know what the priorities  are in order
       to make decisions about  which projects to work  on, when to form  teams,  and how to
       allocate resources. When management and staff are operating according to the same
       priorities, Office and individual activities can be coordinated to meet Office objectives.

2.      Team Coordination and Control.   Once Office priorities are understood, teams can
       carry out the work of the Office. A management system  is needed to charter new teams.
       to make sure that all  teams are performing work that is important to the Office, to
       monitor for efficiency,  productivity, and  potential problems,  to  allocate necessary
       resources, and to disband teams when appropriate.

3.      Customer Service. The recommendations listed under the team coordination and control
       cluster are  intended to make sure  that teams are  working on the right projects and
       following an efficient  group process for accomplishing  the work. The next step is to
       make sure that the quality of work performed on the projects meets the needs of the team
       and^ of the  Office.,  These recommendation involve changing the way that teams are
       viewed within OPPT.  Teams are the customers of the divisions,  branches and sections.
       The role of these organizational units is to meet the needs of the  teams  because it is the
       teams who  are  accomplishing the work  of the  Office.  Branches and sections  need
       processes to insure that they are meeting the needs of their customers.

4.     Individual Performance. Once the organizational issues related to teamwork have been
       addressed through the clusters listed above, focus should turn to individual contributions
       to teams and to making teams succeed within the Office.  By resolving organizational
       issues .first, organizational barriers to individual performance are removed.  Individuals
       can now be held accountable for their own performance as related to teamwork in OPPT

5.     Cultural Issues.  Recommendations included in this cluster are not part of.the cluster
       sequencing  for  implementation.  Rather,  these  recommendations are intended to he
       implemented concurrently with the other clusters.

I.  Office Priorities

In addition to setting Office priorities on an annual basis, the Office Director, the Deputy
Office Director, and the division directors should meet quarterly to review priorities and
to make adjustments as needed.

The priority order of specific programs and projects needs to be reviewed. Resource allocations
need to be adjusted and agreed  to by all  divisions so that  staff who are working on  cross-
divisional teams all have the same perception of the importance of a project.

These priority review meetings will assist the office in maintaining one set of priorities, rather
than having different priorities in  each division. This review process should also have the effect
of reducing the number of work  teams.  When a project  becomes a low priority, the program
steering committees (described in the Team Coordination and Control section on p. 19) will
know to disband or deactivate a team.  In  addition, some "firedrills" may be eliminated, thus
reducing staff work load.

The  QAT  did  not develop specific implementation  plans  for this  recommendation  or  the
communications mechanism recommendation  that  follows.   The QAT decided that these
recommendations should focus more on the need for these  mechanisms in the Office and  the
benefits that might accrue from developing them.
Create a mechanism for communicating Office-wide priorities and.for informing staff of
changes in priorities as needed.

OPPT should establish a central repository in OPME for written information on priorities and
policies.  They should inform all staff of its existence and provide easy access to it.

For further clarification on the priority and policy statements, or to receive guidance on how
priority shifts impact specific .projects, teams or team  leaders can  meet with the steenng

Keeping all staff updated on the latest version of priority and policy statements will  enable
project teams and individuals to better plan their work in line with the Office priorities.
Develop a strategy for handling "firedrills" within OPPT and within organizational units.

Unplanned,  significant projects (e.g., glycol ethers) should be incorporated into the Office's
priority-setting process.  The  Office Director, the Deputy Office Director, and the division
directors should meet to agree on the priority of the project, which organizational  unit vull
handle the  request,  and on  areas- from which  to shift resources.   The  relevant steenng
committees should have input into these'ttecisions.

Short-term,  quick turn-around requests should be routed directly to the appropriate branch  or
division. Each division or branch  should appoint a person to serve as the "fire chief i\u ih«.-


group.  Part of this person's time for the year would be allocated to handling these firedrills.
In general, the fire chief should try  to put  out  the  "fire"  him/herself, without asking for
assistance from staff who are engaged  in team projects.

This strategy for handling firedrills  will help  staff at all levels to know the Office priorities,
know which projects are most important to the Office's mission,,and enable them to plan their
time accordingly. The problem of staff overload will be eased.

A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on page A-2.
II.  Team Coordination and Control

Establish a  steering  committee for  each  program  area to  coordinate  and  oversee
implementation of the annual operating plan.

These steering  committees, composed of mid-level managers and other key staff would be
responsible for developing an action plan  for implementing the annual operating plan, chartering
teams to carry out the projects, monitoring  progress of teams, and taking action to solve any
problems, providing guidance and  feedback to team leaders and members,  reviewing and
updating the program action plan, and providing regular updates to upper  management, and
participating in  evaluations of teams.

The Existing Chemicals  Coordinating Group's role and authority could be expanded to become
the steering committee for  the Existing  Chemicals program.   In other programs, the budget
workgroups or standing decisional teams (e.g., the New Chemicals Focus Group) could possibly
become steering committees.

Establishing steering committees to coordinate and oversee programs and teams will facilitate
communication  and teamwork among managers.  It will create an atmosphere of interdependence
and responsibility for the success of teams and for the program as a whole.

The Office Director, the Deputy Office Director, and the division directors should serve as the
OPPT Steering  Committee.  This committee would serve a number of roles: 1) to coordinate all
activities that do not fall within specific program areas (e.g, the QATs);  2) to coordinate cross-
programmatic issues and teams; and 3) to serve as an "appeals board" or advisory group for the
program-specific steering committees when  issues cannot  be resolved at that level.

The steering committees need to work as a team and set the example for their specific programs
as well  as the Office overall.  Decisions within these groups must be made by consensus.  All
members of the team should be held accountable and responsible for the decisions made by the
steering committee.

A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on page A-3.


Create a standard process that is followed in chartering OPPT teams.

New  teams should go through  an  upfront  chartering  process  that  creates buy-m  from
management, the team  leader, and team  members.   To charter  teams,  program  steering
committees decide when a new team is needed, decide the purpose,  goals, and end product of
the team, determine the team's staffing and have the new team added to the work team database
(described on p.  21). The team meets and establishes a project action plan that outlines goals,
tasks, team member responsible  for  each  task, key  issues,  and a project schedule with
milestones.  The steering committee approves the project action plan and meets with the team
to provide guidance for revisions.   The steering committee may seek upper  management
approval for the  plan at their discretion.

When team objectives have been met, the team is evaluated, "de-chartered," and removed from
the database of active work teams.

This chartering process would apply to all long-term work teams in  all programs and to short-
term teams as appropriate.

A standard procedure to charter teams will decrease the number of new teams that are created
because duplication of team efforts will be avoided. The effectiveness and efficiency of all new
teams will increase because there will be management and team buy-in to the goals and action
plans for each team.  Team members will be selected  more carefully so that the needs of the
team can be met and so that team members will have the time to meet commitments made to the

A more detailed  implementation proposal can be found on page A-5.
Reduce the number of work teams that currently exist in OPPT.

Duplicate work teams need to be identified and existing teams need to be prioritized according
to the Office priorities.   Teams that  are  duplicates  or that are working  on low-priority
assignments need to be "de-chartered" by the steering committees.

By  reducing the number  of teams, the overall work load of staff members  will be reduced
allowing them to devote more time to high priority projects. Line managers will be better able
to keep track of a smaller number of team  projects and the  activities of their own  staff, and
manage the customer service programs (described in the Customer Service section on p. 22)

A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on page A-14.

Maintain the database of OPPT work teams that was created by the Teamwork QAT and
make the information available to OPPT staff and management.

OPME should be assigned the responsibility of entering newly-chartered work teams into the
database  of active OPPT teams and removing "de-chartered" teams.  To make the database as
useful as  possible, OPME should determine the needs of customers of this database to determine
their information needs. The database could be redesigned to provide needed information about

Maintaining a database of OPPT teams has many potential uses. For example, the Front Office
could use it to determine  which branch should handle a "firedrill."  Information  from it could
be included in. the Annual Report to Congress.  For the purpose of facilitating teamwork, the
database  would be used by the steering committees to monitor teams under their programs and
to determine staffing for new projects (e.g., which staff are already booked).

See page B-4 for more information on the workteam database.
Establish a pilot standing team in one or more programs areas.

There  are a  number of benefits to having  standing teams.  For example, team  members
understand their role on the team, continuity  of projects is insured by assigning it to a clearly
identified team, and it provides a means to give technical divisions and  staff a sense  of

A number of drawbacks and possible problems were also identified in establishing standing
teams.  For example, every  issue is unique,  requiring a different set of specialized skills.  A
standing team may not provide enough flexibility to respond to the requirements of the issue.

Although complete consensus was  not reached on this recommendation, the QAT proposes
•establishing a standing team  in one or more program areas.  The standing team would consist
of a core set of staff members-(4-5) who work on a set number of projects.  Experts may need
to be called in occasionally to address specific issues, but would not be expected to devote 100
percent of their time to these projects.

By creating a pilot standing team, management would be able to.evaluate whether the benefits
outweigh the drawbacks, and would provide opportunities  to solve any problems that interfere
with the success of the team.  After a period of time, management can decide whether to expand
the concept of standing teams within the program  and to other program areas, or to continue
forming new  teams for each  case.

A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on page A-15.

m.  Customer Service

Each organizational unit (branch or section) should establish a customer service program.
                                        fc              •  '        _
A process would be developed by each unit to-obtain feedback from crdssrdivisional^teams on
the quality of their product and its usefulness to the team.  Branches or sections wmfd hiaveT
routine process for using that feedback to evaluate and continuously improve the quality of their

A customer service program would serve as a mechanism for creating a customer/supplier
relationship between cross-divisional teams and divisions/branches/sections.  It helps to clarify
the role of line managers  in supporting teams and increases the communication between team
members, team leaders, and line managers.  This program  needs to focus more on whether the
product meets the needs of the customer and not so much on the quality of the analysis.

A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on  page A-17.
Institute a Customer Product Feedback Survey to be used for products submitted to teams.
It would be an instrumental part of the customer service program.

Each time a team member submits a work product to the work team, they should  attach a
Customer Product Feedback Survey.  After soliciting comments from the team, the team leader
completes the survey and sends it to the team member and the team member's branch chief.
The survey focuses on the branch product, not on the performance of the team member.  The
branch chief and division management use the results of the  survey as part of the  customer
service program, to make improvements to the quality of the products of the branch, to evaluate
the team member's contribution to the team, and to evaluate the organization's contributions to

A Customer Product Feedback Survey would provide teams with an opportunity to  evaluate
products received for their use and review and  will provide section/branch/division management
with information that they can use to improve quality and evaluate team contributions.   It would
serve as a vehicle for communication between teams and management and allow team leaders
to discuss products instead of team member performance. The feedback is meant to focus on
continuous improvement and is not equivalent to a "peer review" of the 'product or analysis.
A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on page A-17 with information on the
customer service program.

rv. Individual Performanro

Create and distribute a list of Teamwork Guidelines which outline the  role of team
members, team leaders, line managers, and senior management in support of cross-
divisional teamwork.

These guidelines could be shared with new employees as part of an orientation  into OPPT,
distributed to current staff to clarify the role that they play in relation to teams, as a basis for
training staff in team skills, and as the criteria for a teamwork award.

The Teamwork Guidelines are  important in clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all levels
of staff, creating a shared vision of what behaviors support  teamwork, and in changing the
culture of OPPT so that it is more supportive of teamwork.

A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on page A-20.
Include teamwork responsibilities in performance standards for all OPPT staff.

Accountability for teamwork activities  can be tied to the performance appraisal process by
incorporating a teamwork standard  into individual plans.  A teamwork  standard should be
included in all OPPT performance agreements,  from team member to office director plans. This
concept is not entirely new for managers.    Fiscal Year 1993 performance agreements  for
supervisors and managers now must include standards for teambuilding as one of the critical job

Including teamwork in performance standards is one way to focus management and staff on the
importance of teamwork, and to provide incentives to supporting cross-divisional teams.  For
team leaders and team members, incorporating teamwork in the performance standard ensures
that they will get some recognition for their contributions, but also gives them some incentive
to more actively support the team and its efforts.

A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on page A-2S.
Create a Teamwork Excellence Award for team members, team leaders, and line managers
to individuals who have demonstrated outstanding support of teams.

This award could be given as a major award at the annual awards ceremony and/or as an on-the-
spot award similar to the one outlined in the OPPT awards policy. All staff should be eligible
to nominate individuals to receive an award - team leaders, team members, and managers.  The
criteria for nominating and making awards would be the Teamwork Guidelines.

A Teamwork Excellence Award is a vehicle for recognizing individual contributions to a team
and a way to provide incentives for  good teamwork.  By  allowing team leaders and  team
members to nominate individuals,  the awards system will be perceived as more equitable - team
participants often have more information about who was helpful to the team than managers who
weren't involved in the team.

A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on page A-28.
Enhance OPPT staff and management training to accentuate teamwork.

Emphasis is needed on training all staff and management about their roles and responsibilities
related to cross-divisional teams,  ongoing team leader training, and teamwork skills for team

In coordination with the Training QAT and  the  Human Resources Team  in  OPME, the
Teamwork QAT recommends the following:

•      Require all team leaders to participate in the OPPT Workgroup Management course.

•      Institutionalize the OPPT Workgroup Leaders Development Plan and require team leaders
       to participate in ongoing training according to their own development plan.

•      Develop a specialized training course for branch chiefs and section chiefs that emphasizes
       how to plan,  track, and allocate resources  in a matrix management system.

•      Create a training course for team members that teaches good team skills.

Emphasizing teamwork in training will encourage both behavior and cultural changes that will
create an environment in OPPT which is more supportive,teamwork.

A more detailed implementation proposal can be found on page A-29.

V.  Cultural Issues

Many of the  recommendations already listed will  serve to create a culture change in OPPT.
Additional recommendations include:

•     The Office Director and Deputy Office Director must make teamwork a central value of
      OPPT's culture and create the environment to support teamwork.  These values must also
      apply  to OPPT teams which include participation from other EPA offices.

•     The division directors must work as a team and set the example for the rest of OPPT.
      They need to act as the OPPT Steering Committee on cross-programmatic issues and to
      make decisions by consensus.

•     Promote and hire new managers who have good team skills. To successfully manage in
      a team environment, managers must be adept at leading teams and in the skills needed
      to support teams (e.g.,  coaching, team problem-solving, facilitating).  These qualities
      should be considered as  important as technical skills when filling management positions.

•     Eliminate use of the term "lead" division and replace it with coordinating  division.
      Change "support" division to contributing division.  These terms more accurately reflect
      the team concept in accomplishing the work of the office.

•     During regular staff meetings, managers should reinforce the importance of teamwork.
      This can  be done  by sharing  the  status of teams  on  which  staff  members  are
      participating, recognizing staff contribution to teams and making statements about the
      importance of helping cross-divisional teams succeed.  Negative comments about other
      divisions should be turned into problem-solving opportunities.

                            IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

       An implementation plan for each specific recommendation is outlined in Appendix A.
However, in order to avoid disruptions in activities  already ongoing within the Office, an
implementation strategy  is needed to coordinate and  oversee  the implementation of  the
recommendations from all of the QATs.

       The Office Director and Deputy Office Director need to take the lead in approving and
overseeing implementation of these recommendations.  A strategy needs to include time lines
for implementing specific recommendations, methods for gathering data  about the status of
implementation within the branches and program areas,  and processes for evaluating the success
of each recommendation in solving teamwork  problems.  Implementation  support could be
provided in several ways:

•      An  implementation team  of  approximately ten  people  could  be  formed  to  plan.
       coordinate, and oversee implementation.  This team would need to  consist  of members
       from upper and middle management, team leaders, and team members.  Members should
       be chosen  from different divisions and programs.

•      Representatives from the original QATs  could serve as the implementation team   The
       group would also include the Office Director and Deputy  Office Director  as well  as a
       few division directors.

       The individuals selected for the team need to have a good general understanding of the
various programs within OPPT.  In addition, members must be receptive  to new ideas, ha\e
good  interpersonal  skills, and be  able  to work in a constructive  manner  with  individuals
throughout the office.  Overall, team members should have skills  that  complement those ot
others on the team.

       Initially, the implementation team would need to prioritize,  coordinate, and monitor
implementation of recommendations  from  all of the QATs.  The  team would first need to
logically sequence the various recommendations. After completing this task,  the group would
need to establish timeline goals for implementing these changes.

       To support any of these options, OPME could monitor the status of implementing speci tic
recommendations in the  branches and program areas.


      The findings and recommendations included in this report are intended to make the vision
of teamwork in OPPT a reality.  The QAT took a broad approach to examining teamwork in
OPPT so that action items specified in the OPPT Action Plan would be part of a larger strategy
for improving the effectiveness of cross-divisional teams in OPPT.

      Through  the implementation of these recommendations, the QAT envisions a working
environment within OPPT in which:
     Senior Managers create organizational systems and make decisions that enable
     teams to function effectively, and remove organizational obstacles to the functioning
     of teams. They set an example for the rest of OPPT by modeling team work among
     themselves and in their interactions with staff.

     Line Managers view  teams as customers of their division/branch/section.  They
     understand and support the goals of the team, provide guidance to team members,
     help solve team problems, and take steps to make sure that products provided to the
     team are high quality and meet the needs of the group.

     Team  Leaders practice good  leadership and  project management skills.  They
     interact effectively with management and staff at all levels. They communicate with
     the team suppliers about  the quality of input to the team and keep the team focused
     on the team's mission  and goals.

     Team  Members are  focused  on helping the team  meet team goals through a
     commitment to providing high quality work products, practicing effective team
     skills, contributing to the planning and functioning of the team, and communicating
     effectively with their line manager about team issues, progress, and status.  Team
     members take  ownership of the team's mission, goals, and work projects, and do
     whatever is necessary  to make  the team successful.
       Most importantly, the QAT stresses that managers and staff at all levels within OPPT
should be held responsible and accountable for the success of cross-divisional teams within the


Recommendation:   Develop a strategy for handling "firednlls" within OPPT and  within
                    organizational units.


       Priority projects  are  often  pushed aside by  line managers and team  members  to
accommodate  short-term requests  from  senior  management.   At   the  same  time,  no
acknowledgements are made that priority projects may be delayed as a result of these short-term
"firedrills." As a result, staff time is often overbooked from these workload surges.

       Firedrills generally fall  into two  categories:  1) unplanned  projects  that  require  a
significant amount of resources to complete; and 2) unplanned  short-term,  quick turn-around
projects.  To accommodate the first type of firedrill, the QAT recommends that the request for
action be sent to the program specific steering committee (described on p. A-3).  The committee
will determine how the request fits in with the ongoing projects under its  supervision and how/if
to adjust resources to meet the need.

       For the shorter-term firedrills, the QAT recommends that each branch or division could
designate  a "fire chief."  The  person  in this position would be primarily a "doer"  rather than  a
"coordinator." In other words, rather than passing along the assignment to another staff person.
the fire chief would try to handle the firedrill alone.  This role could be handled on a rotational
basis or by a person who wants to handle items of a generalist  nature. If the chief cannot handle
the request, the chiefs line manager would need to provide assistance.
Possible Benefits:

•      Reduces workload surges on team members and managers

•      Encourages the fire chief to take ownership for a project

Steps to Implementation:

•      Refer all long-term firedrills to the program specific steering committees for possible
       incorporation into the specific program plan.

•      Each division or branch (as appropriate)  should select a fire chief for FY93.

•      A critical job element should be included in the fire chiefs performance agreement to
       handle these duties.

•      Division directors and branch chiefs assign their firedrills to the fire chief. If the chief
       cannot handle the crisis, the line manager provides assistance in resolving the issue.

                                         A -2

Recommendation:   Establish a steering committee for each program area to coordinate and
                    oversee implementation of the annual operating plan.


      In order to better manage resources and monitor the status of workgroups within program
areas, steering committees should be established for each program area (e.g., New Chemicals,
Existing Chemicals,  TRI,  Lead, Asbestos,  PCBs,  etc.).   For those issues  that are cross-
programmatic in nature or do not fit within a specific program area,  the Office Director,  the
Deputy Office Director, and the division directors would serve as the OPPT Steering Committee.
This committee would function similarly to the program-specific committees  but would also
serve as an "appeals board" or advisory group for the program steering committee when issues
cannot be resolved at the program level.

      Membership  on the  program specific committees  should be  limited to the manager
(branch chief or section chief) of each organizational unit with a significant role in the program
area covered by the committee.  The appropriate level of management participation may vary
from program  to program and unit to unit.

      These committees would be chartered to handle a number of responsibilities  within the
given program area.  Primarily, these responsibilities would include: 1) implementing the annual
operating plan in that program area,  2) chartering  workgroups to carryout program-specific
projects and dechartering teams that have completed their assignments or that are of a low
priority  according  to the program plan,  3) monitoring the progress of teams and taking
appropriate actions to address problems or issues that arise from these groups, 4) providing
regular updates to the OPPT Steering Committee on program accomplishments, and 5) allocating
resources within the program to achieve program goals.

      Among the  first action  items  for  these steering  committees, the  Teamwork QAT
recommends that each program steering committee analyze the list of workgroups currently in
the OPPT workteam database (see Appendix B) to determine which groups within the respective
program area are no longer in existence,  are inactive, or are of low priority.  These  teams
should be disbanded in order to immediately free up resources which can be reallocated to higher
priority projects.
Possible Benefits:

•      Improves communication and teamwork among line managers who have key roles m
       supporting teams in each of the OPPT program areas

•      Develops greater sense of responsibility among line managers for commitments made to
       program goals
                                        A - 3

       As line managers develop a more direct sense of responsibility for the success of teams,
       they will start viewing the teams as customers of the branches

       Creates a mechanism for more clearly communicating program-specific priorities

       Should result in more thorough planning and allocation of resources, resulting  in more
       realistic workload assignments and, hopefully, overall reduction in staff workloads
Steps to Implementation:

•      The Office Director needs to announce the formation of these steering committees and
       the program areas  they will serve.

•      The Office Director, the Deputy Office Director, and the division directors should select
       the members for each of these committees.

•      Each steering committee should be chartered by the Office Director  along with the
       Deputy Office Director and the division directors.

•      Each steering committee should develop an action plan for carrying out the committee
                                          A - 4

Recommendation:  Create a standard procedure that is followed in chartering teams.1


       Creating a new team should be viewed by OPPT as a major undertaking.  Although the
decision to form a team may come from senior management or be based on the operating plan,
the program specific steering committees should have the responsibility to charter new teams and
de-charter ones that are no longer necessary for accomplishing the program's objectives.

       When  new teams  are  chartered,  team  members need  to understand what  OPPT
management — their primary customer — wants accomplished. In some cases, management sets
the goal upfront, while in others the team takes a crack at establishing the goal.  In either case,
it is critical to get buy-in from team members and middle and senior management, since all will
be crucial in helping the team succeed.

       Once the goal is established, the team needs to develop a project action plan (see attached
model). The plan should include key milestones to be accomplished with a rough timeline for
completing these aspects of the project.  The project action plan should be approved by the
program specific steering committee.

       While management is clearly a customer of the team, so too are teams customers  of
management.  In order for teams to succeed, managers, particularly middle management, must
view  themselves  as "suppliers" to  teams.   Managers  supply  the team with the resources
(including guidance and moral support) to  help the  team reach its goal.

       Teams  should develop  status reports (see  attached model) for  the  program-specific
steering committee on a regular basis. These reports would serve to provide information on
accomplishments  achieved,  any  revisions  to  the original action plan,  and requests  for
guidance/additional support from middle  management.  .These periodic reports should also
include an evaluation of how  the team is functioning: what's  working  well and what isn't
working so well.

       At the  end of a project, the team completes  a  self-evaluation (see sample questions
attached).  This evaluation has many uses  including passing new tools to other teams.
institutionalizing accomplishments, and providing information to line managers in the evaluation
of team performance for appraisals.  This final evaluation also serves as a de-briefing for the
program steering committee.
    'The Teamwork QAT envisipns that this formal chartering process would only applv to
projects'that'are expected to last'longer than 4 months in duration.  PMN-specific teams m the
New Chemi<^rProgfanTrfol'exainpleT would"ribrbe'expectetl to be chartered."  Other teams
within the New Chemicals Program (e.g., PMN Rule  Amendments workgroup) would  he
expected to undergo 'this chartering process.

                                         A - 5

Possible Benefits:

•      Increases management and staff responsibility and accountability for the success of team

•      Fosters the development of customer-supplier relationships between OPPT management
       and work teams

•      Should help reduce the number of workgroups within OPPT by giving management an
       opportunity to continually evaluate resource allocations across program priorities

•      Develops processes and procedures to facilitate cross-divisional teamwork

•      Provides opportunities for communication between line managers, team leaders, and team

•      Clearly outlines a role for line managers in supporting cross-divisional teams

•      Establishes project goals and creates buy-in  from management and the  team on the
       project's mission and goals

•      Outlines the responsibilities of a team member on a work team and provides opportunities
       for the team  member to agree on the team goals and their individual responsibilities to
       the team

Steps to Implementation:

1.     At the start of each new team, the program-specific steering committee "charters" the
       team and determines its staffing.

2.     The team develops a project action plan (see attached model) that includes the team's
       goal, who is  responsible for doing each task, important issues to be addressed, and the
       team's schedule with key milestones.

3.     The team and the program steering committee reach consensus on the project action plan.

4.     On  a regular basis, teams submit project status reports (see  attached model)  to the
       program steering committee.

5.     Once the team's goal is achieved, the team is officially "de-chartered" by the steenng
       committee.  The team documents its accomplishments and any new processes developed
       that may increase  efficiencies for the program  or Office.  This dechartering includes
       removing the team from  the workteam database (see Appendix B, p. B-4).


                      PROJECT ACTION  PLAN

DATE:                               REVISION NUMBER:



      This should describe the goal of the workgroup,  including any expected outputs or
      outcomes. The goal should clearly support the mission and goals of the office. A goal
      statement is usually an overarching broad vision and is usually one sentence.  The goal
      statement may include strategies for achieving the  goal if a specific strategy has been
      specified by upper management (e.g., the goal is to reduce or eliminate the risk to human
      health caused by  the use of lead solder in plumbing applications by (the strategy of)
      writing a regulation.)


      This section will generally provide information to answer the questions:

      0     What is the issue or problem the workgroup is addressing?

      0     Where/how did the problem originate?

      0     Why is this issue a problem?  Why is there  a need for a solution?

      °     What has been done to date on this issue/problem?

      °     Why is there a need for this workgroup?

      °     Are there  any  regulatory  requirements  or mandates that the  workgroup is
            responding to?

      This section can also include any guidance from  upper management to the workgroup
                                       A -7


       •      What restrictions are there?

       •      What should the workgroup look at/not consider? (e.g., the workgroup will look
             at lead solder in plumbing applications, not other uses of lead solder.)

5.     KEY ISSUES:  (if known)

6.     POSSIBLE OPTIONS OR STRATEGIES:  (if known or specified)

       a)     Describe strategies given to the workgroup by management and/or selected by the
             workgroup to achieve the goal and the rationale  for selection.

       b)     If relevant,  describe other strategies considered but not selected.


       •      Who are the workgroup members, and what Offices/Divisions/Branches do they

                   Workgroup Chair:  (Name/Office/Division/Branch)

                   Workgroup Members:  (Name/Office/Division/Branch)

       •      Are there any groups not represented that should be?


       •      What other federal, state,  or local agencies will be involved with this project, and
             in what capacity?

       •      What  other organizations (e.g., industry,  environmental groups,  etc.) will be
             involved, and  in what capacity or how?
                                       A  - 8


      What activities and analyses need to be done to implement each strategy selected?  In
      what areas?  From what sources?  To address what issues or requirements?  Who is
      responsible for doing each of these?  With EPA or contract personnel?  How will the
      assumptions used in each analysis be determined and coordinated/standardized?

      What is the level of detail expected/needed for each analysis/activity (e.g., screening or
      hazard and exposure assessments to support dioxin in pulp and paper sludge regulatory

      What will the product be used for?

      How much detail/effort is needed to support the decision the information is to be used
      for (to avoid a situation where someone produces a product/document which is either too
      detailed, has more information than needed and so wastes time, or frustrates the decision
      maker because there is not enough information - e.g., PMN v. Section 6)?

      List of products/outputs from workgroup:

      e.g.:  Hazard assessment
             Exposure assessment
             Risk assessment

       a)     Project Timeline:  What is the proposed schedule for completing the project and
             each of the activities?  What are the major milestones,  outputs, and decision
             points? What is the deadline for completing the project (mandatory by regulation,
             set by upper management, negotiable, proposed by group)?

       b)     Meeting Schedule:  What is the proposed meeting schedule for the workgroup?

       c)     Status Reports and Briefings:  What is the proposed schedule and format for
             status reports to upper management (written, oral, etc.)?
                                        A -9

             What is the level of effort and resources needed to produce the outputs at the
             level of detail needed?

             What resources will be required to complete this project?

             Estimate of EPA personnel resources

             Estimate of contractor $

             Availability of resources
             What are the recordkeeping requirements and plan? (e.g., will meeting sum manes
             be kept? Will members keep phone logs of conversations?  Where will these
             records be kept?  Docket?)

             Is there a need to set up a workgroup  library?  How will it operate (how will
             workgroup members be advised what is in it, and how will they get copies)0
                                       A - 10


Workgroup status reports should generally follow the format below or at least cover all the
relevant issues and address the questions under each heading.
                         Covering Period from Date to Date
                               Office and Report Date
1.    Introduction

      a.     Indicate the  workgroup meetings covered by  this report, and any pertinent
             introductory information.

      b.     Key Issues:  List here or, if the list is very long, attach the complete list of issues
             the workgroup is addressing as Attachment A to every workgroup report. Group
             related issues if they fall into categories, and number issues.  A question format
             for stating issues is preferred.  If new issues have emerged since a previous
             report, add to issues list under appropriate category, and mark with asterisk or
             indicate:  New  Issue.
2.     Issues Resolved

       For each issue resolved since the last workgroup report, indicate:

       °      Statement of Issue:  What  the issue is,  preferably in the. form, of a question.
             (Place an asterisk In front of new issues.)

       •      Alternatives Considered: The alternatives considered, who eliminated any of
             them, and why.

       •      Approach Selected or Resolution of Issue: How the issue was resolved, including
             (1) the decision made, and (2) the decision-making process used:
                                       A - 11

3.     Unresolved Issues Under Discussion

       For each issue under discussion (excluding those note yet addressed), indicate:

       •      Statement of  Issue:  What the issue is, preferably in the form a question.
              Status:  Indicate the different  offices' positions  toward the issue, and why it
              remains unresolved.  Indicate if the lead program has established a process for
              resolving the issue within  the  workgroup, or whether to elevate the issue for
              resolution.  If the lack of resolution relates to the inadequacy of available data,
              indicate what  data are needed, and the  time  and resources required to  obtain
4.     Status of Technical and Analytic Support Work

       a.      Status of Studies/Analyses:  Indicate the status of principal studies and analyses
              supporting the rule-making.

       b.      Sufficiency of Studies:  Are the current studies sufficient in terms  of quality and
              scope to meet project needs?  If not, indicate what further studies  are needed to
              support the project.

       c.      Timeliness of Studies:  Are the  studies on schedule,  and if not, what are  the
5.     Operation of the Workgroup

       a.      Participation:  Is participation in the workgroup sufficient to address important
              issues and other aspects of the project?  (Attach list showing office representation
              by meeting date, if pertinent.) Does the workgroup need additional participation
              from any party, whether a current member of not?

       b.      Anticipated Delays:  Do you anticipate any delays from the originally proposed
              schedule, and if so, for what reason?  Will anticipated delays cause the Agency
              or office problems with any deadlines, and if so,  can delay be avoided?

       c.      Significant Changes:  Are  there any other significant changes since the project
              started that will affect workgroup operation?
                                          A - 12


      What factors/influences contributed to the team's success?

      What factors/influences hampered the team's progress?

      What aspects of the project best exemplify a "team effort"?

      How might the team have run more smoothly?
•     What new innovations, process or otherwise, did the team develop in order to improve
      the final team product?
      What recommendations would the team make to improve the review/decision-making
      How might management have been more supportive of the team?
                                   A - 13

Recommendation:   Reduce the number of work teams that currently exist in OPPT.

       In  order  to  validate  comments raised by  OPPT staff and  managers that they are
overloaded, the Teamwork QAT enlisted Stonnell Associates to survey the Office to determine
how many workgroups  existed within OPPT.   The results show that there are over 350
workgroups within OPPT, a number that on the surface seems to be incredibly high and mostly

       In  order  to  reduce the burden of OPPT staff and managers, the  Teamwork QAT
recommends that the Office commit to reducing the number of work teams within OPPT. Those
teams that are duplicates or that are working on low-priority projects need to be disbanded in
order to free up resources (or at least staff arid management time) to devote to higher-priority
assignments within the various program areas.
Possible Benefits:

•      Reduces the number of staff and management commitments to individual projects

•      Frees up resources for reallocation to higher priority projects

•      Creates a more manageable number of workteams for the program steering committees

•      Gives management a better understanding of projects staff are working on

Steps to Implementation:

•      After formation and chartering of the program steering committees, these committees will
       evaluate the current list of OPPT workteams by categorizing existing workteams into
       low, medium, and high priority projects.

•      Those workteams that are of low  priority, are duplicates,  or no longer exist will  be
       deleted from the workteam database and the workteam will be disbanded.

•      On a regular (perhaps quarterly) basis, the steering committees should compare existing
       workteams against the annual program plan and make adjustments as necessary.

•      After a workteam has fulfilled its mission, the workteam will be disbanded and deleted
       from the workteam database.
                                        A -  14

Recommendation:   Establish a pilot standing team in one or more areas.

       Some private sector organizations have introduced the concept of a standing team in their
work environments.  Rather than  forming a new team for each new issue that  develops, a
working team is created to handle several issues. A team  may be created to work on research
and development initiatives or ways to improve management systems.  The teams manage their
own resources and time allocation based on guidance received from management.

       The Teamwork QAT proposes that OPPT adopt this concept on a pilot basis within a
number of program areas. The standing team would consist of a core group of 4-5 individuals
(e.g., project manager, technical integrator, hazard integrator, chemical engineer, and exposure
assessor) who would be assigned to work on 3-4 issues/chemical projects over the course of the
year.  In general, these individuals  would spend most of their time working on these projects
(perhaps 70-80 percent of their time).  In instances where specialized expertise  is required,
others would be called in on  a temporary  basis to provide this support.  However, these
additional individuals  would not become part of the standing team.

       There was considerable  debate among members of the QAT regarding which program
areas would most benefit from this type of approach.  Some felt that the concept may not even
work. However, almost all  of the QAT members agreed that OPPT might benefit from trying
this concept on a limited basis for one year to document the possible benefits and disadvantages
from establishing standing teams on a more permanent basis.

       In selecting members for this team, some considerations are necessary.  The team should
not be "stacked" to create the "Dream Team."  On the other hand, the team should consist of
individuals who are willing to test the concept out and give it a fair chance of succeeding. More
specific criteria should be created by the individual program steering committees based on the
needs and circumstances as identified by those groups.
 Possible Benefits:

 •     Insures the continuity of projects by assigning them to a clearly identified team that meets
       on a regular basis

 •     Provides a means of quick development and concentration of skills that are needed to
       complete projects

. •     Provides a mechanism for technical divisions and staffs to gain a sense of.ownership tor
       projects that could contribute to strengthening teamwork
                                         A - 15

•      Eliminates the delays caused by having to establish working relationships among team
       members for each new project

•      Establishes a system for management to identify the number of ongoing projects in the
       program area as well as a means of determining staff workload

•      Motivates technical staff on the team by giving them the opportunity to develop skills
       beyond their area of technical expertise

Possible Drawbacks:

•      Every issue that OPPT handles is unique which makes it difficult for standing teams to
       handle the diversity.

•      May not provide flexibility to respond to the requirements of the issue

«      May be difficult to implement in areas where units work on issues in more than one
       program area (i.e., existing chemicals and new chemicals)
Steps to Implementation:

•      Each of the program specific steering committees needs to determine whether resources
       are available to test out this concept

•      In areas willing to participate in the pilot, the program steering committees identify the
       projects the team will work on and develop the criteria for selecting individuals for the

•      Following this, the committees should solicit volunteers  for the team.  The program
       steering committees should select the team based on the identified criteria and charter the

•      On a periodic basis, the standing team should discuss its progress with the steenng
       committee and recommend modifications to the standing team concept for that program

•      At the end of one year, the team and the steering committee should evaluate the team's
      •accomplishments and determine whether to expand this concept to the overall program.

•      Results of the evaluation should be shared with the OPPT Steering Committee.
                                         A - 16


1)     Each organizational unit (branch or section) should establish a customer service program.
2)     Institute a Customer Product Feedback Survey  to be used for products submitted to

       Some branches  and sections now view their contribution to cross-divisional  teams as
primarily a matter of assigning staff to teams as requested.  The line managers and their units
do not view the teams  as customers of the branches or sections.  This view can result in two
problems: 1) it leaves the staff person assigned to the team largely without support from
management; and 2) it  does not establish any means for the branch or section to evaluate and
improve the products it submits to teams.  Simply telling line managers and their units to start
viewing the teams as customers is not enough to address this issue.   Support for teams will
become a reality only when each organizational unit establishes a routine process for evaluating
and improving the products that they supply  to teams.

       Units could routinely meet to  review and evaluate all the feedback from a program  and
make plans for improvement. Such meetings might be supplemented with the assignment of a
staff person  in the unit  to take responsibility for organizing the review and improvement of the
products to a program.  Routine distribution of feedback from teams to all unit members, regular
interviews with team leaders to discover needs, periodic revision of the unit's standard operating
procedures, and other mechanisms could be developed to supplement these periodic assessments.
The goal is  for each unit to establish a clear and routine process that can make the  customer
support of teams a reality.

       Most importantly, the QAT envisions a review  that does not focus solely on the quality
of the analysis.    It  is  generally  felt  that  the analytical  work provided by  the various
organizational units is  of high quality.  Rather,  this evaluation process  should more closely
scrutinize how the customer uses the analysis and  what can be done to provide products that can
be more readily assimilated into the team's final product without significant additional work by
the team  leader or other team members.

       To supplement  this process, the QAT developed a customer product  feedback survey
This survey provides teams with a mechanism for evaluating the products received for their use
and review.  The information from these surveys could be used to help improve the products
submitted by the organizational  unit as well  as to evaluate the  team  member  and  the
organization's contribution to the workgroup.
                                         A - 17

Possible Benefits:

•      Serves as a catalyst for re-inforcing customer-supplier relationships

•      Provides a forum for discussion of contributions to the workgroup

•      Opens a line of communication between the team leader and the line manager, while
       providing feedback to the team member on their contribution to the workgroup

•      Provides  an opportunity for organizations to continuously evaluate  and improve the
       products they submit to teams

•      Works towards improving the quality of the products submitted to teams

Steps to Implementation:

•      Each branch or division should establish a small group consisting of line managers and
       team members to review the unit's existing standard operating procedures for preparing
       products submitted to teams.

•      Following the collection and  evaluation of these procedures,  the group should solicit
       feedback from teams on their  quality of their contributions.

•      To aid in this data collection, with each new product submitted to the team,  the team
       member should attach a copy  of the  product feedback survey.

•      Team leaders should be instructed on:
       1.     the purpose of the feedback survey
       2.     how to involve the team in completing the survey
       3.     how the survey will  be used by the branch/section

•      Within  2-3 weeks,  the team  should provide comments to the team  leader who will
       summarize  the responses and send  the form back to the  team member and  the team
       member's line manager

•      The  branch or  division should  use  this feedback to  continuously  improve their
       contributions to teams.
                                         A -  18


TO:         Work Group Leader:

FROM:     Manager:


SUBJECT:   Name of Work Group:
            Name of Product Submitted from Division/Branch:
We want to make sure that we are meeting the needs of this Work Group.  Please give us
feedback about our Branch's contribution to the Work Group Project.

1.     Did you receive this work product by the deadline?     Y   N
      If not, how did the'delay affect the workgroup's progress?
Please rate the quality of the work product:
Quality of content
Quality of writing/presentation
Meets the needs of the project





3.    Status of Work Product:    Check (x) one:
      	1. Accepted in full for use in Work Group Project.
      	2. Sections of Work Product will be used in Project.
      	3. Returned to Work Group Member for changes.
                    DueJback to Work Group:      (insert date)

4.    Was more analysis done than the workgroup needed?   Y      N

                                     A -  19

Recommendation:   Create and distribute a list of Teamwork Guidelines which outline the role
                   of team members, team leaders, line managers, and upper management in
                   support of cross-divisional teams.

      During the QAT's data gathering activities, individuals throughout OPPT indicated that
people within the Office did not understand or practice the "team approach" to doing work.
Both staff and  management suggested various training and educational opportunities to learn
more about teamwork. As a basis for this training, the QAT developed Teamwork Guidelines
that should  be practiced throughout OPPT.
Possible Benefits:

•     Outlines a role for line managers in supporting cross-divisional teams

•     Fosters an understanding of management and staff responsibilities to teams

•     Provides criteria for nominating and distributing awards to management and staff based
      on their teamwork efforts

•     Provides criteria for evaluating teamwork performance standards

Steps to Implementation:

1.     As a first step, distribute the attached Teamwork Guidelines to everyone in OPPT

2.     Provide these Teamwork Guidelines to the Rewards and Recognition QAT as a basis tor
      nominating individuals for the Teamwork Excellence Awards.

3.     Provide these guidelines to the  Human Resources Team  for inclusion in the  New.
      Employee Orientation Manual.
                                       A -20

                    TEAMWORK GUIDELINES
                  FOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT
Role:  Lead by example by working as a team and managing the office and divisions in a
      way that promotes cross-divisional teamwork.
      Recruit and promote into management individuals who are strong team players and
      have exceptional coaching and interpersonal skills.
      Reward and recognize instances of teamwork among team leaders, team members,
      and line managers, with particular emphasis on the role of line managers who help
      meet the needs of their customers on successful teams.
•     Visibly and actively support workgroup managers, regardless of whether they are in
      your division.
      Even in the midst of a crunch or a "firedrill," reinforce the team approach for
      resolving issues; avoid the inclination to have only one person handle the crisis.
•     Empower teams to take on a project's responsibility as their own.  Give clear
      direction to the team leader.
      Hold line managers at all levels accountable for the success of teams.
      Analyze situations/systems that often produce "firedrills" for changes that may avoid
      them in the future.
                                      A -21

                     TEAMWORK GUIDELINES
                        FOR LINE MANAGERS

Role: Fully support and be responsible for the success of OPPT's cross-divisional teams.
      Recognize and reward your staffs performance on teams not only for their
      substantive expertise contributed to teams, but also for their demonstrated team skills
      in helping the group reach their goals.
      As a team is formed, work with your team members and the team to develop a
      common vision and goals for the team that all team members and managers share.
      Help to determine clearly the customer and supplier relationships, and underscore the
      value,  importance, and responsibility of each.
      Through your team member, take an active interest in the team and its progress.
      Meet with the team leader and other line managers frequently to make sure the project
      as a whole is proceeding well, as well as the part of the work you are responsible for.
      Understand the needs of your customer (i.e., the team) upfront.
      Recognize, formally and informally, good teamwork of others, even if they don't
      work for you.
      Before a product from your group goes to the team, review it to make sure that it
      meets the needs of the customer.  Develop a quality control system that assures a high
      quality product in terms of customer satisfaction.
      Don't constantly switch staff from one project to the next. Try to build continuity
      into the environment, where staff have some sense of certainty about what they will
      be working on.
•     Serve as a coach, trainer, facilitator, delegator, educator, sounding board, and
      Solicit input from team leaders regarding your team member's contributions to the
      project and overall teamwork.

                                       A -22

                    TEAMWORK GUIDELINES
                        FOR TEAM LEADERS

Role:  Help accomplish OPPT's mission by successfully leading cross-divisional teams.
•     Attend the workgroup manager training course.  Review the training materials
      regularly to keep your skills sharp.
•     When forming teams, make sure that representatives of all interested parties
      Conduct productive meetings by distributing an agenda in advance, starting meetings
      on time, sticking to the agenda, and distributing meeting summaries.  Review and put
      into practice the recommendations of the Meetings Management QAT on how
      effective meetings are conducted.
•     Develop a workplan and schedule with input from team members.

•     Keep management informed of project status.

•     Notify management as soon as it becomes apparent that a significant issue or change
      in the workplan or schedule is likely to arise.
•     If a team member regularly does not attend meetings or participate, encourage them
      to become more active.
0     Guide workgroup discussions towards a workgroup consensus.  Listen actively to
      your team members; ask open-ended questions to get their views and ideas.
0     Consider planning fun events to celebrate achievement of milestones.
      Provide feedback to team members and their supervisors when team members make
      important contributions to the team.

                                      A - 23

                     TEAMWORK GUIDELINES
                        FOR TEAM MEMBERS

Role: Help accomplish team objectives by making contributions both within and outside of
      one's area of expertise.
•     Make sure that you, your team leader, and your line manager agree to the scope of
      your contribution and deadlines.
      Share responsibility with the team leader for getting work done.  Volunteer to assist
      others on the workgroup if you can.  Advocate the team objective to problem solving.
•     Tell the team leader when you'll be out of the office for a few days or more.
      Try to attend all of the meetings where you have a contribution to make.  Ask the
      team leader whether your presence is valuable.
      Assist the team in following the meeting agenda.  If you have another agenda item,
      ask the team leader's permission to add it, or arrange for a separate meeting.  Review
      the Meetings Management QAT's recommendations on how team members can help
      run effective meetings.
      Speak up at meetings to make sure your opinions and feelings are known.  Try to be
      diplomatic. Be an active listener.  Always consider the opinions of others and work
      to understand why they feel that way.
      Hold frequent, informal meetings with your "suppliers" and "customers" of
      information.  These important conversations should not occur during meetings of the
      whole team.
•     Recognize that your reports have many readers other than your supervisor.  Put
      technical details in appendices.  Make liberal use of abstracts.

•     When you reissue reports, highlight changes from previous drafts.

                                       A - 24

Recommendation:   Include teamwork responsibilities in performance standards for all OPPT


       Accountability for teamwork activities can be tied to the performance appraisal process
by incorporating a teamwork standard into individual plans.  At the direction of the Office of
Human Resources Management, managers at all levels were required  to include a standard on
human resources in their FY93 performance agreement.  This human resources standard includes
provisions  for  supporting teamwork.   The  Teamwork  QAT  recommends extending this
requirement to all members of OPPT.

Possible Benefits:

•      Reinforces the customer-supplier relationship

•      Gives importance in the performance appraisal process to  contributions to teams

•      Creates an incentive for line managers to support team activities

Steps to Implementation:

1.     The Office Director should distribute a memo to all OPPT employees encouraging staff
       and management to include a standard on  teamwork in each performance agreement
       (sample standards are attached).

2.     At the most appropriate time (e.g., mid-year performance  review), the standards should
       be incorporated  into all performance plans.

3.     Consider establishing a quality action team  to develop mechanisms for evaluating the

4.     Use the  customer feedback  surveys as one means  of assessing  performance  ot
       management and staff.
                                        A - 25

                                  Proposed Standards

Office Director/Deputy Office Director

CJE:   Provides  effective leadership, employee empowerment,  customer  satisfaction,  and
       improved staff capability  in  support of the Office's team and teamwork  activities.
       Encourages  supervisors and managers  to  practice TQM principles  to  effectively
       accomplish teamwork goals.

Fully Successful Standard:

       Promotes and encourages productive working relationships  both inside and outside the
Agency.   Fosters employee development,  cooperation, and  team  approaches  to meeting
organizational goals and  resolving problems.  Creates an organizational climate that encourages
empowerment, prudent risk-taking and personal growth and development to ensure that customer
needs and services are met.  Enhances individual performance within the organization through
the use of appropriate training opportunities, individual development  plans, and development

Division  Director/Deputy Division Director

CJE:   Provides  effective leadership, employee empowerment,  customer  satisfaction,  and
       improved staff capability  in  support of the Office and  Division's team and  teamwork
       activities.   Encourages supervisors  and managers  to practice  TQM principles  to
       effectively accomplish teamwork goals.

Fully Successful Standard:

       Encourages teambuilding and cooperative work relationships.  Encourages staff to act
independently and to be prudent  risk takers.  Fosters cooperation and the team approach to
meeting  organizational  goals and in resolving problems.  Determines customer  needs  and
services.   Ensures that products developed by the organization meet the customer's  needs and
are delivered in a timely manner.   Praises  the quality and accomplishments resulting  from
teamwork and rewards accordingly.   Seeks staff and upper  management input to improve the
quality with value-added efforts.
                                        A -26

Branch Chief/Section Chief
CJE:   Provides  effective leadership,  employee  empowerment, customer satisfaction  and
       improved staff capability in  support of the Office, Division, and  Branch's  team and
       teamwork activities.

Fully Successful Standard:

       Promotes opportunities to further organizational goals.  Fosters cooperation and the team
approach to meeting organizational goals and in resolving problems.  Determines the customers
needs and services.  Ensures that products meet the customer's needs  and are delivered in a
timely  manner.  Praises the quality and accomplishments resulting from  teamwork and rewards
accordingly.  Seeks staff and upper management input to improve quality with value-added
Team Leader

CJE:   Using TQM principles in supporting the customer/supplier relationship, effectively lead
       all team activities.

Fully Successful Standard:

       Foster cooperation and utilize the team approach to setting the workgroup's goals which
includes  team buy-in, and  in resolving problems;  evaluate the quality of a team member's
contribution which includes timely products, and inform line managers about accomplishments
resulting from teamwork; seek team input when making workgroup decisions.
Team Member

CJE:   Actively participates as a full team member on an assigned team

Fully Successful Standard:

       Demonstrates adequate level  of involvement in each  assigned team.   Succeeds in
presenting views of the branch and/or division management to the team.  Determines customer
needs for work products.  Provides quality work products which  meet customer needs.  Ensures
that  work products are in a format which can  be easily utilized  by other team members
Coordinates with other team members to ensure that products received meet project  needs
Attends and participates  in  team meetings.   Meets team schedule for project  assignments
Informs management of  team activities and progress.   Informs management  of  outside
developments that may affect team assignments.
                                        A -27

Recommendation:   Create a Teamwork Excellence Award for individual team members, team
                    leaders,  and line managers who have demonstrated outstanding support of

       Team members rarely see the results of their efforts.  Teams and individual members
receive little feedback about whether the objectives of the project were accomplished. Likewise,
line managers have little incentive to support teamwork.  Most line managers are evaluated based
on their ability to achieve the division's objectives rather than on  their ability  to serve as
coaches, advisors,  facilitators, and  mentors.

       There is a perception  that  awards  tend  to  be given  out according  to  political
considerations instead  of  according  to performance on  teams.   Many  feel that high  level
managers  in lead  divisions tend  to receive recognition  even if they  had  little personal
involvement with the project.  More consideration is given to making certain that divisions and
offices are represented rather than high quality performance on the team.
Possible Benefits:

•      Provides recognition for contributions to teams

•      Creates incentives for managers and staff to support team efforts

Steps to Implementation:

•      Information describing the various awards  available in OPPT should be prepared and
       distributed to all staff.

•      The OD/OPPT should announce which OPPT awards may be nominated by staff other
       than line managers.

•      Senior management and line managers should establish criteria for nominating individuals
       for awards. The Teamwork Guidelines may be a good starting off point for developing
       these criteria.

•      A committee should be chartered, such as the OPPT Human Resources Panel, to review
       award nominations.

•      Implementation should occur in consultation with the Rewards and Recognition QAT
                                        A - 28

Recommendation:   Enhance OPPT staff and management training to accentuate teamwork.


      Training should be enhanced in three major areas: 1) roles of staff and management with
respect to teams; 2) team leader training; and 3) skills training for team members. In light of
the limited  resource dollars  available  within OPPT, the QAT recommends that the Human
Resources Team in OPME concentrate on four specific areas:

      •      Continuation of the OPPT Workgroup Management Course
      •      Development of training on team skills for team members
      •      Institutionalization of the OPPT Workgroup Leaders Development Plan
      •      Development of training for line managers in resource  management in a matrix
             management system

Overall, training needs to be expanded to include all key team  leaders, team members, and
management. In particular, the workgroup leader training course should be expanded to include
all program areas within the  Office.

      The team skills training could include some of the following elements: time management;
managing or participating in multiple projects;  consensus  building;  dealing effectively with
people with different points of view; and communication skills. This skills training should be
on-going and periodic refresher courses may be warranted.

      The resource management training for line managers  will  help develop a  consistent
approach for planning and implementing team staffing in a matrix organization.  This training
will help line managers deal  more effectively with priorities, fire drills, and staff overload.

      In addition, branches and divisions may want to consider setting  up routine "Introductions
to What Our Branch Does" seminars.   This cross-training will allow team members to better
understand what their colleagues do as  well as provide opportunities for branches and divisions
to find out what their customers do with the products they submit to teams.

Possible Benefits:

•     Re-inforces  the  teamwork  that  results  from  the   implementation  of the  other
      recommendations already  described

•     Creates an environment within the  Office that is more supportive of teamwork

•     Increases opportunities for evaluating the customer-supplier relationship

•     Develops teamwork skills for all OPPT staff
                                        A -29

Steps to Implementation:

•     In light of the various competing needs and requests for training, the QAT recommends
      that this recommendation be referred to the OPME Human Resources Team.
                                     A -30


             Results of Branch  Chiefs Firedrill Survey


      The Teamwork QAT tried to determine whether "firedrills" had an impact on teamwork
in OPPT.  The QAT selected one Branch Chief from each of the divisions to participate in the
study.  Each participant was asked to collect data on two types of firedrills: 1) unexpected high
priority items (not in the operating plan) that required a quick turnaround and 2) unexpected high
priority items of a longer term nature.  Based on  discussions with many staff and managers
within the Office,  the QAT believed that  firedrills may  be pulling people away from their
workgroup work to complete short-term, fast action projects.

                                   STUDY DESIGN

      The QAT asked the participants to record data on a daily basis in the following areas:

Source of Request  e.g., Office Director, Division Director

Type of Request   e.g., management, administrative, technical

Time Demands     e.g., turnaround personal hours, staff hours

What Suffered     e.g., general management,  specific project, availability to staff, morale,
                   personal life


      Only 4 of the original 7 participants provided data.  Of the four active respondents, only
2 provided adequate data outlining their experiences during the four-week period. Thus, there
is a question as to whether this was a representative sample providing good data.

      Based on  the data provided, firedrills do not appear to be a big problem in the Office.
In fact, the Branch  Chiefs who responded seem to have accounted for firedrills in their Branch
work plans.  From  the limited data, it appears that although "firefighting" time is not  formally
built-in to the budget and operating plan, it is somehow accounted for in the final product


      The problems associated with firedrills seem to be more of a process or planning issue
There are no standardized work flow charts or workplans.  In addition, firedrills tend  to result
when the Office does not communicate priorities  to staff.


                  Results of Time Utilization Survey


      The Teamwork QAT enlisted Stonnell  Associates to asked OPPT Branch and Section
Chiefs to the percentage of time they spent in FY92 on each of the following types of activities:
1) doing technical work on projects; 2) divisional/branch administrative work, 3) managing staff
on workgroup projects,  4)  managing staff on other (non-workgroup) projects,  and 5)  other
meetings/other work.


Section Chiefs

      Section chiefs spend an almost equal percentage of their time, on average, doing technical
work  themselves as  managing staff on work group projects.  The remainder of section chiefs'
time tends to be equally divided between administrative duties, managing staff on work other
than workgroup projects, and attending meetings or doing other types of work.

Branch Chiefs

      Branch chiefs spend  an almost equal amount of time on  each of the five activities.
reporting a slightly higher percentage of time (24 percent) spent managing workgroup activities
and a slightly lower (17 percent) of time spent on  other types of meetings  and  work.  They
reported spending about 20 percent of their time on technical work, administrative duties, and
managing staff on non-workgroup projects.


      A number of conclusions can be drawn from these results.  Most significantly, section
chiefs and branch chiefs are spending considerable amounts of time doing technical work   This
observation could lead  one to believe that staff are working  on more projects than they can
handle.  In addition, these results suggest that the Office needs to  reprioritize the projects "on
its plate" and may want to  discontinue certain projects in order for section  chiefs and branch
chiefs to perform their management functions as well as to lighten the workload on OPPT staff
                                         B - 3

                      WORKGROUPS IN OPPT

      The Teamwork QAT enlisted Stonnell Associates to develop a database of information
on workgroups in OPPT.  This information was needed to uncover the "base line" of matrix
management and utilization of teams in OPPT. Information sought included the number of
teams, how the lead is distributed among OPPT divisions, and the number of people in each
division who are involved in teams.  Using this information, the QAT was better able  to
develop recommendations for improving the general understanding and functioning of
OPPT's matrix system.
                        DESCRIPTION OF THE DATABASE


      To qualify for entry in the database, a workgroup had to meet these conditions:

      1.     Membership crosses Branch lines; that is, not all members work for the same
            line manager, or if they do, the project is not solely for that Branch

      2.     The group will be meeting for more than two months

      3.     The work done is a project,  in the sense that members play different roles and
            provide different expertise

      4.     The group is active and current (though activity may be slight)

      The information gathered on workgroups that met these criteria was entered into a
database with the following fields:

PURPOSE:                     Reason for existence of the workgroup
TYPE:                         e.g., regulatory, RM1, RM2, QAT,
LEAD GROUP:                Division or office assigned lead responsibility
STARTUP DATE:               Month and year of formation
END DATE:                    Termination date
MEETING FREQUENCY:       Meeting frequency
MEETING LENGTH:           Duration of meetings
NOTES:                        Miscellaneous additional information
MEMBER:                     Name,  division and branch of OPPT members
FUNCTION:                    Role of member (e.g., chair,  general participant,
                               technical expert, etc.
                                      B -4

Developing the Database

      Once criteria were set, Stonnell Associates obtained lists of known workgroups from
those Branch Chiefs and others who (from interviews during the Management Study of OPPT
performed in 1991-92) were known to have such information.  These preliminary lists were
corrected and expanded upon by spot checking with selected  individuals known to be on a
workgroup, or to be in  some way knowledgeable about the workgroup.  This information
was entered into the database to form the first draft of a master list of OPPT workgroups.
The list was further refined through a written survey sent to all known workgroup chairs;
where a workgroup chair was not known, the survey form was sent to a known member of
the workgroup. The survey requested correction of listed information, designation of
potential duplicate entries,  and the addition of valid workgroups not already  listed.

      This survey was quite successful.  More than 70 percent of forms sent were returned.
The information received from the survey was used to correct and expand the database to its
current state.

                          LIMITATIONS OF THE DATABASE

1.     Exclusion of New Chemicals Projects.  The New Chemicals Program currently
      reviews more than 2,000 PMN submissions each year.  It was decided to set the
      criteria  for inclusion in the database to exclude most of these cases from the database
      in order to avoid swamping out information on the other projects in OPPT. While
      this facilitates analysis of these other workgroups, it should be noted that the database
      seriously underestimates the involvement of CCD as project  lead group, and may also
      under-represent some  divisions' involvement in workgroups in general.

2.     Duplication. Despite extensive efforts at quality control,  some duplications remain in
      the database, although the number is probably lower than  15 percent.

3.     Workgroups not reported. The method of obtaining names of workgroups to enter
      relied on voluntary  reporting and broad-based sampling.  It is likely that most of the
      high-priority workgroups were reported, but an  unknown number were not entered.

4.     Incomplete data on listed workgroups.  Only 86 of the 381 workgroups listed are
      thought to be complete in all data fields.  Most have the lead group,  chair, and
      purpose entered, and some members.  Many lack information on startup date, meeting
      frequency and duration, and functions of the members.

5.     Inaccurate  survey  data.  The plan for this database did not allow for the quality-
      control  procedures that would rigorously prevent such errors. The extent of such
      possible errors is unknown.

6.     Data entry. Stonnell Associates provided quality-control  checking of data entry  to
      minimize this type of error.
                                         B - 5


      OPPT Workers Are on a Large Number of Workgroups.  The database contains
      entries for 381 workgroups (Table 1).  After deleting duplicates and adding those that
      should be listed, the number may be about 300; it could be even larger.
2.     The Lead is Not Evenly Shared Among Divisions.  Before construction of the
      database, it  was assumed that certain divisions served as lead in more workgroups
      than other divisions, but it was not known to what extent this assumption was true.
      The following numbers were extracted from the database:

      Division      Workgroup Leads (division personnel count in brackets')

36 [54]
23 [69]
6 [21]
13 [46]
15 [61]
10 [83]
8 [73]
5 [70]
Number per division member
      Total     116

      Again, it should be noted that the lead role of CCD is under-represented because of
      the exclusion of PMN-specific workgroups (for all of which CCD serves as lead)
      from the database.
3.     All Divisions are Heavily Represented in Workgroups. Although the lead is not
       shared equally, the representation on workgroups appears to be more uniform among
       the divisions:
on Workgroups
Number Number per division person
                    Total   1126


4.     Individuals Differ Greatly in Workgroup Participation.  The attached bar graph
      shows the distribution of memberships in workgroups among OPPT workers.  It gives
      independent confirmation of the importance of teams in OPPT, since more than 80
      percent of all personnel are involved with at least one workgroup.  The median is 2
      workgroups per person (excluding participation in PMN workgroups).

      The database of workgroups in OPPT described in this report provides ample
evidence of the central role of teams in the organization of work in OPPT.  While this was
previously known only "intuitively", we can now quantify the involvement, and note the
differences across divisions.  Those divisions that are less heavily involved in cross-divisional
teams should nonetheless realize that such teams are very important to OPPT as a whole, and
should be fully supportive of team principles.

      Another "intuitive"  observation is the differences  in "lead role" among the divisions.
Even though OPPT management has attempted to distribute the lead more evenly among
divisions than had been done in the past, there still exist  marked differences  in this  respect
The data compiled here suggest these differences between division lead may  be greater than
is generally assumed.  While it is possible that some of the problems OPPT is experiencing
in implementing teamwork stem from this imbalance in lead role among divisions, there is
insufficient information from this study to confirm that conclusion.

      Although incomplete, the workgroup database has many potential uses for OPPT

1.     Workgroup Chartering Tool

      o     Workgroups entered into database as part of chartering system
      0     "Sunset" dates entered at  time of chartering (for withdrawing charter at some
             specified time, e.g., by deleting it from system unless it is renewed)

2.     Resource-management Tool

      0     Eliminate duplication of work group effort
      0     Evaluate workload in making new assignments
      0     Evaluate training needs
      0     Budget planning aid (determine FTE committed to specific projects in each
             program area)

3.     Project/priority management Tool

      0     Establish base-line for scope of work in OPPT
      0     Use as aid in setting and tracking changes in priorities
      o     Use as aid in measuring progress and accomplishment against stated purposes
                                        B - 7

4.      Higher-Management Tool
       •      Characterize how OPPT functions as a matrix
       •      Continually monitor and balance the divisional lead across the matrix

 5.     Communications Tool

       •      Available on LAN, all OPPT staff could use as source of information on
             purpose, accomplishments, and makeup of workgroups
       •      Periodic summary reports could be generated and distributed to highlight
             changes in direction and priorities

       In the course of gathering information for the workgroup database, many potential
users of the database were identified.  Following TQM principles,  the next logical steps in
further developing this database would be to 1) identify all potential customers;  2) learn the
true needs of these customers, and 3) design-the database  so that it meets customer needs.
                                         B • 8

                                             Table 1
                                    List of OPPT Workgroups
                                    (as of November 19,  1992)
1,2-Dichloroethane (RM2)
112 List of Source Categories
2-Nitropropane Work Group (RM2)
313 Listing of 16 CAA HAPS Work Group (Title III)
5(h)(4) Exemptions Work Group
8 (e) FYI Database Work Group
Acetone 313 Delisting Work Group (Title III)
Acrylamide Work Group (RM2)
Acrylates Limited Dermal Bioassay Protocol
Acrylic/Modacrylic Fibers Production  (MACT Standards)
Acrylomtnle Work Group (RM2)
Aerosol Paints (RM1)
Agency Contracts Work Group
AHERA Interpretive Guidance Work Group
AHERA Rule Amendment Work Group
Air Quality Modeling Guid
Air Toxics Work Group
Alkali Metal Nitrates SNUR Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
     pnium Sulfate Petition  (SARA 313)
     )g Profiles (PMN)
Analysis of Metals Work Group
Aqueous Solvents (CFC subs) Tech Integr
Architectural & Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
Aromatic Amine Work Group
Aryl Phosphates Work Group
Asbestos Ban & Phaseout Remand Work Group
Asbestos Design & Development Initiatives Work Group
Asbestos in Buildings Work Group
Asbestos NESHAPS
Asbestos Research
Asbestos Worker Protection Rule Work Group
ASH A A Loan & Grant Work Group
Atlas of Dermal Lesions
B Policy Work Group
Barium Sulfate 313 Delisting Work Group  (Title III)
Batch SNURS Work Group
Benzidine Dyes (RM2) Work Group
Bioremediation Action Com
Bioremediation Work Group
B;oiech HA/Construct Analysis/Field Tests
     ch Information Systems
Title III
Title III
Post RM2


Interoffice WG-
Existing Chemic
Title III

Program Develop
Regulation Deve

Existing Chemicals
Policy Formulation
Title III
New Chemicals


Program Develop

Biotechnology Monitoring Guidelines Work Group
Biotechnology Risk Assessment
Biotechnology Rule Work Group
Brominated Flame Retardants Work Group
BSAC Support
Budget SubQAT
Budget Work Group A
Budget Work Group B
Budget Work Group C
Budget Work Group D
Budget Work Group E
Budget Work Group G
Butyl Benzyl  Pthalate 313 Dels. Work Group (Tide HI)
CAA Risk Management Plan Work Group (Title III)
CAAA HF Report to Congress (Title III)
CAIR Support Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
Cancer Risk Assessment Guideline Revision
Carbamates (Pesticide Mfg/Formulating) RCRA Listings
Carcinogen Mixture Databases
Carpet Testing
Centralized Waste Treatment Effluent Guideline Work Group
CERCLA Listing Work Group
CERCLA RQ Work Group
CFC and Substitutes - Coordinate Hazard and Review
CFC Technical Integrator
CFC Terpenes Work Group
CFCs Nonessential Products Work Group
CFCs Phase-Out Work Group
CFCs Refrigerant Recycling Rule
CFCs Safe Alternatives Work Group
Chemical  Accidents Prevention Work Group
Chemical  Evaluation Committee
Chemical  Expansion TRI List Work Group (Title III)
Chemical  Selection Work Group
Chemicals-m-Progress Bulletin Work Group
Chloranil  Work Group (RM2)
Chlorinated Alphatics (Pesticide Formulating) RCRA Listings
Chlorinated Paraffins Work Group (RM2)
Chloroethane Work Group (RM2)
Class V Well Work Group
Closure/Post-Closure & Financial Assurance Rules
Communciations QAT- Obstacles subgroup
Communications QAT
Communications QAT - Systems Subgroup
Communications QAT- Inform Subgroup
Computer Search Systems for Mixture Databases
Test Rule

Operating Plan

Title m
Existing Chemicals

Pollution Prevention
Tide III
Post RM2


                                               B - 10

f    »uterized System for Ranking Chemical Mixtures for Cancer
     mer Demand Study/OW P2 Work Group
Consumer Products & Toxics Committee
Consumer Sector Information Work Group
Cont Technology for VOC Sources
Contaminated Media Cluster
Contaminated Sediment Strategy Work Group
Correction Action Rule
Criteria for Petitions
Data Sets (Acute Toxicity Matrix)
Data Transfer QAT
Degreasing Operations (MACT Standards) Work Group
Developmental Neurotox Guidelines
Developmental Toxicity/Reproductive Endpoint Rule
DFE Printing Industry Project Task Force
DGBE Work Group (RM1)
Dilorane Work Group (RM1)
Dioxin Test Rule
Dioxin/Furan Work Group (RM1)
Dioxins Work Group
Disperse Blue 79 (RM1)
"   Cleaning NESHAPS
     Administrative  Issues
Eco Risk Guidelines
Ecological Valuation Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
EED Travel QAT
Effluent Guidelines for Disposal Wells
Effluent Guidelines for Organics, Plastics
Effluent Guidelines for Pharmaceuticals
Endangered Species Work Group - New Chemicals
Endangered Species/ExisCh
Energy Impact Assessment
Environmental Equity Work Group (Title III)
Environmental Hazard Communication Work Group
Environmental Indicators Work Group
Environmental Monitoring Management Council QA Work Group
EPA Coordination with ATSDR (110) (SARA) (CERCLA  104)
EPA Formaldehyde Work Group
EPA Test Guidelines for Oncogenicity (Dermal)
EPA/USGS Coordinating Committee
EPCRA Compliance Audit Program (CAP)
EPCRA Section 313  Form R Corrections Work Group
FPCRA Section 313  Steering Committee
    «A Section 313  Trade Secret Claim Review Work Group
.	RA Title III Implementation Work Group
Existing Chemicals

In terb ranch

Test Rule
Project Task Force

Beyond RM2
Test Rule


Existing Chemicals

Mandated by law

Policy Development
                                                B - 11

Evaluation Feasibility of Less Than 2 Species/2 Sexes in
Existing Chemicals Workload Assignments
Expert System for Predicting Carcinogenic Activity of Chemic
Feasibility of National Laboratory Accreditation Ad Hoc Pan.
Federal Asbestos Task Force
Fifra Biotechnology
Fish Consumption Rates Work Group
Formaldehyde Work Group
FOSTA Work Group
Fuels/Fuel Additives Registration Work Group
Genetox Dominant Lethal Work Group
Genetox L5178y Work Group
Genetox Salmonella Work Group
Genetox SCE Work Group
Geographic Specific Use of TSCA
GLP Revision Work Group
Glycol Ether 313  List Mod. Work Group (Title III)
Great Lakes Initiative
Green Lights Program
Hazardous Organic NESHAPS
HDI Final Rule
HF Study Work Group
Human Resources Panel
Human Resources Panel - Grapevine/Communication Subcommittee
Human Resources Panel - Professional Development Subcommmitt
Human Resources Panel - Work Environment Subcommittee
Hydrazme Work Group (RM2)
Hydrochloric Acid 313 List Mod. Work Group (Title III)
IMD Cross-Divisional Communcation
IMD QAT for Information Management
Import/Export-Basel Conve
Incinerators/Boilers/Industrial Furnances
Indian Coordinators Work Group
Indoor Air Cluster Work Group
Indoor Air Quality Committee
Indoor Air Source Characterization Project
Indoor Air Use Cluster Development Work Group (Existing Ch.)
Information Disclosure Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
Information Management QAT
Information Management QAT - Data Base Inventory Subgroup
Information Management QAT - Information Access Subgroup
Information Management QAT - Records Management Subgroup
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing  (MACT Standards)
Integrated National Report (Title III)
Interagency Fire Combustion Toxicity  Work Group
Existing Chemic

Title III

Title III
Existing Chemicals
Existing Chemicals
QAT Subgroup
QAT Subgroup
QAT Subgroup

                                               B - 12

    Igency Pharmacokinetics Work Group
    tor Architectural Coating Work Group (Existing Chem.)
International Paper Conference Work Group (Existing Chem.)
Interpretive Guidance
Intra-Agency Lead (Pb) Work Group
IRAG (FDA, CPSC Inter Regulatory  Agency Work Group)
IRIS I Work Group
ITC Semi Annual List Review
LAN Work Group (CBI)
Land Disposal Restriction
Lead (Pb) FOSTTA Work Group
Lead (Pb) in Drinking Water Work Group
Lead Battery Recycling Work Group
Lead Cluster Evaluation & Planning Group
Lead Cluster Urban Lead Group
Lead Encapsulants Work Group (RM1)
Lead in Brass Fittings Work Group
Lead in Used Oil Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
Lead Paints (Non-Residential) (RM2)
Lead Pigments Work Group
Lead SNUR Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
Lead Solder in Water Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
   * Solder Work Group (RM2)
     Strategy Coordination Group
Lead-Based Paint Work Group (RM2)
Liners/Leakers Detection
Liquids in Landfills Rule
List of Substances/Petitions Work Group
Listing/Delisting Petitions (SARA)
Locational  Accuracy Work Group
Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding  Effluent Guidelines
Major Sources of Hazardous Pollutants (112 g)
MAP Revision Work Group
MBT/RM1 Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
Mentoring  QAT
Mercury Work Group (RM1)
Microcosm Workshop and Report
Monitoring & Quality Assurance Subcommittee of P & TSRC
Municipal Sludge Disposal
Mutagenicity Risk Assessment Guidelines
NESHAP for Manufacture of Elastomers and Other Polyumers
Neurotox Guidelines Revisions
New Chemicals Exposure Limits (NCELS) Work Group
M-IW Chemicals Focus Team
     Chemicals Initiatives Work Group
L^W Chemicals Pollution Prevention  Work Group
Existing Chemicals
Pollution Prevention
Program Development
Test Rule
Information Exchange

Existing Chemicals
Program Development
Existing Chemicals
Existing Chemicals

Existing Chemicals
Program Development


Existing Chemicals
New Chemicals

                                               B- 13

New Regional Lead (Pb) Training Centers Work Group
Nitrosamines in Rubber (RM1)
NMP in Paintstripping (RM2)
NMP Work Group
ONE Committee (OSHA, NIOSH & EPA)
OPP Mutagenicity Guidelines Revision
OPP Peer Review Work Group
OPPT Biotechnology Work Group
OPPT Formaldehyde Work Group
OPPT Industrial Toxics Report Work Group
OPPT Locational Access Work Group
OPPT Pilot Career Development Workshop
OPPT Sediments Work Group
OPPT Structure Activity Team (SAT)
OPPT Transition Work Group
OPPT University of Michigan Pollution Prevention Center
OPPTS Congressional - "Hill Activities Group"
OPTS Biotechnology Policy Issues: Coordinate Responses
OPTS Research Com/Eco Fate/Biotech
OSW Pigment Hazardous Waste and Listing Work Group
OSWER Section 302 Technical Support: Explosives, Flammables,
Paint Stripper Users (MACT Standards) Work Group
Paint Wastes RCRA Listings Work Group
Paints,  Coatings & Adhesives (MATC Standards)
Paper and Other Webs (Coating) (MACT Standards)
Pan 158 Exposure Guidelines
PCB Disposal Amendments (aka Mega PCB Amendments and include
PCB Disposal Rule Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
PCB Exemptions
PCB Permits Work Group (Existing Chemicals)
PCB Program State Enhancement
PERC Drycleaning Work Group
Persistent Bioaccumulators Rule Work Group
Pesticide Formulating Effluent Guidelines Work Group
Pesticide Manufacturing Effluent Guidelines Work Group
Pesticides & Toxic Substances Research Committee
Pesticides Inert Work Group
Petroleum Refinery Cluster Work Group
Pharmaceuticals Production (MACT Standards) Work Group
Pharmaceuticals Production Effluent Guidelines Work Group
Pharmacokinetics Work Group
Phase II Drinking Water Regs Work Group
Phosphates Category 313 List Work Group (Title III)



Regulatory Development
Work Group
Advisory Committee



Existing Chemicals

Existing Chemicals

Existing Chemicals
Test Rule


Title III
                                               B -  14

     hogypsum Work Group (RM2)
    ^horic Acid Production Waste (RM2)
Planning/Budgeting Process & Information Requirements QAT
Plywood/Particleboard Manufacturing (MACT Standards)
PMN LOREX Rule Work Group
PMN Polymer Exemption
PMN Risk Assessment
PMN Rule Amendments Work Group
PMN Technical Guidance Manual Work Group (New Chemicals)
Pollution Prevention Act - EPCRA Form R Amendments
Pollution Prevention Sector Strategies - Consumer
Pollution Prevention Sector Strategies - Energy/Transportati
Pollution Prevention Work Group
Polyacrylamide (RM1)
Polystrene Production (MACT Standards)  Work Group
Printing and Publishing (coating)(MACT Standards) Work Group
Printing Industry Pilot
Printing Industry Use Cluster Work Group (Existing Chem.)
Prioritization of TRI Chemicals/Ranking Aka TRI Chemical
Proposal of National Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission
Proposed Agency Policy on Efficient Water Use
Pub & Paper Mill Sludge Proposed Rule Work Group
    ind Paper Production (MACT Standards) Work Group
    and Paper Products Effluent Guidelines Work Group
QAAPS Air Modeling Guidelines Work Group
QAT Chairs
Reauthorization Work Group
Rectification of PCB Transformers & PCB Contaminated
Red Border Review: Exemption of Perchloroethylene (PERC)
Refractory Ceramic Fibers (RM2)
Regional Lead (Pb) Work Group
Register of Lists Work Group (RoL)
Reinforced Plastic Composite Production (MACT Standards)
Reinforced Plastic Composite Products Work Group
Reinstate Mixture/Derived Rule
Relatively New Employees Work Group
Reproductive Tox Risk Assessment Guidelines
Resolution of High Priority Guideline Differences
Revision of Biennial Reporting
Revisions Policy Work Group
Rewards and Recognition QAT
Risk Assessment Forum
Risk Assessment QAT
n -k Assessments Methods Work Group
KFSK Reference Dose Work Group
Post RM2
Regulatory Development
New Chemicals

Existing Chemicals
Regulation Development

Information sharing


Subgroup of QAT

                                               B - 15

RM1 Contracting Support
RM2 Checklist Work Group
Rubber Chemicals Production (MACT Standards) Work Group
SAR - Hazardous Waste Manifest NPRM
SAR - List of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP)
SAR - Pentachlorophenol Toxicity Designation
SAR - Procurement Guideline for Fiberboard Containing
SAR - Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines - Clean Water Act
SAR for Non-Cancer Endpoints
SARA 313 Petitions Review Work Group
Science Advisory Committee
Screening Work  Group (Existing Chemicals)
Secretarial Advisory Committee - Federal
Section 313 Listing/Delisting Criteria (SARA)
Section 4 Integration of Reviews
Section 4 Policy  & Procedures QAT
Section II Performance Reviews
SemiCarbazides/RMl Work Group
SNAP Rule Work Group
Sodium Cyanide  Work Group (RM2)
Solvents II RCRA Listings
Solvents III Work Group (RCRA Listings)
Staff Training & Dev. QAT - Career/Professional Development
Staff Training & Dev. QAT - Support Staff Skill Enhancement
Staff Training and Development QAT
Standards for Lead Paint Encapsulants
Storel/ODES/BIOS Modernization Project
Styrene Butadiene Rubber & Latex Production (MACT Standards)
Substantiation Subgroup
Sulfuric Acid 313 List Mod. Work Group (Title III)
Survival & Competition of rDNA Bacteria in Soil & Water
TC Rule
Teamwork QAT
Teamwork QAT  - Matrix Management Subgroup
Teamwork QAT  - Team Skills Subgroup
Teamwork QAT  - Triangle Subgroup
Technical Committee Reviewing  All Cancer Risk Assessment
Technology Transfer
Terpenes  (CFC subs) Tech Integrator
Terpenes/RMl Work Group
Test  Guideline Harmonization Work Group
Test  Rules Engineering Support
Test  Standards QAT
Title III Implementation Work Group
Title III Pollution Prevention Rule & Guidance Work Group
Title III Steering Committee (SARA)

Regulation Development



Existing Chemicals
Post RM2
QAT Subgroup
QAT Subgroup
Title III

QAT Subgroup
QAT Subgroup
QAT Subgroup
Rule Development
                                               B- 16

 Workgroup                                                    Type
      Pollutants Lesser Quantities (112 a)                          Intra-agency
      Release Indicators Work Group
loxics and Consumer Products Committee (TAG)                   Interagency
TRI Chemical Expansion Work Group
TRI Chemicals Work Group                                      Test Rule
TRI Data Use Conference Work Group
TRI Facility Expansion Work Group                               Priority Rule
TRI Petitions Work Group
Triagency/Superfund Applied Research Committee                   Inter-agency
TSCA CBI Access                                              QAT
US-Mexico Work Group
Use Cluster Work Group                                        Policy/Technical
Used Oil Work Group                                           Intra-agency
Washington State Indoor Air Study                                Intra-agency
Wet Weight/Dry Weight
Wood Furniture Manufacturing (MACT Standards)                   Intra-agency
Wood Furniture Manufacturing (NESHAPS)                        Intra-agency
                                               B- 17

  80  -
  70  -
  60  -
  50  -
  40  -
  30  -
  20  -
  10  -
    0  -

         iiiiiiiiiiiIiiIr r  i' Tiii  T  i  rii  i
        0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   12   14   16   18   20   22   24
Figure 1:    Number of OPPT staff (vertical axis) who are on a given number of teams (horizontal
                                          B - 18


      Chance,  Paul, "Great Experiments in Team Chemistry,"  Across  the  Board: The
Conference Board Magazine, May  1989, pp. 18-25.

      Cleaning Up the Act Through Employee Involvement: Arlington County Water Pollution
Control Plant.  Presented by Susan  W. Barrett, Alan F. Cassel, William M. Kohn, and Charles
R. Willis at the 1990 Ecology of Work Conference, Louisville, KY, June 28, 1990.

      Dumaine, Brian, "Who Needs a Boss?," Fortune, May 7, 1990, pp. 52-60.

      Hirschhorn, Larry and Thomas Gilmore, "The New Boundaries of the 'Boundaryless'
Company," Harvard Business Review, pp.  104-115.

      Hoerr, John, "The Payoff from Teamwork," Business Week, July 10, 1989, pp. 56-62.

      Klein,  Janice A.,  "The Human Costs  of Manufacturing  Reform,"  Harvard Business
Review,  March-April 1989, pp. 60-66.

      Lee, Chris, "Beyond Teamwork," Training, June 1990, pp. 25-32.

      Ost, Edward J., "Team-Based Pay: New Wave Strategic Incentives," Sloan Management
Review,  Spring 1990, pp. 19-27.

      Pasmore, William  A., Ph.D.,  "Overcoming  the Roadblocks in Work-Restructuring
Efforts," Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1982, pp.  54-67.

      Schein, Edgar H., "Corporate Teams and Totems," Across the Board: The Conference
Board Magazine, May 1989, pp. 12-17.

      Sherwood,  John  J.,  "Creating   Work  Cultures  with Competitive  Advantage."
Organizational Dynamics,  (need pub. date) pp. 5-26.

      Stayer, Ralph, "How  I Learned to Let My Workers Lead," Harvard Business  Review.
November-December 1990, pp. 66-83.

      Stonnell Associates.  Functional Study of the  Office of Toxic Substances.  November

      Stonnell Associates and Eastern Research Group. OPPT/OCM Course in Effective Work
Group Management. 1992.

      Stonnell Associates and Eastern Research Group. OPPT/OCM Work Group Procedure •>
Guide.   1992.
                                      C - 2

                  TEAMWORK QAT MEMBERS
Rose Allison

John Bowser

Ethel Brandt

Frank Caesar

Randy Cramer

Mary Fox

Gail Froiman

Ted Jones

Bob Jordan

Rick Keigwin

Bob McNally, Chair

Edna Pleasants

Brad Schultz

Hank Topper

Contract Support Provided by:

Ruth Carstens

Suzi Power

Ron Brand
Chemical Control Division

Chemical Control Division

Chemical Screening and Risk Assessment Division

Information Management Division

Chemical Management Division

Chemical Control Division

Economics, Exposure and Technology Division

Chemical Screening and Risk Assessment Division

Chemical Management Division

Chemical Control Division

Chemical Control Division

Information Management Division

Chemical Management Division

Environmental Assistance Division
Stonnell Associates
Stonnell Associates
Science Applications International Corporation
                                       C - 3

                            Estimated Resource Implications

      At the request of the Division Directors, the Teamwork QAT has attempted to estimate
the FTE and extramural resources needed to implement the various recommendations proposed
by the QAT.  The estimates provided can best be described as "bounding estimates" and may
actually overstate the resource commitments needed to implement the recommendations.

I.  Office Priorities

In  addition  to setting Office  priorities on an  annual basis, the  Office Director and Division
Directors should meet quarterly to review priorities and to make adjustments as needed.

      The QAT estimates that this activity could take approximately 100 hours per year.
      This calculation is based on the following considerations: OD, DOD, Director of
      OPME, and DD's (11 people) meet for at least 2 hours for 4 times per year to
      discuss priorities.
Create a mechanism for communicating office-wide priorities and for informing staff of changes
in priorities as needed.

      The QAT estimates  that this activity  could  take approximately  100 hours  to
      develop. Following  its development, the cost should be less than 20 hours per
      year which would include writing a quarterly message to managers and staff.
Develop a strategy for handling "firedrills" within OPPT and within organizational units.

      Difficult to estimate without getting a good handle on how many firedrills occur.

II.  Team Coordination and Control

Establish a Steering Committee for each program area to coordinate and oversee implementation
of the annual operating plan.

      The QAT estimates that this activity would take approximately 9000 hours per
      year.  This assumes that 6 steering committees are created  consisting of 9
      members each  and  that  members  work at least 3  hours per week on program
      management activities for the steering committee.

Create a standard process that is followed in chartering OPPT teams.

      Before estimating that FTE resources this activity would entail,  the Office needs
      to determine how many  teams are formed each fiscal year.  The QAT assumes
      that the chartering process would add little time to that already  spent on project

Reduce the number of work teams that currently exist in OPPT.

       This activity would be done by the program steering committees described above.
       Costs  associated with this  activity  are included with those for  the program
       steering committees.
Maintain the data base of OPPT work teams that was created by the Teamwork QAT and make
the information available to OPPT staff and management.

       Actual day-to-day maintenance of the system should be minimal.  However, the
       database will need to be updated to more accurately reflect today's picture of the
       number of workgroups within the office as well as completing the various data
       fields in  the database.   Stonnell Associates used approximately 150 hours to
       develop the original version of the database. Approximate FTE resources could
       be as high as 200 hours to complete these tasks.  Maintenance costs in future
       years should be minimal. Extramural resources may be necessary if maintenance
       cannot be handled in-house.
Establish a pilot standing team in one or more programs areas.

       Assuming that 1 team was formed composed of 6 members and that each member
       spent at least half of their time on  projects assigned to the standing team, this
       activity could consume 6000 hours per year.
III.  Customer Service

Each organizational unit (branch or section) should establish a customer service program.

      Assumption: Only branches established these customer service units.  There are
      24 branches.  If each unit consisted of 4 members which met 15 times per year
      (more in the beginning as the program was being developed), the total cost could
      be about 4500  hours per year.   This assumes  the members spent 3 hours
      preparing for and attending meetings associated with  this activity.

Institute a Customer Product Feedback Survey to be used for products submitted to teams.  It
would be an instrumental part of the quality assurance program in the branches.

      The survey has already been developed.  The amount  of time estimated to
      complete the survey should be less than 2 hours which includes dissemination to
      the team and compilation of responses.  Assuming there are 5 major projects
      submitted to each team and 350  workgroups in  the  Office,  this  activity could
      consume 3500 hours per year.

IV.  Performance-Based Systems

Create and distribute a list of Teamwork Guidelines which outline the role of team members,
team leaders, line managers, and upper management in support cross-divisional teamwork.

       These guidelines have already been developed and need only to be distributed to
       staff.  FTE costs would be minimal.  Most costs would be for photoduplication.
Include teamwork responsibilities in performance standards for all OPPT staff.

       Sample standards have already been developed. Assuming 1 hour to incorporate
       the standard times approximately 500 people in the Office, this activity would
       account for a one-time cost of about 500 hours.
Create a Teamwork Excellence Award for team members, team leaders, and line managers to
individuals who have demonstrated outstanding support of teams.

       A version of this award has already been created in cooperation with the Rewards
       and Recognition QAT. The FTE costs associated with this activity lie mainly in
       reviewing nominations.
Enhance OPPT staff and management training to accentuate teamwork.

      The QAT has recommended a number of training programs for staff that should
      be developed over time.  Some of these programs are already in place, such as
      the the workgroup leader  training program,  while  resources  will need to be
      dedicated  to developing new  programs.   This  recommendation is  the  most
      intensive in terms of extramural dollars.  Funding decisions should be made only
      after comparing and prioritizing the training needs identified by the other QATs.