Proceedings
Quality Assurance
Annual Management Meeting
Gulf Breeze/Pensacola, Florida
January 11-15,1988
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Proceedings
Quality Assurance
Annual Management Meeting
Gulf Breeze/Pensacola, Florida
January 11-15,1988
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA is charged by Congress to protect the
nation's land, air, and water systems. Under a
mandate of environmental laws, the Agency
strives to formulate and implement actions
which lead to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life.
ii
-------
EPA QUALITY ASSURANCE
Quality assurance is the process of management review and
oversight at the planning, implementation, and completion
stages of an environmental data collection activity to assure that
the data provided by a line operation to data users are of the
quality needed and claimed. Quality assurance should not be
confused with quality control (QC); QC includes those activities
required during data collection to produce the data quality de-
sired and to document the quality of the collected data (e.g.,
sample spikes and blanks).
The primary responsibility for implementation of quality as-
surance activities belongs to the line managers of EPA organiza-
tions which are involved in the collection or use of environ-
mental data, whether in Headquarters, Regions, or Research and
Development Laboratories. Quality assurance cannot be merely
an afterthought or a merely technical process relegated to the
laboratory. Instead, QA is a basic management function, at the
heart of the planning, implementation, and review of an
organization's data gathering efforts. Managers at all levels
benefit from an effective quality assurance program which suc-
ceeds in bringing a program's data collection process into
alignment with its decision-making needs.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
Environmental Protection Agency Mission ii
Definition of Quality Assurance iii
Agenda 1
Brief Biographies of Speakers 7
Dr. Harry F. Bell
Mr. Stephen Browning
RADM Frank C. Collins, Jr
Mr. Jeffrey J. Langan
Mr. Dominic E. Pecorella
Mr. William J. Shampine
Mr. Jesse A. Story
SUMMARY OF KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY RADM FRANK COLLINS 9
SYMPOSIUM ON THE ROLE OF QUALITY IN BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT:
SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS
International Business Machines Corporation 16
U.S. Department of Commerce 21
Hewlett-Packard 26
Internal Revenue Service 31
U.S. Geological Survey 35
U.S. Department of Transportation 39
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES SUCCESS STORIES 44
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM PLAN SUCCESS STORIES 46
SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP SESSIONS
Office of Research and Development Workgroup 18
National Program Office Workgroup 51
Regional Workgroup 55
QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER OF THE YEAR
Description of the Award and the Nomination Process 62
Nomination from Region 10 63
Selection of Barry Towns as Quality Assurance Manager of the Year... 65
iv
-------
AGENDA
JANUARY 11-15, 1988
GULF BREEZE/PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGEMENT MEETING
MONDAY JAN. 11
Plenary Session
1:00 - Welcoming remarks
Agenda overview
1:15 - Participant self-introductions
1:30 - Keynote address
Q&A session
2:30 - BREAK
2:45 - QA outreach initiative
3:15 - QA Management Systems Reviews
- Superfund program
- Future prospects
4:15 - Organizational workgroup sessions:
goals and procedures
Workgroup Sessions
4:30 - Organizational workgroups (ORD,
Regions, and National Program
Offices) convene to agree on the
week's agenda (see attached list
of suggested topics)
5:30 - ADJOURN
Stan Blacker, QAMS
All
RADM Frank Collins
Survival Twenty-One
Kevin Hull, QAMS
QAMS MSR Team
Stan Blacker
-------
TUESDAY JAN. 12
Plenary Session
8:30 - Overview of day's proceedings Stan Blacker
8:45 - Symposium on the Role of Quality RADM Frank Collins,
in Business and Government Moderator
a panel discussion featuring:
- Stephen Browning, Department of Commerce
- Harry F. Bell, IBM
- Jeff Langan, Hewlett-Packard
- Ed Pecorella, Internal Revenue Service
- William Shampine, U.S. Geological Survey
- Jesse Story, Federal Highway Administration
10:15 - BREAK
10:30 - Symposium continues
12:00 - LUNCH
Workgroup Sessions
1:15 - Organizational workgroups meet
5:00 - ADJOURN
-------
Stan Blacker
Dean Neptune, QAMS
Moderator
Jim Stemmle, QAMS
Moderator
WEDNESDAY JAN. 13
Plenary Session
8:00 - Overview of day's proceedings
8:15 - Panel discussion on DQO
success stories
- Bettina Fletcher, Region 3
- Jerry Kotas, ODW
- Jane Leonard, OAQPS
10:15 - BREAK
10:30 - Panel discussion on QA Program
Plan success stories
- Elizabeth Leovey, OPP
- Jim McCarty, ERL-Corvallis
- Jerry McKenna, Region 2
Concurrent Sessions (Seminars on QA Issues)
11:30 to 12:30:
(1) QA for biological measurements
(2) QA/QC circles
12:30 - LUNCH
1:30 to 4:30:
Small group tours of the Gulf Breeze Environmental Research
Laboratory (logistics and schedule will be announced)
4:30 - ADJOURN
Linda Kirkland, QAMS
Larry Trainor, QAMS
-------
THURSDAY JAN. 14
Plenary Session
8:00 - Overview of day's proceedings Stan Blacker
Concurrent Sessions (Professional Development Workshops)
8:15 to 10:00:
(1) Demonstration of QA Kevin Hull
orientation course
(2) QA auditing: skills, tips, Nancy Wentworth, QAMS
techniques
10:00 - BREAK
10:15 to 12:00:
(1) "Train-the-Trainer" workshop Mary Ann Pierce
JWK Inc.
(2) Open discussion session with Stan Blacker
QAMS Director (bring your
own topics)
12:00 - LUNCH
Workgroup Sessions
1:15 - Organizational workgroups continue
their discussions
5:00 - ADJOURN
-------
FRIDAY JAN. 15
Plenary Session
8:00 - Overview of day's proceedings Stan Blacker
8:15 - Regional workgroup shares its
findings
9:15 - National Program Office
workgroup shares its findings
10:15 - BREAK
10:30 - ORD workgroup shares its
findings
11:30 - Presentation of Quality Assurance Stan Blacker
Manager of the Year Award
11:U5 - Meeting wrap-up Stan Blacker
12:00 - ADJOURN
-------
SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL SUBGROUPS
Regions
- Vision of a "model" Regional QA program
- Discussion of recently completed Superfund Management Systems Review
- Discussion of Superfund Analytical Services Advisory Committee
QA/QC analysis
- National Water Quality DQO Workgroup objectives and approach
- Measuring the effectiveness of Regional QA programs
- QA Project Plan review/approval procedures
- QA in Regional workloads models
National Program Offices
- Vision of a "model" NPO QA program
- National Water Quality DQO Workgroup objectives and approach
- Incorporation of QA in Headquarters guidance documents
- Experience to date with the MSR process
- Innovative approaches to QA implementation
- Strategies for publicizing QA issues
ORD
- Vision of a "model" ORD QA program
- QA for qualitative science (basic research vs. compliance support)
- Application of MSR guidance/procedures in ORD
- Implementation of DQO's in ORD
-------
BRIEF BIOGRAPHIES OF SPEAKERS
Dr. Harry F. Bell, who has a Ph.D in analytical chemistry, has been employed
by IBM since 1967. A senior scientist at IBM's East Fishkill facility in
Hopewell Junction, NY, Dr. Bell's responsibilities include ground water
monitoring network design and development of statistical methods for the
analysis of ground water monitoring data.
Mr. Steven Browning, who has a Masters Degree in Public Administration, has
been with the U.S. Department of Commerce since 1973. He also is a member of
the President's Council for Management Improvement and a member of the
Domestic Policy Council. His Office's mission is productivity, quality, and
management improvement in the U.S. Department of Commerce.
RADM Frank C. Collins, Jr., has served in both government and industry in many
high level positions concerned with quality. He has gained national recogni-
tion for his programs to educate government and industry on the value of
building, rather than inspecting, quality into manufactured goods. His last
assignment in the U.S. Navy was Executive Director, Quality Assurance, Defense
Logistics Agency. He also has served as Vice President for Quality at AVCO
Corporation and Vice President for Quality Operations at Textron, Inc. He
currently is President of Frank Collins Associates-Survival Twenty One, a
quality consulting firm located in Alexandria, Virginia.
Mr. Jeffrey J. Langan, who has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, an M.S. in
Engineering Mechanics, and an M.B.A. from the Harvard Business School, is the
General Manager of Hewlett-Packard's Avondale, Pa. Division, which is part of
the company's Analytical Products Group, supplying gas chromatographs, liquid
chromatographs, data handling, and lab automation systems and supplies for
chemists in industry, government, and education. He worked in the automotive
industry as a Research Engineer before moving to Hewlett-Packard. In his
fourteen years with Hewlett-Packard, Mr. Langan has held various positions in
manufacturing, marketing, and sales with HP's Medical Group, in addition to
his current position at Avondale.
Mr. Dominic E. Pecorella is responsible for planning and directing taxpayer
assistance, processing tax returns, accounting for the revenue, and compiling
statistical data concerning Federal tax laws at the IRS. He joined IRS in
1961 as a revenue agent in Boston and had held a number of responsible
positions at several IRS locations before his appointment to the position of
Assistant Commissioner at IRS Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Mr. William J. Snampine is responsible for developing and implementing a
quality assurance program for the U.S. Geological Survey's Water Resources
Division. He was appointed Chief of the newly formed Branch of Quality
Assurance in 1987. Prior to that Mr. Shampine served as Chief of the USGS
National Water Quality Laboratory in Atlanta. He has been with the USGS for
27 years, serving at several locations in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
-------
Mr. Jesse A. Story, a registered professional civil engineer, has been with
the Federal Highway Administration since 1961. He has held many positions of
increasing responsibility at several field locations and in Headquarters, and
is currently Chief of the Program Management Branch in the Headquarters Office
in Washington, D.C. Prior to Joining the FHWA, Mr. Story served three years
with the Illinois Department of Transportation as an Assistant Resident
Engineer and Project Engineer.
-------
OBSERVATIONS ON QUALITY PROBLEMS IN AMERICA
Summary of Keynote Address
Rear Admiral Frank C. Collins, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret)
President, Frank Collins Associates-Survival Twenty One
at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Quality Assurance Annual Management Meeting
January 11 - 15, 1988
-------
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF QUALITY
One could argue that the World's oldest profession is "Quality." Almost
2,000 years ago, the Apostle Paul, writing to the Philippians (1:9-10) said:
"And I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in
all Judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent ..." Paul was
talking about quality in human relationships, which has a lot to do with
quality in manufacturing. In his concerns with quality, Paul was a relative
newcomer. The Chinese claim to have the oldest government-established quality
system. Before 221 B.C., the Chin Dynasty required the manufacturer to do the
first inspection of the product and then turn it over to government quality
inspectors. There was a range of penalties for failure to pass inspection.
But, then that was only 221 B.C. In the 17th Century B.C., Hammurabi, the
15th King of Babylon, authored the Code of Hammurabi, a codification of
laws. It was found engraved on a stone in Susa. Article 229 says: "If a
builder constructed a house, but did not make his work strong, with the result
that the house which he built collapsed and caused the death of the owner of
the house, the builder shall be put to death." Clearly, quality was an
ancient discipline.
THE PROBLEM
One of the things that is really preventing America from getting serious
about quality is what may be called the "dripping faucet" syndrome. It is
illustrated by the following experience of Bob Pirsig, author of the book "Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." Bob has a friend John and he
occasionally has coffee with John in John's kitchen. Bob noticed that John's
faucet was dripping every time he was there. So Bob asked John when he was
going to fix that dripping faucet. John said that he already had. He had
tried to fix it by installing a new washer, but the new washer had not stopped
the dripping. That was all that was said. The presumption left was that was
the end of the matter. John believed that if you try to fix a dripping faucet
and the fixing doesn't work, then it is Just your lot to live with a dripping
faucet.
Why do we have poor quality in America? Because "WE GET WHAT WE WILL
ACCEPT." That is the Number One problem in America.
Do you know what the main problem is with American workers? No one has
told them what in the heck is wanted out of them. Not only have they
generally not been told what is wanted, but in those instances where they have
been told, they were not held to it. People will do exactly what they think
you really expect of them and what you will tolerate from them. No one has
really set clear standards for American workers and held them accountable.
Another problem is that everyone has their own perception of what quality
is. If each person in the room were asked to define quality, we would wind up
with about as many definitions as there are people in the room.
There now is a greater awareness by society of the importance of quality
in successfully competing in the World marketplace. However, to some senior
managers, it is simply a buzz word. They, like everyone else, recognize
10
-------
quality as a good thing. So their approach is to hire someone and say:
"Okay, you're in charge of quality. You handle it for me. I want you to
report to the vice president for manufacturing." When someone asks the senior
manager who is in charge of quality, he points to this person and says: "He
is." And when the quality person tells the manufacturing vice president that
he can't ship that lot because of poor quality, he gets reminded of who his
boss is and the lot then gets shipped. The quality person soon learns that he
is walking alone. This approach can never succeed. Quality requires a top-
down commitment, all the way from the very top executive on down to the very
bottom of the organization. Everybody has to be in charge of quality for it
to succeed. It is especially important for the top executive to convey to
everyone in the organization that quality is his or her Number One priority
and to demonstrate this by full participation in the quality process on a
daily basis. If this is not done, everyone in the organization will sense the
lack of commitment and quality will not be very high on their priority list
either.
There is another problem, especially in the manufacturing industry, and
that is a lack of communication and teamwork. This can be best illustrated by
the following experience. I was at a conference in San Diego about two years
ago. One of the leading engineers of a large manufacturing company spoke
before a lot of other engineers and he said: "You know, what we have to start
doing is start talking to production. It's not enough that we design good
products, we have to start talking to these other people." I sat there
bewildered. How did we win World War II, if people weren't talking to each
other? There is no way you can design something and expect it to be produced
in a quality way if you are not talking to production. Before the engineer
designs a product, he or she first has to find out if production has the
facility, the trained personnel, and the understanding of what is needed by
the customer. With this approach, computer aided design even makes the
situation worse. We can now design anything in the world, but who bothers to
check with production to see if it can it be built in a quality way?
Still another problem in America is that the manufacturer expects the
customer to serve as the final quality control inspector. For example, if you
buy a Japanese car, by and large, you will have no problems with it in the
first year. However, if you buy an American car, by and large, in the first
six weeks you will have made two trips back to the dealer. Why? Because you
have become the final quality control inspector for that dealer.
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
In talking about quality, America's problems associated with it, and the
solution to those problems, it would be well to take a little time to define
what we mean by quality and some related terms.
A definition of "quality" that I made up and still like is: "Quality is
value to the customer, profit to the producer, and satisfaction to both." It
has all of the elements. Everyone is a consumer and everyone is looking for
their money's worth. Also, everyone has a customer. For example, Ronald
Reagan has over 200 million customers. The Director of the EPA Quality
Assurance Management Staff has two sets of customers: The EPA Administrator
11
-------
and all of you EPA Quality Assurance Officers. Too often, the customer is
forgotten. What do we owe our customers? We owe them value, or whatever it
is that they are paying us for. Is it fair for the producers to make a
profit? It is, if we want them to continue in business.
There is another definition of quality that also has much merit. It was
developed by a committee that I chaired in a project to develop a National
Quality Award in America. That project, incidentally, resulted in the Malcolm
Baldrige Quality Improvement Act, signed by President Reagan on August 20th
last year. The committee wanted to define quality in such a finite manner
that people would no longer ask what the committee meant by the term. The
definition that the committee developed is: Quality is the ability of all
organizational processes to deliver a product or service that meets the needs
and expectations of internal and external customers in a productive fashion
and at a cost that represents good value.
Productivity used to be the buzz word before quality, but it made people
mad. Labor felt that the only reason management talked about productivity was
because it wanted more out of labor than they rightfully deserved. The
European Productivity Agency, in 1958, defined "productivity" as: "Above all
else, it is an attitude of mind; an attitude of progress of the constant
improvement of that which exists - It is the certainty of being able to do
better today than yesterday, and less well than tomorrow. It is the will to
improve on the present situation, no matter how good it may seem, no matter
how good it may really be. It is the constant adaptation of economic and
social life to changing conditions. It is the continual effort to apply new
techniques and new methods. It is faith in human progress."
There is an interface between quality and productivity. Simply stated,
quality is doing it right and productivity is doing it right the first time.
Job and customer satisfaction, competitive advantage, and profitability all
hinge on achievement of both quality and productivity.
There is a difference between management and leadership. A leader leads;
a manager doesn't have to. A manager generally works with facts and figures
and resources.
THE SOLUTION
The short answer to the quality problem in the U.S. is the establishment
of a quality culture in each organization. What do I mean by a "quality
culture"? I like the definition that the Chairman of the Board of AVCO gave
me when I was discussing their offer to make me their Vice President for
Quality. At the time, I was trying to determine how serious they were about
instituting a quality program, when the Chairman of the Board said that he
wanted me to create a quality culture at AVCO. I asked him what he meant by
that. His definition was: An environment whereby, Number One, everybody
believes that what they are doing is important, and Number Two, they believe
it should be done right. I also asked him what he intended to do in this
project. When he said: "Anything you want me to," I knew they were serious.
There are three critical elements to achieving an organization-wide
quality culture. They are concerned with attitude, discipline, and
resources. The most critical of the three is attitude. Attitude governs how
12
-------
you look at what it is you do. To do a good job, people must believe that
what they are doing is important. A manager can begin by setting a good
example for the employees. Don't expect to get anything better from your
employees than the example you set. For example, if you leave early, don't
expect your employees to stay more than five nanoseconds after you go out the
door.
If you want to manage somebody, begin by managing yourself. If you can
do this well, then you will be ready to stop managing and start leading.
Discipline is an essential element in exacting efficiency and
effectiveness. Your self-discipline must keep you constantly aware that what
you do is vital to quality and cause you to perform your job at top efficiency
and effectiveness. It also involves a constant awareness that customers,
employees, and vendors are critically vital to the success of the quality
effort.
Resources are an inescapable senior management responsibility. An
adequate level of resources must be committed by senior management to the
quality effort in order for it to succeed. This includes resources for
training, equipment, facilities, and the appropriate expertise to support
service or product delivery. Quality, however, is not costly. The thing that
scares management sometimes is that quality programs can be too costly. My
premise is: Quality is not costly, it is priceless.
Philip Crosby makes the argument that quality is free. This has merit.
After all, employees are not paid to do things wrong. They are paid to do
things right and to do them right the first time. Then, why set up a program
just to tell people that they should do things right? Thus, quality should
not cost anything extra.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS IN AN ORGANIZATION
There are 15 elements that are absolutely essential to the implementation
of an effective quality improvement process within an organization. They
are:
1. Management Participation Top management must be willing to
participate fully in the quality process.
2. Quality Improvement Process Steering Group A steering group
should be formed, composed of people who know the problems and have
an influence on quality.
3. Quality Policy A short pithy statement that defines what the
organization means by "quality" should be prepared and made
available to all employees.
13
-------
4. Organizational Integrity There must be close and continual
communication and teamwork among those members of the organization
having the greatest influence on quality.
5. Data Requirements There must be involvement by the quality
assurance people in setting quality requirements for the data to be
collected.
6. Data Control Process There must be involvement by the quality
assurance people in evaluating the quality of the data collected and
in determining how much data needs to be collected.
7. Data Evaluation There must be a conscientious effort made to
fully evaluate the data, turn it into information, and then to act
on that information, i.e., don't let the organization become data
rich and action poor.
8. Process Audit System There must be an auditing system established
to evaluate and provide feedback on how well the above elements are
being implemented and if the overall quality process is functioning
as it should.
9. Recruiting Process There must be a recruiting process in effect
that identifies and attracts competent people who are sincerely
interested in the organization and in making it succeed.
10. Training There must be a training program that ensures that each
employee knows specifically how to do the job to which he or she has
been assigned.
11. Quality Circles Quality circles must be utilized to full
advantage. Facilitators should receive the necessary training. The
key to quality circles is that none of us is smarter than all of us.
12. Suggestion Systems There should be a suggestion system in
operation to ensure that ideas are provided by the stars, i.e.,
those who want recognition for their ideas and don't want to share
them with eight or ten other people in a quality circle. A
suggestion system provides another mother lode of ideas that make
the organization stronger, while also making heroes.
13. Recognition Systems There should be a system in effect that
ensures recognition of people for what they are doing well.
1H. Accountability People must be held accountable for their actions,
especially their failures. This is one area where America is really
in trouble.
15. Concern For The Customer There should be a full recognition of
all of the organization's customers and a strong concern for their
needs.
14
-------
MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
It is often helpful to management to be able to measure successes in its
quality improvement process. There are nine areas that could serve as units
of measurement of these successes. They are:
1. Improvement in contract clarity (so that work to be done is clearly
and completely stated and easily understood by the contractor).
Measures could include reductions in contract cost overruns or
numbers of disagreements with contractors over contract stipulations.
2. Reduction in rework time (on data collection, reports, etc.)
Measures could include reductions in the number of field studies that
had to be repeated or reports rewritten.
3. Improved morale. Measures could include reductions in employee
turnover, absenteeism, tardiness, etc.
4. Validity of data. Measures could include reductions in the numbers
of data sets that fail to achieve their data quality objectives.
5. Reduction in computer time.
6. Reduction in customer complaints (which take extra time in writing
responses and answering phone calls).
7. Inventory control.
8. Conference cost-effectiveness (e.g., do conferences result in action
plans?).
9. Value analysis of the organization (e.g., evaluating the importance
of each Job and deciding which can be consolidated, eliminated, etc.,
and making the transition through personnel attrition or other ways
that will not affect employee morale and productivity).
All of these areas can be converted into dollar terms, if desired.
SUMMARY
In summary, one of the things that is hurting this country's economy,
defense system, and many other things more than anything else is a lack of
understanding of what quality really is. If America is going to compete
successfully in the World marketplace, it must not only gain a full
understanding of what quality is, but it also must achieve a quality
culture. This will require changes in attitude, the practice of self-
discipline, and a commitment of resources sufficient to implement a quality
improvement program in each organization.
15
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICES IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
AT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Synopsis of Presentation by
Dr. Harry F. Bell, Senior Scientist
Chemical/Environmental Services Group
General Technology Division, IBM Corp.
at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Quality Assurance Annual Management Meeting
January 11 - 15, 1988
16
-------
BACKGROUND
The overall objective of our work is to prevent environmental pollution
from occurring as a result of IBM's operations. Our major emphasis is in the
prevention of ground water contamination. This presentation gives emphasis to
the fundamental issues associated with the gathering and interpretation of
ground water data needed for management decisions at IBM.
The quality culture at IBM, of course, is evident in all of its activi-
ties. Each facility has a Quality Coordinator, who reports only to the
General Manager of that site. The Quality Coordinator directs all quality
related activities at the facility, including the use of quality teams, or
quality circles, which are particularly strong in many of IBM's manufacturing
areas. These fundamental quality activities are not covered in this synopsis,
however.
IBM has a tremendous corporate sensitivity to environmental quality. In
the 1970s, IBM issued a corporate policy stating that the corporation will
meet or exceed all applicable government regulations and that internal regu-
lations will be developed where needed to protect the environment, if no
governmental regulations exist. The policy also states that IBM will work
with governmental agencies and other industries in solving environmental
problems. That policy statement was the genesis of IBM's environmental
quality program.
PROGRAM GOALS
The overall goal of the ground water monitoring activities conducted by
IBM's General Technology Division is that of providing information for manage-
ment decisions. The primary function of all environmental data gathering
activities of this nature, whether private sector or government financed, is
to provide information to someone in order to make a decision. The costs of
IBM's environmental monitoring activities, of course, must be added to the
cost of its products and services. To remain competitive in the world market,
then, it is particularly important that these monitoring activities be carried
out in a highly cost-effective manner. This makes up-front planning and close
communication with the decision-maker particularly crucial to the achievement
of these goals.
CUSTOMER'S NEEDS
The customer, i.e., the person for whom the monitoring data are to be
generated, is the manager who needs the data in order to make a specific
decision. To be precise, that manager really needs information, not data.
There is a big difference between data and information. Data are simply a
collection of numbers. It is quite easy to collect huge amounts of data. The
real interest is in turning those data into information. The quality of the
data generated may be superb, i.e., of very high precision and accuracy, but
if the data cannot give you the information needed for the decision to be
made, it is of no value. In designing a monitoring program that will generate
data, the real question that must be considered is: Will it provide the
information needed by the customer? To answer this question, one has to
17
-------
consider how the customer is going to use those data and this must be done
before the data are collected. Only by considering how the data are to be
used in making a decision can one properly design the monitoring program so
that it will provide the specific data that can be turned into the information
needed by the customer.
Frequently, the customer, or data user, wants everything monitored and
wants them monitored continuously. That really is not providing monitoring
objectives. The service personnel designing and implementing the monitoring
network must understand why the data are being collected. Only then can they
proceed to design a system that will produce the particular data that can be
turned into the specific information that will satisfy the customer.
It also is important to recognize that there may be a significant
difference between what the customer needs and what he or she expects from the
monitoring project. This is another reason why close communication is essen-
tial between the customer and the service personnel, all the way from the
early planning stages on through to the end of the project. For example, the
decision-maker who, at first, would like to have everything measured
continuously really may only need to know within the next five years whether
or not ground water quality is in a downward trend. If you design the system
to answer only this yes/no question and you plan to be able to provide the
answer in five years, you had better be certain that the customer is aware of
this at the beginning and is in full concurrence with that objective. If he
or she thinks that more is to be provided and only learns five years and
thousands of dollars later that this is not the case, you will not have a
satisfied customer and no amount of explaining will make the customer
satisfied.
MONITORING OBJECTIVES
With respect to monitoring objectives, the customer may be interested in
average conditions, differences over time and space, determining trends, or
evaluating compliance with regulations. Again, the specific objectives must
be defined; otherwise one cannot determine how to appropriately collect and
analyze the data. There are a lot of characteristics about the data that
cause problems, especially if the program and the objectives are not stated up
front, before one begins to collect the data. There are controllable
characteristics, e.g., missing data due to inconsistent sampling, non-
detectable levels in samples (along with improper documentation of laboratory
techniques in long term programs where detection levels change continually),
and tremendous variability in the data caused by sampling and analytical
error. There are also uncontrollable characteristics, e.g., seasonality,
trends, data distribution (i.e., normal or non-normal), serial correlation,
and high variability (associated with ground water flow and contaminant
transport).
MONITORING NETWORK DESIGN
Once the customer's true information needs have been identified and
agreed upon, the next step is to lay out the kinds and amounts of data that
will be needed to produce that information. Then it is time to focus on the
18
-------
design of the monitoring activity. The design of basically every monitoring
activity can be subdivided into the following steps: 1) decide on the
monitoring objectives; 2) state the hypothesis and describe the test of the
hypothesis (i.e., what you are going to determine); 3) decide on the approach
for collecting the samples; 4) decide on the means for chemically analyzing
the samples; and 5) select the approach for statistically analyzing the data
and turning it into information for the customer's use. All of these steps
should be carried out at least once before the first sample is collected. Of
course, the steps should be considered as iterative and revisited as warranted
as the study progresses.
There are a number of statistical tests that can be performed on the data
collected. It is important to know something about the data characteristics,
however, in order to choose the proper statistical tests. This presents
somewhat of a Catch-22 situation. There are ways around it. A proper quality
assurance program addressing the data analysis aspects of the program will
take these kinds of problems into account and make use of statistical proce-
dures that are sensitive to these characteristics. Then the frequency of data
collection that is necessary to guarantee attainment of the proper sensitivity
from the statistical tests can be determined.
Where this up-front planning is not done, generally one collects a lot of
data, finds it confusing, and then brings it to a statistician and says:
Here, make it work. The statistician looks at it and usually says: Let's
start again and this time plan it. That is exactly what your quality assur-
ance program should address, i.e., up-front, identifying what needs to be done
to satisfy the customer and hopefully prevent some of the frustration of the
service personnel who must carry out the study. If the service personnel feel
that what they are doing is meaningful and worthwhile, they are more likely to
do a quality Job. The data quality and the information quality will be better
as a result.
SUMMARY
In summary, IBM has a tremendous corporate sensitivity to environmental
quality. To meet its corporate policy and internal regulations aimed at
meeting or exceeding all applicable governmental environmental quality
requirements, it established its own environmental quality program. The cost
of this program is part of the cost of its products. To remain competitive in
the world market then, it is essential that this environmental quality program
achieve its goals in a highly cost-effective way. This is done by focusing
up-front on the following key quality assurance steps in each proposed
undertaking:
Establishing (with the customer) the environmental protection
objectives.
Defining (with the customer) the specific decision to be made and the
specific information necessary in order to make that decision.
Defining the data needed in order to derive the needed information.
19
-------
Designing the monitoring network, consistent with results from the
above steps.
Selecting the approach for statistically analyzing the data to produce
the needed information.
Selecting the approach for analyzing samples and handling the data.
Conducting the monitoring, analysis, and reporting.
Iterating the process frequently.
By focusing on these key activities, IBM is making sure it adequately
protects the environment and, at the same time, achieves its commercial goals,
doing both in as cost-effective a mode as possible.
20
-------
OPERATING A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Synopsis of Presentation by
Mr. Stephen Browning, Acting Director
Office of Management and Organizations
U.S. Department of Commerce
at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Quality Assurance Annual Management Meeting
January 11 - 15, 1988
21
-------
BACKGROUND
The U. S. Department of Commerce's mission is to encourage, serve, and
promote the Nation's international trade, economic growth, and technological
advancement. It is composed of widely diverse programs directed toward this
mission. For example, it has programs dealing with minority business, the
census, weather forecasting, and promoting tours from abroad. The Department
has approximately 34,000 employees in eleven bureaus scattered throughout
approximately 1,000 locations in the U.S. and abroad. One former Secretary
referred to the Department as being like Noah's Ark, except that it had only
one of everything in it.
The Department's program to improve productivity, quality of work, and
management originated with the late Secretary Malcolm Baldrige. He had
started his long career at the shop level, working his way up to the chair-
manship of a major corporation before accepting the Commerce Secretary's
position at the beginning of the Reagan Administration. He had strong
feelings about the worth of the individual in the overall process of
productivity improvement and wanted to implement his ideas in the Depart-
ment. This was at a time when Federal employees had been subjected to
considerable ridicule in the campaign rhetoric. Right from the beginning,
Secretary Baldrige made known his support for the Federal workers. This was
done both in the public forum and in the Department. His actions set an
important tone for quality and productivity in the Department.
DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Secretary Baldrige wanted a structured program that included planning,
assignment of responsibilities, implementation, tracking, and account-
ability. Prior to that, activities of this nature were conducted in an
informal way.
A management planning system was established and eight priority
objectives were selected for pursuit. These objectives were subdivided into
61 goals that related specifically to productivity and quality improvement.
Plans for achieving these goals were then prepared. They were to be
implemented through 3,000 employees.
A very elaborate system for following progress on goal achievement and
maintaining accountability was established next. It included 20 percent
productivity improvement by 1992. This resulted in an expansion of the
program beyond its initial thrust to encompass some additional management
concerns vital to productivity improvement. The revised objectives and goals
were identified by bringing together 23 of the Department's top executives for
one week at a West Virginia retreat and having them discuss the problems and
priorities and come up with a plan. Four major areas were identified. They
were:
1. Improvement of management efficiency
2. Service excellence
22
-------
3. Pride of performance
4. Customer satisfaction
These four areas were believed to collectively embody productivity and
quality improvement concepts.
Seven key elements of the program also were identified at the West
Virginia meeting. They were:
1. Top level commitment in the Department
2. Management and employee awareness and involvement
3. Employee incentive program
4. Setting of firm goals and schedules for achieving results
5. Developing measures of progress in achieving the goals
6. Maintaining a firm data base of management information for tracking
progress
7. Requiring accountability on the part of those assigned responsibility
for goal achievement
The planning and tracking systems initially established were considered
to be adequate to handle this expanded program.
IMPLEMENTATION OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The expanded quality improvement program was formally launched in the
fall of 1986, using a rather spectacular approach. The Department had a film
produced entitled "Silent Partners." The film's theme was how important the
Commerce Department work is to the private sector. It included interviews of
persons representing a wide variety of firms of various sizes. They expressed
their views on what they thought of the Department of Commerce and what they
needed from the Department. It was very upbeat and helped to build pride in
the workforce. The film was shown to employees throughout the country. Video
tapes of it also were prepared. In Washington, D.C., where 50 percent of the
employees are located, Secretary Baldrige personally opened the sessions and
gave a presentation before the viewing of the film.
The initial objectives and goals selected were still viable ones in the
expanded program. There was a need to expand upon them, however, in order to
take a more comprehensive approach toward productivity and quality improvement
and involve a much greater number of employees. There was some question as to
how to best proceed in identifying new projects worthy of pursuit and in how
to best get people to begin projects directed at the objectives identified.
Three approaches evolved and still are in use.
23
-------
The first approach is to let projects evolve naturally. This happens
when there is a clear consensus everywhere that something needs to be done in
a given area. A cooperative partnership develops naturally among those who
can effect a solution and they solve it. An example of this was the diffi-
culties the Department was experiencing over the quality of patents. This
problem was widely recognized by almost everyone, including the Patent and
Trademark Office and the Office of Management and Organizations. It clearly
was a target for a project. The key people just rolled up their sleeves,
pitched in, and resolved the problem.
The second approach is referred to as the top-down approach. This is
where the senior managers in the responsible Office simply demand a quality
action. For example, the National Technical Information Service, which
operates on revenues from sales of documents, was suffering from a long-term
decline in sales. It was directed to institute a quality program designed to
reverse the trend in sales.
The third approach is referred to as "beating the bushes." This involves
going out among the various field and headquarters groups and learning of good
ideas being implemented. The lead people responsible are given the kind of
recognition and attention that will allow them to get their projects imple-
mented. This is a simple concept, but difficult to implement with 34,000
employees. There are only so many people that one can talk to. But, still
this approach has had some good successes. One example of a success is the
widespread use of a MasterCard credit card at remote Department facilities in
or near small towns. The local hardware store recognizes and quickly accepts
a MasterCard, where it had been reluctant to complete a myriad of Federal
forms, submit them, and wait for what seemed an eternity to receive payment.
The Department's expanded quality improvement program has been in effect
for two years now and it currently has 15 active projects that involve
approximately 50 percent of the total workforce.
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
The Department's quality improvement program is now reaching a cross-
road. First, all of the easiest projects have been tackled. Secondly, a
Presidential election is only 10 months away and a new administration is only
one year away. The extent of turnover that will occur in the Department's
senior management is not known and, if great enough, could signal an end to
this management program. It is not uncommon for programs of this nature to
die on the vine with a change in administration. The current management
believes this program should be made a permanent part of the institution.
Efforts are getting underway to institutionalize this quality improvement
program in the Department. The West Virginia group is being reassembled. The
group will be asked to do a total reassessment of where the program has been,
where it is going, what's right about it, what's wrong, and how to make it a
permanent and meaningful part of the Department's management structure,
unaffected by changes in administrations.
-------
Another problem that the reconvened West Virginia group will be
addressing is that of how to involve more employees at the working level in
these activities. To date, the problem has been left to the bureaus to
resolve.
More progress is needed in the area of employee incentive programs. To
date, those who can effect a solution have not been able to resolve their
differences in views regarding the best mix of incentive programs and how to
integrate newly proposed approaches with the existing incentive system.
Another problem to be addressed by the reconvened West Virginia group
involves the selection of meaningful, yet practical ways to measure progress
and successes in the implementation of productivity and quality improvement
projects. On the one hand, for program integrity, demonstrable results must
be measurable and shown at the end of a project. On the other hand, the
measurement system imposed must not be such a burden that it discourages
participation in the project. The objective will be to come up with
quantitative measures that do not require the collection and manipulation of
mountains of data at great expense and inconvenience.
SUMMARY
The program that has been described is very different from others
discussed here today. This is a quality improvement program, whereas many of
the others described are quality assurance programs. The Office of Management
and Organizations serves in the role of a facilitator and helper to others in
the Department in a continuing program to improve productivity and quality.
25
-------
THE TOTAL QUALITY COMMITMENT AT HEWLETT-PACKARD
Synopsis of Presentation by
Mr. Jeffrey J. Langan, General Manager
Avondale Division, Hewlett-Packard Company
at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Quality Assurance Annual Management Meeting
January 11 - 15, 1988
26
-------
INTRODUCTION
Hewlett-Packard's strategy always has been to manufacture products that
exceed the customers' expectations and let them be pleasantly surprised by the
product after they get it. In the late 1970s, however, HP's Chief Executive
Officer became concerned that the gap between HP performance and customer
expectations was narrowing and that if it continued, customer expectations
might begin exceeding HP's performance. The CEO held a meeting with the
General Managers expressing his concern and asked them to totally dedicate
themselves to quality. He wanted "Quality" to be the Number One focus in the
company and later set the following goal: By 1990, HP's products are to be
ten times better, as measured by reliability, than they were in 1980. He
added one other kicker. The measurement was ten times better, as a function
of selling price. So, as the selling price comes down, we have to work even
harder to get the reliability up. Every single Division and every single
product line is committed to achieving this goal.
INGREDIENTS OF QUALITY
The reason for HP's focus on quality lies in one of the key words that is
used to define quality. That word is the "Customer." The customer is the one
who defines quality. Quality is performance in meeting requirements, but
those requirements are really the customer's needs and expectations. The
needs and the expectations can be different because you and I can set our
customer's expectations. Think about your own experience. You buy a car and
the dealer tells you that you are going to have the car in seven weeks. If it
comes in five, you are more than satisfied. If it comes in ten weeks, you are
dissatisfied. He set your expectations and that set the performance
criteria.
The customer is one key part of the definition of quality. Another key
part is translation of the customer's needs and expectations into internal
standards and specifications. A third key part is the ability to measure
quality. The latter is absolutely mandatory. As a colleague says, "What gets
measured gets results." If you're going to have quality, you've got to focus
on the customer, but you've got to be able to measure what you are doing.
Juran describes quality control as a process by which you look at what
you've done; you compare it to standards; and you act on the difference.
Basically, the steps you follow are: Plan, do, check, act. Quality control
is the latter two; checking and acting.
THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
At HP, everything is a process (i.e., continuous, with no beginning and
end). HP's approach to quality improvement is no exception. The quality
improvement process does have inputs and outputs. The outputs are what the
customers get, i.e., the products. We must obtain feedback from the customers
on each product and compare the results with the internal standards and goals
set for the products to determine how close we came to satisfying the
customers' expectations. Then we act on the results. Quality improvement
comes when you work on the process and you make it better.
27
-------
In this process, there is a key point that must not be overlooked. The
customer's expectations and needs are dynamic and you must continually monitor
them as they change. This means, then, that quality improvement must be a
dynamic process if you intend to keep your customers satisfied.
To be successful, everybody at all levels of the organization must be
involved. In the manufacturing of a product, each person carries out a
subprocess within the overall process that produces the product. At HP, each
person is dedicated to analyzing and reanalyzing his or her subprocess and
determining how it can be improved. Continuous process improvement is always
going on and perfection is the goal. The premise is that you can always make
it better. You can bring it to a plateau, go back and look at it again, and
still make it better beyond that. Again, all of this is aimed at customer
satisfaction.
THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS
In the typical manufacturing process, the manufacturer orders parts from
several vendors. They are inspected upon arrival and, normally, some are
going to be defective. To always make sure that he has enough good parts on
hand, he maintains an inventory of safety stock. This way, if the next
shipment is defective, he still will be able to carry on the manufacturing.
Next, he puts what appear to be the good parts through a manufacturing process
and comes out with a product. The units of the product are then inspected.
The good ones go to the customer. Of the rejected units, some can be reworked
and then sent to the customer. The remainder is declared scrap.
It doesn't take a high rate of defects in any one of the parts for the
scrap to really start adding up. For example, American industry generally
considers one bad part per thousand produced as acceptable. In the above
case, if the product being manufactured were composed of 300 parts, this would
mean that 26 percent of the product units would be defective. In order for
the manufacturer to get his product unit failure rate down to one percent, he
must get the failure rate of each of his parts down to ten in one million.
In these types of situations at HP, we quickly came to the conclusion
that our goal would have to be to make it perfect. We would have to do
everything right. This means that we must start out with a perfect design.
Then, we have to get perfect parts. And, if we get those perfect parts to
arrive Just on time, we won't need to maintain an inventory of safety stock.
As the perfect parts come in, we then need to run them through a perfect
manufacturing process. If we do all of that, then we will get products with
zero defects. This means that we will be able to eliminate the inspection,
the scrap, the rework, and the warehouse for safety stock. Note that we are
getting a side benefit. We are focusing on quality and we not only are
getting the improved quality but we also are getting improved productivity.
HP's ZERO DEFECTS APPROACH IN MANUFACTURING
The following is a real case from the Avondale Division. It illustrates
how we implemented the total quality commitment in our Division and is
generally typical of work in the other Divisions, as well.
-------
Back around 1982, we had decided to produce the HP 5890 gas chroma-
tograph. We wanted this to be a break-through project, one that really
reflected our attention to quality. We decided that we would start with a
perfect design. What does that mean? Well, chemists use the product, but
engineers design it. So the first thing we did was establish a team of
chemists from the customers and HP to translate the chemical needs into
engineering specifications and standards. Then we developed a lab prototype
and put it through a series of chemical standard tests, before moving through
any of the engineering development phases. From there we went to a production
prototype, etc. In order to improve the reliability, we also repeatedly
tested it for failure. That is, we would deliberately drop it, kick it, shock
it, put it in a high humidity environment, and anything else like that to
assess the limits of its durability. We were looking for the weak points and
then we would go back and redesign it to eliminate them. The greatest amount
of work of this type involved Joint efforts between our quality assurance
program and research and development program. The quality assurance manager
is responsible for the reliability testing and determines what standards have
to be met at each stage in the product development process.
Next, we focused on how to get perfect parts. The first step we took
toward this end was to eliminate as many parts as we could. The second step
was to take the remaining parts and consolidate as many of them as we could.
For example, where we previously had something that was made up of 10 or 15
pieces of sheet metal riveted or bolted together, we remade it out of one
plastic molding. Next, R&D and manufacturing, recognizing that they would
have to work closely with the vendors, brought in the best ones, explained
what we were doing, and involved them in the process.
We focused next on simplifying the implementation, viz., how to assemble
the gas chromatograph. This meant that R&D and manufacturing had to work
closely together to determine what the final parts would be and how to ensure
that the parts would come together and could be easily assembled in a way that
virtually eliminated any chance for error. In designing the parts, thought
had to be given to how somebody will be putting them together and how to avoid
the possibility of their being assembled the wrong way. After designing the
parts, the process for handling the parts then had to be designed to ensure
that all of the right parts would be at the right place at the right time. We
now had completed our first iteration in the perfect design process.
Finally, we focused on implementing the perfect manufacturing process.
Our first step here was to carry out an extensive defect analysis. At this
point, we also institutionalized the philosophy among all employees that:
When you find a problem, solve it. We wanted to make sure that employees, as
a matter of routine, will stop, study, and resolve any defects they detect.
The second step in implementing the perfect manufacturing process was
advanced tooling. We asked the assembly line workers what they needed in
order to most efficiently assemble the product and then redesigned the entire
production line. It was designed to come right to the worker rather than the
other way around.
29
-------
The third step was modular testing. In the old days, you put the product
together and tested it at the end. You had 39 quality control inspectors.
Our new approach, however, was to inspect the module at much earlier phases.
In addition, we decided we could phase out the inspectors and get the person
who built each component to inspect it. It's their product and they have
pride in it.
To complete the perfect process, we established a quality information
system to keep track of all of the defects found. This was to provide the
data to determine areas of weakness, trends, etc. and serve to direct future
corrective operations.
When we finally finished the product in 1984, the customer had a much
lower cost instrument than previously had been available. The instrument
provided the same or higher level of performance than premium products on the
market costing three times as much. In addition, the cost of owning our
product (i.e., maintenance cost) was about one-half of what it was before.
The failure rate is down by a factor of three right now. Thus, the customer
now not only gets to buy it for less, but it costs him less to own it.
Not only are our customers benefiting from this approach, but so is HP.
In this case, the parts count was reduced by a factor of three. Space and
labor also were reduced by a factor of three. This means that we didn't need
to build a new building, which had been planned at the time. Defect rates,
scrap, and rework were reduced by a factor of ten. Inventory was reduced by a
factor of two. Sales of this product doubled.
This breakthrough also had the effect of raising the level of expectation
for the product, which in turn has caused the whole organization to focus on
driving it to perfection. The whole effort in manufacturing now is to build
it better. This philosophy quickly spread to other product lines as well.
Other products developed under the same philosophy soon followed and our
successes began pyramiding themselves. Our customers are seeing more and more
better products coming out that are easier for them to buy and maintain.
There is another interesting side point to the above success story. We
have a Japanese subsidiary who, after we introduced the chromatograph, wanted
to build it and they figured out that they could not duplicate our costs (and
this was when the yen/dollar rate was much different than it is today). So
for us, it was essentially saying that we in America can produce a product for
less than the Japanese can. That is pretty important in our industry today.
SUMMARY
From the approach that HP has taken in implementing the total quality
commitment, you can see the advantages of treating everything as a process.
Everybody is involved and we are always trying to make it better, with
perfection as the goal, and it is all aimed at the customer. In our case, we
are talking about the design of a product, but the same principles and
approaches apply equally well to a lot of other things. Begin with the
concept of the process and consider each thing in the process as it relates to
your goals. You can successfully apply this concept to Just about anything
you do.
30
-------
IMPLEMENTING THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY
AT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Synopsis of Presentation by
Mr. Dominic E. Pecorella, Assistant Commissioner
for Taxpayer Service and Returns Processing
Internal Revenue Service
U.S. Department of the Treasury
at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Quality Assurance Annual Management Meeting
January 11 - 15, 1988
31
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is very much aware of the fact that it
has customers. Every individual and business that submits a tax return is a
customer. With more than 100 million tax returns every year, that means we
have a lot of customers. More than three years ago, we at the IRS decided
that greater attention needed to be given to the quality of our services. We
began by trying to gain an understanding of what the culture of the
organization was at the time and then how we might go about introducing the
concept of quality. We wanted everyone in IRS to be marching to the same beat
with regard to a concern for the customer, respect for the individual, and
quality as a way of life.
Although we had no major problems, we still believed we could do better
in preventing problems from occurring and in finding better solutions to
problems that did occur. There were some signs that all was not perfect.
THE OLD PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACH
Problems may occur in any of a number of areas. We may find that a
number of tax returns contain the same errors and they point to a lack of
clarity in the forms or accompanying instructions. Or, errors may occur
when data are taken from the forms and entered into the computers.
Historically, IRS has dealt with these kinds of problems primarily in two
ways, depending on the pervasiveness of the problem.
Each service center has a Quality Assurance Division to deal with the
various problems that arise and are peculiar to that service center. Often,
the service center quality assurance managers felt that the best solutions to
their problems needed input from higher up in the chain-of-command, but that
management Just was not listening to them. If that perception existed, then
that, in itself, was certainly a problem.
To deal with the more pervasive problems, normally a task force composed
of about 15 field people would be established and brought into Washington for
a week to come up with a solution. We would put the 15 people in a room when
they got to Washington on Monday, give them the problem, and ask for a
solution before they caught their planes on Friday afternoon. Needless to
say, we weren't really getting anywhere with that approach. What we found was
that, even though these were our best people and very well intentioned,
without the training and the process, they were not really solving the
problem. In fact, they weren't even able to truly define the problem. They
were reaching for the obvious, which was the symptom, rather than the problem
itself.
THE CURRENT PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACH
We began by looking into the approaches of the various quality gurus. We
were particularly impressed by Juran's work. His basic concept, simply
stated, is that you improve quality proJect-by-project and this involves you
in the whole process of quality improvement. Incidentally, Juran also
believed that approximately 80 to 85 percent of quality problems are systemic
(e.g., procedural) and that only about 15 percent are a result of human error.
32
-------
We concluded that our new approach (basically the Juran approach) should
involve the use of:
A quality policy statement that would succinctly state the intended
goal and make it clear that top management was solidly behind the
effort.
A national level quality council (the Commissioner's Quality Council).
Quality councils at the Assistant Commissioner, Regional Commissioner,
District, and Service Center levels.
Quality improvement teams at various organizational levels to solve
specific problems.
Training on the quality process and team building for the facilitators
and other people serving on the various quality improvement teams.
The Commissioner of the IRS is solidly behind this new approach and has
issued a Quality Policy Statement to all employees. One phrase in it of
particular significance is that: "Quality is first among equals with
production and cost." In addition, in virtually every speech that the
Commissioner makes these days, he emphasizes the IRS1 emphasis on customer
service and quality performance. The entire organization knows the policy and
knows that the Commissioner is absolutely serious about it.
The Commissioner's Quality Council is composed of the Commissioner,
Assistant Commissioners, and Regional Commissioners. Its primary role is one
of a facilitator. It does not dictate to the others what projects should be
undertaken.
Each Assistant Commissioner, Regional Commissioner, District Office, and
Service Center has a Quality Council. Each one determines the projects that
their respective Quality Improvement Teams will undertake to improve quality
within that organizational unit. We were fortunate in that recently the
Commissioner and the President of the National Treasury Employees Union signed
a Joint agreement covering employee participation on the Quality Councils at
all levels of the organization. Although union employees always have been on
the Quality Improvement Teams, this makes it clearer that we are all marching
in the same direction and everybody is in the ballgame.
The first step we take in establishing a Quality Improvement Team is to
send prospective members for training. The training serves not only to teach
them the quality improvement process, but it also serves as a team building
effort. That is, our approach is to put a prospective team of eight people
together, get them comfortable working as a team, and then put them through
training on the Juran process for problem solving. We also train the team
facilitators and make sure there is one on each team. A facilitator's primary
role is to make sure that the team is not taking any shortcuts, but is
following the problem solving process. We don't want people looking at their
watches and thinking, gee, we have a plane to catch Friday afternoon so we had
better be finished by then.
33 .
-------
The Juran problem solving process, as you are probably aware, is a very
formalized and methodical one. It is not intended to give quick fixes. As a
result, managers like myself must develop a lot of patience, because the
desire for a quick solution is so great, although we do want the right answer,
too. I have a national team that I haven't seen in six months that is still
out there working on a problem. I'm afraid to ask them where they are
because, the minute I do, they will get concerned that I think they are taking
too long. They then will rush to completion and I will get a wrong
solution. So, I'm trusting the process.
SOME EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSES
The first problem we selected for resolution using a Quality Improvement
Team dealt with the Federal Tax Deposit System. Out of each million Federal
tax deposits processed in the service centers, there were 37,000 rejected
because of employee error. After completion of the quality improvement
project, the error rate dropped to fewer than 2,000 per million deposits
processed. The pride of the team that produced these results was just
phenomenal.
Another problem solved by a Quality Improvement Team was what we
considered to be an excessive number of cases where taxpayers (our customers)
were receiving incorrect correspondence and adjustments and erroneous bills.
After implementation of the Team's recommendations, the error rate was reduced
by 4.8 million pieces annually.
The IRS has made progress in other areas, also. In the past year, we've
developed an integrated test poll survey so that we can monitor and provide
feedback within 16 hours to a Service Center on its performance, in terms of
responsiveness, courtesy, and quality of reply to its customers. We can also
tell it which question asked by the customers gave its employees the most
trouble and warrants greater attention.
The above examples and other successes, plus the following recent survey
results, leave little doubt regarding the success of our quality improvement
efforts. A survey was conducted last September among the IRS Taxpayer Service
Division managers. One question was: What do you think IRS is currently
emphasizing the most? Seventy-five percent of them said, not tax reform
(which is kind of important), but QUALITY!! We were extremely pleased by this
and happy that our message is getting across.
SUMMARY
The IRS is committed to quality performance in serving its customers.
Our successes to date in better serving our customers can be attributed to the
whole hearted support for the quality concept from the Commissioner all the
way down to the very bottom of the organization and a recognition of the
extremely valuable contributions to quality that can be made by employees at
all levels in the organization.
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICES
IM THE WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Synopsis of Presentation by
Mr. William J. Shampine, Chief
Branch of Quality Assurance
Water Resources Division
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior
at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Quality Assurance Annual Management Meeting
January 11 - 15, 1988
35
-------
BACKGROUND
The broad objectives of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) include the
performance of surveys, investigations, and research covering topography,
geology, and the mineral and water resources of the United States; classifying
land as to mineral character and water and power resources; and publication
and dissemination of data relative to these activities. With regard to the
Survey's organization, it has a Headquarters Office, located in Reston, Va.,
and four Regional Offices. The Regions are divided into 43 districts, with
basically one District Office in each State. For various reasons, a few
District Offices cover more than one State. Staffing in the Water Resources
Division (in Headquarters) includes a Chief Hydrologist and several Assistant
Chief Hydrologists, who direct the water-related activities. The actual water
data collection is conducted at the District level.
The Water Resources Division's quality assurance program is quite new.
However, it always has had a wide variety of quality control programs. Some
are formal and others are informal. Several of the formal ones are described
below. Although, the quality control programs are achieving their intended
purpose, they, like all quality control programs, are rather limited in
scope. The Water Resources Division saw the need to give greater attention to
the other aspects of quality assurance, beyond just quality control, and
established the Branch of Quality Assurance to take the lead in making this
happen.
QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES
The two longest running quality control activities were initiated in
1962. One is the standard reference water sample project. It is somewhat
unique in that it uses natural water matrix samples for reference materials.
The reference samples, containing known quantities of selected analytes, are
primarily for use by the laboratories providing support to the water quality
monitoring activities.
The second activity is the laboratory evaluation project. It involves
the semiannual testing of approximately 140 laboratories around the world to
evaluate their precision and accuracy in analyzing a variety of constituents.
Reference samples are specially prepared for these evaluations.
The Water Resources Division also routinely conducts technical reviews of
water data acquisition activities in the Districts. This review process was
formalized in 1965. Each District is reviewed every third year by a team of
experts spanning the disciplines of surface water, ground water, and water
quality. The team reviews all of the work done in the given District since
the last review. The reviews include field and laboratory techniques, data
processing, hiring and training of employees, and new activities under
development.
In 1967, the Water Resources Division decided to provide full documenta-
tion of the various techniques it uses in the acquisition of water data. To
do this, it undertook the preparation of a series of manuals, called TWRIs
(Techniques for Water Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological
36
-------
Survey). To date, there are approximately 50 manuals in use. As techniques
are added or revised, each is documented in a numbered technical memorandum.
Periodically, the original documents are revised, incorporating all of the
information contained in the numbered technical memoranda.
In 1977, the Division initiated a blind sample program to provide an
ongoing evaluation of its National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL). It
basically consists of preparing standard reference samples, shipping them on a
regular basis to the District Offices, and having them, in turn, ship them to
the NWQL as routine samples from the Districts. Results are processed on a
weekly basis and distributed to appropriate personnel.
In 1978, a formal quality control program for field measurements was
initiated. There are large numbers of field measurements performed for pH,
temperature, conductance, and alkalinity and, thus, there is a need to assess
the precision and accuracy of these measurements. Reference samples are
periodically prepared and delivered to field personnel for analysis along with
the routine samples. Detailed records of the results are maintained, includ-
ing the serial number of the instrument used and the name of the analyst who
performed the test. Thus, any problems with precision and accuracy can be
quickly identified and resolved. At the beginning of this program, 77 percent
of the results were within acceptable ranges. Currently, that number has
increased to 94 percent. Thus, we consider this program to be quite
successful.
QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
In 1978, the Division took its very first step to develop a formal
quality assurance program. One of the Assistant Chief Hydrologists decided it
was time that something was done in this area and initiated a program whereby
each District Office was to develop and maintain an up-to-date quality
assurance plan covering the District's water data acquisition activities. All
Districts did prepare the plans, but Headquarters did not provide a sufficient
level of continuing oversight to keep the activity viable and it languished.
A little more than a year ago, the Division reevaluated the need for a
more formalized quality assurance program. It concluded that there needed to
be a more consistent and comprehensive national effort in the area of quality
assurance. More specifically, it found that there is a need for a more
focused program, a much greater consistency of effort, a higher level of
documentation, better training, and improved communication. To meet these
needs, the Branch of Quality Assurance was established last summer and
assigned the responsibility for quality assurance within the Division.
Initially, the Branch's efforts will be focused on the water quality aspects
of the Division's responsibilities. Once this aspect of the quality assurance
program is fully operational, efforts will be expanded to address the surface
water and ground water aspects of the Division's responsibilities.
The immediate goals of the Branch of Quality Assurance are to:
Serve as the Water Resources Division's focal point for water quality
QA activities.
37
-------
Define policies and requirements for a QA program for water quality
activities in the Division.
Implement a water quality QA program.
Provide training and assistance in QA.
Ensure that operating units have adequate water quality QA plans.
Provide assessments of QA practices in the water quality activities.
SUMMARY
In summary, the Water Resources Division of the USGS has had a long
history in the area of quality control and has recently seen the need to
expand upon these activities to create a formalized quality assurance
program. Although this program is fairly new and doesn't have a great deal of
formal experience, it is off to a solid start. Our short term goals are laid
out and are being implemented. We look forward to working more closely with
EPA's quality assurance program in the future and believe such a close working
relationship will be mutually beneficial.
38
-------
MANAGING QUALITY IN CONSTRUCTION
OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Synopsis of Presentation by
Jesse A. Story, Chief
Program Management Branch
Construction and Maintenance Division
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Quality Assurance Annual Management Meeting
January 11 - 15, 1988
39
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers the Federal-aid
highway program of financial assistance to the States for highway construction
and improvement of efficiency in highway and traffic operations. This program
provides for construction and preservation of the 42,500-mile National System
of Interstate and Defense Highways financed on a 90 percent Federal, 10
percent State basis. It also provides for the improvement of approximately
800,000 miles of other Federal-aid primary, secondary, and urban roads and
streets, with financing generally on a 75 - 25 basis. From the perspective of
quality, the FHWA's basic objective is to ensure that all Federal funds for
highway construction and improvement are spent in a highly cost-effective
manner and that the final product meets the needs of the customer (i.e., the
taxpayers who use the Federal Highway System).
It would be advantageous at this point to describe all of the
participants involved in construction of the Federal Highway System. This
will give a fuller appreciation of the intricacies associated with the
assurance of quality in the completed product. In short, Federal funds are
provided to State highway agencies to cover the Federal share of the cost of
highway design and construction. The State highway agencies generally don't
do the design work themselves, but hire consultants to do this work for
them. Once the plans and specifications covering the design of a highway are
completed by the consultant and provided to the State highway agency, it
solicits bids from contractors interested in doing the construction in
accordance with these plans and specifications. A contractor is selected
because he is the lowest bidder, not because he necessarily does the best
work. The contractor then undertakes the work, hoping to comply with the
plans and specifications and still make a profit.
From this brief explanation of the participants and how they interrelate,
it is fairly obvious that the FHWA is not directly involved in the actual
highway design and/or construction. However, the FHWA does work with each of
the other participants in producing a quality product that meets the needs of
the customers. The primary tools employed by the FHWA to achieve its
objectives are regulations, guides, testing, and inspections.
HISTORICAL QUALITY CONCERNS AND PROBLEMS
The Federal highway program began in the late 1950s with the recognition
that the product (i.e., the highways) would be composed of naturally occurring
materials (e.g., soils and stones) and some produced materials (e.g., cements,
and asphalts) and that, as a result, some variability in the product should be
expected. In the early 1960s, a Congressional Committee, chaired by Repre-
sentative Blatnik and known as the Blatnik Committee, discovered considerably
more variability than could be attributed to these two variables. More
specifically, the Committee found waste, fraud, and abuse to be the pre-
dominant cause. Those agencies overseeing the program simply were not doing
what was necessary to ensure that the plans and specifications were being
followed.
-------
Some of the problems uncovered included the use of materials that did not
meet specifications. Physical tests of these materials that were to be
performed by State highway agencies often were not performed and phony results
were merely penciled in on test result forms. In retrospect, no one really
had been looking at the legitimate test results. Thus, the employees did not
consider their testing work to be important. They were not made to feel that
their Jobs were important. They basically began testing the system to see
what the lowest level of quality was that would be accepted. It really came
down to this cold, but simple fact: The level of quality that we were
demanding was the level that we were accepting.
The desire for quality in highways or any other product certainly was not
a new concept. Another of the reasons why these problems of waste, fraud, and
abuse were allowed to occur was that management at the time was still
operating under a premise that is no longer valid. We traditionally had
depended on the pride of the craftsman to ensure quality products. We came to
expect that quality naturally would be there. Unfortunately, we can no longer
subscribe to this thesis.
IMPLEMENTATION OF A QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
One of the first considerations, of course, is what to include in the
criteria for Judging the acceptability of a completed highway project.
Assume, for example, that you are Judging if a highway project that was
completed five years ago is good or bad. The customer normally would judge it
to be good if it: 1) is pleasing to the eye (he can't look beneath the
surface to assess the structural aspects); 2) is smooth to his senses when he
rides over it (regardless of how well it is constructed); and 3) doesn't hold
water (i.e., no puddles form when it rains). These three features do repre-
sent a simple, but meaningful, set of minimal criteria.
As a result of the problems uncovered by the Blatnik Committee, the FHWA
focused its efforts on ways to ensure that quality products are being
produced. The first efforts were of a promotional nature. They involved
working with the State highway agencies to identify areas where quality
assurance practices could be applied to improve the product. They also
involved working with the construction industry to develop model systems. In
addition, they involved the development and conduct of training programs to
show people how the quality assurance practices and model systems selected
should be applied to ensure that the desired level of quality would be
attained.
After these earlier efforts to influence quality had been implemented, an
evaluation was conducted to determine the nature and extent of quality
problems that were still occurring. The FHWA found that 60 percent of the
problems were originating in the design stage, i.e., from not having a perfect
design. Thirty percent of the problems were actually construction problems,
i.e., faulty construction. The remaining 10 percent resulted from use of
faulty construction materials. This information was quite helpful in
determining the focus and priorities of the quality management program.
41
-------
Simply put, the quality management program requires that answers be given
to the following questions:
1. What level of quality is desired for the highway system to be
constructed (or, more simply stated, what do we want, e.g., do we
want a facility that will last 20 years, or do we want a lower cost
one that will last only 8 years? Oo we want a rigid surface or a
flexible surface)?
2. What should be the content of the specifications to ensure that the
quality desired is clear to and will be provided by the contractor
(or, more simply stated, how do we order it)?
3. What tests and inspections should be conducted to determine that the
level of quality desired has, in fact, been provided (or, more simply
stated, how do we determine what we've got)?
4. What recourse should be taken if the completed highway does not meet
the specifications (or, more simply stated, what do we do if we don't
get what we ordered)?
With regard to the first question, the quality of the end product is
dependent not only on the quality of the construction, but also on the design
and specifications. For example, if the specifications call for the con-
tractor to construct the highway out of material commonly removed from a horse
barn and he does it exactly as we have asked, then, by definition, he has
produced a quality product. Obviously, we have to determine what we really
want before we can tell the contractor what we think we want. It is also
helpful to have a feedback loop from the contractor on the "what we want."
With regard to the second question, the only method available for talking
with a contractor is through the use of specifications. It is helpful to
include both method specifications (i.e., they spell out every method the
contractor must follow) and quality control/statistical specifications.
To address the third question, (i.e., how do we determine what we got?),
the FHWA has promoted and the State highway agencies have adopted a very
complex sampling and testing program. This program is considered the crux of
the entire quality management effort. The results of the tests on the samples
tell whether or not we got what we ordered. The program involves process
testing, acceptance testing, and independent quality assurance testing. The
latter activity is used to assess how adequately the first two activities are
being carried out and whether or not their results are meeting the
specifications.
With regard to the fourth question, if we do get what we ordered, then
there is no problem and the contractor gets paid in full. However, occasion-
ally we find that we didn't get what we ordered. The recourse taken depends
on the extent of the departure from the specifications. One alternative is to
use a graduated acceptance program that, in essence, says: You met X percent
of our specifications so we will pay you X percent of the contract price.
This has disadvantages in that it requires engineering Judgment of the worth
42
-------
of the product and it is difficult to find two engineers that can arrive at
the same figure. If the product is really bad, then there is always the
remove and replace option. This option is used only as a last resort.
FHWA's current efforts to manage the quality of the product are focused
on providing assistance and guides useful to the State highway agencies in
responding to the above four questions. Emphasis is on providing the tests
and procedures needed to more adequately address the third question.
Evaluations are also carried out to determine how satisfactorily the current
tests and procedures are being applied.
SUMMARY
Quality management really is not a new concept. It, perhaps, came a
little later than it should have to the FHWA, but the current program is
working and we are seeing positive results from it. All State highway
agencies now have quality assurance programs and 33 of the 50 State programs
have adopted some form of a statistically based quality assurance approach.
We and the States are continually trying to improve on the programs we have,
with the objective of more complete satisfaction by the customers; namely,
everyone driving the Federal Highway System.
-------
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES SUCCESS STORIES
INTRODUCTION
Dean Neptune made a presentation on progress in DQO implementation in the
past year and on initiatives to encourage further DQO development in program
offices.
Through its DQO facilitation efforts and meetings with senior program
managers, QAMS has developed a greater appreciation of obstacles to DQO
development by program offices. These lessons indicated that greater
understanding and acceptance of the DQO process could be attained by a change
in QAMS' emphasis in institutionalizing DQO's; specifically, a greater
emphasis on qualitative DQO issues was necessary to establish a sound basis
for quantitative planning. This qualitative emphasis is being reflected in:
Revisions to update the information guide
- recognition of interim process outputs
- clearer recognition when participants must exercise their
responsibilities
- importance of QAMS software aids in DQO development
Updates to QAMS' DQO workshop
- reflect the change in qualitative planning emphasis
- incorporate greater use of interactive examples in DQO training
QAMS' DQO facilitation efforts have provided opportunities this past year
to help several program offices recognize the important logic and structure
that the DQO process brings to planning. QAMS has invited three of those
offices to share with the QAO's their DQO development experiences, and to
respond to questions as to how they overcame obstacles to DQO development.
PARTICIPANTS
Bettina Fletcher, Quality Assurance Officer for the Chesapeake Bay
Program, emphasized that the DQO process encouraged important and substantive
collaboration between the technical staff, program staff, and management.
Furthermore, she indicated that a decision-based environmental data collection
plan is now being developed.
Jane Leonard, Senior Staff Officer for Air Quality Planning and Standards
emphasized that, for them, DQO issues provided an important hook to get not
only management input for planning, but also additional program office input
from other data users. Their success in this initial DQO development effort
has led them to undertake a DQO for the Urban Toxics Monitoring Program.
44
-------
Gerry Kotas, Program Manager for the National Pesticides Survey,
emphasized that DQO development can be successfully undertaken with a tight
working schedule, finite personnel resources, and a limited budget. In
addition, Gerry evaluated the effectiveness of his DQO planning during the
pilot pesticide survey by participating in a Management Systems Review.
45
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM PLAN SUCCESS STORIES
INTRODUCTION
The following were the points made by way of introductory remarks by the
panel chairman, Jim Stemmle.
1) What a QAPP does: A QAPP lays out the QA policies and procedures,
roles and responsibilities, criteria and QA management systems of the
group.
2) Three basic QAPP and QAARW principles:
a) A QAPP should be tailored to the particular needs and modus
operand! of the group;
b) There are no national standards -- the QAMS guidance is intended
to help groups think through their QA programs;
c) A QAPP benefits the group, not QAMS.
3) Five points re preparation and approval:
a) QAMS will never second guess QA policies that have been carefully
thought through;
b) Developing a QAPP takes time and it is better to do the job right
the first time;
c) A QAPP does not need to be perfect to be useful (it is better to
get an imperfect but useful plan in place with the understanding
that the QAPP is dynamic and as experience is gained, the QAPP
should be modified appropriately);
d) The QAPP is a relatively permanent document annual revision is
not required;
e) The preparation of QAPP's should not be a paper intensive
exercise good QAPP's can be 25 pages or less.
4) Three points re QAARW:
a) Annual planning is essential QA does not happen spontaneously
or on a make-it-up-as-you-go-along basis;
b) The QAARW is simple and brief (5-7 pages);
c) The QAARW contains annual planning information and includes a
candid assessment of QA needs, an assessment of current QA
policies, a summary of QA achievements and problems of the
previous year, and listings of DQO's, QAPJP's, SOP's, and audits
that are planned for the year.
-------
5) Status information:
a) Only 3 of the 17 NPOs have approved QAPP's and have submitted
QAARW's;
b) All but 2 of the 20 ORD units have approved QAPP's and 10 have
submitted FY-S8 QAARW's;
c) Half of the 10 RO's have approved QAPP's but only 1 has submitted
a QAARU.
PARTICIPANTS:
James McCarty, Deputy Director of Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory and QAO, emphasized his lab's management support for QA.
Elizabeth Loevey, QAO for the Office of Pesticide Programs, developed her
QAPP with a strategy of involving line managers in preparing portions of the
QAPP which she melded into the final document. She recognized that top
management was not initially (and continuing to some degree) an enthusiastic
supporter of the QA program, but was able to get cooperation of line
management by polite persistence.
Marcus Kantz, who had the lead in developing the Region II QAPP-, spoke of
the regional strategy of involving the right regional people in establishing
QA policy and in the QAO's policy of candid discussion of QA problems and
priorities in the QAPP document.
-------
SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP SESSIONS
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WORKGROUP
During the January 11-15, Annual Quality Assurance Management Meeting, the ORD
representatives met as a workgroup to develop recommended action items that
could help improve the EPA/ORD quality assurance program. ORD representatives
participating in the workgroup were:
Dan Bender, EMSL-CIN
Pat Borthwick, ERL-Gulf Breeze
Dan Boatright, ERL-Ada
Rudy Boksleitner, EMSL-RTP
Arnold Lemke, ERL-Duluth
Bill McCarthy, OEETD
Jim McCarthy, ERL-Corvallis
Mel Nolan, OEPER
Ron Patterson, ASRL-RTP
Larry Purdue, EMSL-RTP
Guy Simes, HWERL-CIN
David Smith, WERL-CIN
QUALITY CULTURE
The workgroup was in unanimous agreement that this annual meeting was the most
successful yet. The presentations by representatives from other federal
agencies and private industry provided new insights and perspectives on how to
manage a quality program. From this experience, our workgroup agreed that one
of the highest priorities for QAMS and the Agency should be to strive for a
"quality conscience culture" in EPA, that is, to achieve an attitude or
philosophy in every employee that quality of product and satisfaction of the
customer is our primary goal. Because this is a concept much broader than the
QAMS mandate of assuring quality of data, our workgroup concluded that this
issue is most properly addressed at the highest levels of line management in
the Agency. For this reason, our first recommendation is that:
QAMS should do what it can to get the concept of a "quality culture"
before the Administrator. One way to highlight the quality idea is to
ask Admiral Frank Collins, or his equivalent, to make a presentation on
quality at one of the Agency's senior management meetings.
Realizing that the development of a quality culture within EPA cannot be
achieved in a short time frame, and that it may not be adopted immediately at
the highest levels of management, QAMS and the QAO should do what they can to
encourage quality consciousness at the Office Director or Laboratory Director
level. If properly highlighted, a few success stories within the agency could
get high management attention. Several ways to assist in reaching this goal
are:
1) QAMS could require a brief, one paragraph quality mission statement
on quality at the front of every Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP).
This statement would be prepared AND SIGNED by the head of the
organization for which the QAPP was prepared. It would express the
-------
leader's personal views about quality goals for her/his organizational
unit.
2) QAOs should become more active in marketing the quality culture idea
to their management. If the boss doesn't have time, write a quality
mission statement for him to review and sign. Chances are if he doesn't
accept yours he will write one of his own.
3) QAMS should solicit success stories from QAOs throughout the Agency
and seek a means of highlighting them at Agency management meetings.
FOSTERING OWNERSHIP/MARKETING
An effective quality assurance program can best be achieved when everyone in
the organization feels a responsibility for its success. The workgroup came
up with the following recommendations to involve more people in the process:
1) QAMS should provide greater leadership in the application and use of
techniques (such as "Quality Circles") that foster maximum employee
participation in the QA/QC process.
2) The QAOs should strive to obtain maximum line management and staff
support through a marketing program that highlights successful projects,
defines the benefits of a good QA program, and provides greater
involvement in laboratory management meetings. Specific recommendations
for QAOs include:
a) Write up QA successes in a one-paragraph format, suitable for
submittal by the Lab Director to the Administrator's Weekly Report.
b) Be an active participant in all program reviews held at the
laboratory.
c) Define a QA budget that is sufficient to bring in outside
experts at least once each year to help with required training.
d) Attend laboratory staff meetings regularly and always provide a
comment about the QA program.
e) Make a point of sitting down at regular intervals with project
leaders, branch chiefs, and others in a supervisory role to discuss
how you might be more effective in supporting their QA/QC needs.
f) Talk up successes at every opportunity.
g) If success brings added work loads to the QAO, be sure to bring
this to the attention of the Laboratory Director (or your
supervisor) and propose a set of priorities for addressing the work
-------
load. (Resources are tight everywhere and you will have more luck
getting priorities blessed than you will in getting more dollars or
FTE.)
h) Always stress the positive aspects of QA with examples where
possible.
QAO STATUS
The status of QAOs in the Agency varies widely from organization to
organization and ranges from a part-time job for someone far down the
organizational ladder to a key position at the top of the organization. QAO
turnover is high. Grades and responsibilities are not consistent. Morale is
not always the best. The workgroup addressed these concerns and made the
following recommendations.
1) QAMS should develop a training and certification program that assures
every QAO a basic understanding of
a) the QA program
b) his/her responsibilities
c) job limitations
d) sources of support
2) QAMS should strive to achieve a level of consistency (in terms of
grade and responsibility) for all QAO positions in EPA.
3) Because the job of QAO often leads to a "dead-end" position, the QAO
must recognize this and put considerable personal energy into finding
ways to enrich the Job. No one else will do it for you. Maintaining
high visibility and emphasizing the positive aspects of job
accomplishments can lead to other opportunities. Seeking out training
beyond that required can broaden one's perspective and enhance future
opportunities. The bottom line is: a dead-end situation can only be
resolved through aggressive actions by the person affected.
50
-------
SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP SESSIONS
NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE WORKGROUP
(Presentation made by Elizabeth Leovey)
There were seven topics of interest to and considered by the National
Program Office Workgroup. They were (in order of decreasing priority):
I. Public Relations/Selling QA/Creating a Quality Culture
II. Integration and Coordination with Regional Offices and Other
Program Offices
III. Headquarters Guidance Documents
IV. Communications Between QAMS and the QAOs
V. Communications Among National Program Office QAOs
VI. Audits
VII. Training and Position Descriptions
I. PUBLIC RELATIONS/SELLING QA/CREATING A QUALITY CULTURE
The problem, especially in trying to create a quality culture, was felt
to be with line managers. They aren't involved and they don't understand.
This makes life more difficult for the QAOs. If the people who control the
budget don't understand what you do, you probably won't get any money. There
are some things that QAMS could do to help improve this situation. There are
also some things that the National Program Office QAOs could do. First, they
felt that QAMS could incorporate QA Project Planning into line management and
project officer training courses. Line managers are required to take certain
training courses, like supervisory management, in EPA and there is nothing
like a captive audience to get your ideas across.
The Workgroup also'felt that EPA Order 5360.1 should be revisited.
Perhaps it needs to be beefed up, clarified, or whatever.
The group, as a whole, was rather impressed with Adm. Collins presenta-
tion, primarily because he spoke in a language that their line managers would
understand. They felt it would be very worthwhile to have Admiral Collins
make a presentation at a senior management meeting and apparently there is
going to be one in West Virginia.
And finally, QAMS should think about providing guidance on quality
circles.
With regard to the National Program Offices, they felt one way to get
line management's attention was to use audits. However, they saw certain
pitfalls in doing this, which should be taken into consideration. For
instance, since up-front planning is such a problem, audits may make this
51
-------
deficiency very visible. Program Office audits may also emphasize to Program
Office Management that they are vulnerable. If the data are bad, it will come
back to bite them and they may view the QAO's job as one of doing what is
necessary to protect line management. Thus, in management's view, the QA
program may, in reality, simply serve to document their vulnerability.
On a positive note, success stories should be recognized and played up.
That's good PR!
Finally, some National Program Office QAOs do have their own funding.
Those that do can bring in Admiral Collins to talk to their line management
and emphasize the need to pay attention to quality, in all aspects of a
National Program Office.
Some Program Offices do their own project officer training and, in those
cases, QA training should be incorporated into the courses.
II. INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION
The problem here is coordination of National Program Office QA
activities, collectively, with the Regions. One step the Workgroup felt could
be taken was to have the QA Program Plans revised to include approval criteria
that will ensure there is a mechanism included for integration and coordina-
tion between Program Offices and Regional Offices. As regard to the NPOs, the
group felt that they should get together and try to put together language that
QAMS could use in the QA Program Plan guidance.
III. HEADQUARTERS GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The Workgroup felt that the NPOs, since many are still developing their
QA Program Plans, could incorporate in them suitable policies regarding
headquarters guidance documents and when these guidance documents would be
sent to the Regional ESDs for review.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN QAMS AND THE QAOs
The Workgroup feels that communications have improved a lot and that QAMS
deserves a pat on the back. They should keep up their current level of
communications. The Workgroup also feels that the NPO QAOs need to work at
providing continual feedback to QAMS in order to improve even more upon the
current situation.
V. COMMUNICATION AMONG NPO QAOs
The Workgroup felt that there should be some central place that they
could go to get information. Each of the NPO QAOs has information that would
be beneficial to the others, if shared. For example, each one develops
guidance and performs audits, but the others generally don't know about these
activities and it is difficult to find out about them. One Workgroup member
(Jane Leonard) suggested that they set up an information clearinghouse.' In
her area of work interest, there is National Air Toxics Clearinghouse, which
is a contractor operation and it publishes a newsletter. The Workgroup
-------
decided to take a look at that and then get together to decide if that was a
feasible approach for them to evaluate.
The Workgroup also felt that they needed to have monthly meetings. Most
of the NPO QAOs are in Washington. There are a few outside of Washington, but
it was felt that they could be included through conference calls. The group
decided that Marty Brossman (who was not present) would plan the first meet-
ing. The first item on the first monthly meeting will be a discussion of the
clearinghouse to decide if this is a viable approach and should be implemented.
VI. AUDITS
Most of the discussion regarding audits centered on the use of
contractors in auditing and whether or not there tends to be a conflict of
interest on the part of the contractors. The Group decided this was another
topic that should be discussed at its first monthly meeting and that it would
be Item No. 2 on the agenda.
VII. TRAINING AND POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
There has been an interest in putting together a training program for
QAOs. In order to do that you have to first define what a QAO does, i.e.,
identify what the elements of the position description for a QAO should look
like. So they felt that QAMS should decide what a QAO should know and what
should be in a QAO's position description. The Group also felt that it would
be important to emphasize to management in the PD language that the QAO needs
to report to the highest possible level in the organization. The Group
decided this topic also should be discussed at the first monthly meeting and
that it would be Item No. 3 on the agenda. The discussion will focus on
whether or not this type of language needs to be incorporated into the PDs.
POINTS MADE IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
In the Q&A session following the presentation, the Superfund QAO (Duane
Geuder) mentioned that the Superfund Program management had included QA
activities in the list of topics covered in their Regional Program Reviews,
especially the reviews of the CLP activities. Now that he is not participat-
ing in those reviews of the CLP activities, there may be a little waffling on
the coverage of QA in the overall program reviews. He indicated that he
intended to keep up the pressure to continue coverage of the QA element in the
reviews, however. Secondly, since the need for consolidation of PE efforts
has come up again (it was mentioned in the Regional Workgroup presentation),
he feels that this topic also should be addressed at the first or second
monthly meeting of NPO QAOs. He feels the problem is getting worse, not
better.
A QAO from ORD (David Smith) mentioned that, from ORD's perspective,
there was a need for greater involvement by the NPOs in the development of
DQOs on research projects to be performed by ORD in response to specific NPO
needs. He sensed from the presentation that, perhaps, the NPO QAOs may not be
aware of this perceived need, from ORD's perspective.
-------
With regard to the latter comment, Stan Blacker emphasized the importance
of the group recognizing that it is important for communication to occur
between the researcher and the user of the research results in developing the
DQOs for research projects, and that the QAOs should help in making that
happen. Stan would like to see a follow-up on Dave's point where the ORD labs
that provide major data collection kinds of support (primarily the EMSLs) work
out a relationship with the Program Offices. The relationship worked out
should be incorporated into their QA Program Plan design. This interaction in
the DQO process and structure for a NPO operation should be compatible with
that which is needed for ORD to do its thing, from a data collection design
perspective. He would like to see that type of interaction take place. He
would like for those QAOs of ORD labs that provide a lot of this type of
support to the NPOs to work with Elizabeth Leovy, Marty Brossraan, and the
other NPO QAOs in these meetings and with Dean Neptune (coordinator for QAMS)
to make it happen. This type of coordination is not only important between
ORD and the NPOs, but it also should occur between the NPOs and the Regions.
The things that Barry Towns has been doing with Marty Brossman in the water
area is the beginning of that kind of interaction.
Stan Blacker also commented that the last two presentations had really
brought home a point that Admiral Collins and the other panelists had made;
viz, the issue of customers and: What are the customers' needs? He went on
to state that those present are the primary customers of QAMS and that QAMS is
here to serve them and meet their needs. The one thing he particularly liked
about Elizabeth's presentation was that QAMS' customers were now beginning to
put together their lists of needs for QAMS to pursue. In the last four years,
it has been largely the other way around, where QAMS has provided a list of
needs for them to pursue. Obviously, the program is maturing and going in the
right direction. Keep it up!
-------
SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP SESSIONS
REGIONAL WORKGROUP
GENERAL (Presented by Robert Forrest - Region 6)
There were seven topics of interest to and considered by the Regional
Workgroup. They were:
I. Management Systems Reviews (MSRs)
II. Superfund QA/QC Responsibilities
III. Office of Water - DQO Workgroup
IV. Safe Drinking Water Act - Audits of State Laboratories
V. Superfund Data Validation
VI. Regional QAO Communications and Networking
VII. Model QA Program
The Workgroup's comments, findings, and conclusions regarding each of
these topics are presented below.
I. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS REVIEWS (Presented by Gerald McKenna - Region 2)
The Workgroup members had four points to make with regard to this topic.
1. They felt that MSRs that had been conducted on the Regional Programs
were conducted very well, were not adversarial, were very profes-
sional, and helped to establish, in Region 2, the collective credi-
bility of QAMS and the Regional QA program as a whole. (He also
stated that Region 2 had not yet seen the Region 2 MSR report and
that it is possible that they might change their mind a little bit
after they see it.) Up to this point, they are very pleased with the
progress of the MSRs.
2. They wished to make the suggestion to QAMS that it stop saying it is
getting out of the business, i.e., at least stop talking about it.
Philosophically, the Workgroup doesn't disagree with that as an ideal
goal to work toward. However, QAMS should not get out of the busi-
ness until somebody else gets in to it. The "somebody else" that
they see could be either the Program Office or the Regions. To do
this, they would need to establish the machinery to conduct audits/
reviews. Their experience has been that far too often, someone
starts a program and then gets out too soon and no one follows
through on it. Accordingly, they recommended that QAMS continue with
the audits/reviews until, at least, others are well established and
quite able to pick up the responsibility.
55
-------
Another practical aspect of MSRs that the Workgroup wanted to pass on
to QAMS was for QAMS to recognize how hard it is to audit your own
organization. The hardest job is looking into your own folk's
operation. They found that people trying to review their own
organization have met with a lot of hostility and in-fighting,
because they are part of that same family.
3. From their experience with the Superfund audit (and although they
recognized that QAMS was sensitive to this and did make a try) they
felt there was still not enough of an attempt made to come through
the Program Office in carrying out the audit. They felt that QAMS
still came in via the ESDs too much. This approach requires
logistics in setting it up and getting the thing done. The main
problem they saw was the symbolic value of the approach used. If you
really want to pass the ownership to the Program Office, then you
have to symbolize this by going through the Program Office (and
practically leaving the ESDs out of it, unless brought in by the
Program Office) in setting up the audits. They felt that was the
only way to continue emphasizing ownership of the program.
U. They see benefits to the Regions in letting themselves be volunteers
and getting involved in the audits. All of the Regions expressed a
willingness to be a part of the audit team. They realize that: 1)
they could make a contribution and 2) they would get a lot out of it.
II. SUPERFUND QA/QC RESPONSIBILITIES (presented by Bob Forrest - Region 6)
There is an analytical services advisory committee set up in EPA
comprised primarily of Regional ESD and Hazardous Waste Management Division
Directors. Ramona Trovato is providing assistance to a subgroup of it by
conducting a survey to determine: 1) what QA/QC activities are going on in
Superfund and 2) who has responsibility for them. She has distributed in the
past year a matrix with QA activities listed on one axis and Regional (and
apparently contractor and other) positions listed on the other axis. She has
asked that the matrix be filled in as a means of determining who has
responsibility for what with regard to QA/QC responsibilities in Superfund
work.
The Regional Workgroup is interested in keeping current on this activity.
III. OFFICE OF WATER - DQO WORKGROUP (presented by Barry Towns - Region 10)
Marty Brossman, the Chairperson for the DQO workgroup, was unable to
attend because of some budget problems in his program, so the Regional
Workgroup members were not able to accomplish as much as they had intended.
They had planned to get the DQO workgroup members together and lay out a
strategy for what had to be done in order to develop a comprehensive and
effective set of DQO guidance for several projects within the Office of
Water. They were going to try to determine what those projects were, how they
were going to go about preparing the guidance, and what was available that
would be of help in preparing the guidance (e.g., Ron Patterson of ASRL-RTP
has done quite a bit of work with contractors, putting together what appears
56
-------
to be very good guidance on development of DQOs and also in actually
developing a DQO).
The group set up a conference call with Marty Brossman and discussed the
above points with him. From the discussion, they laid out a draft set of
objectives to be met by the Workgroup and a copy of it has been provided to
each member of the DQO Workgroup. Members are to review this draft charge and
get their comments back to Marty Brossman. Marty will review the comments and
get back to the members via another conference call and resolve any problems
identified. Then they plan to arrange for another conference call to lay out
a strategy for proceeding. If Marty Brossman can obtain the resources, they
plan to make use of the same contractor that Ron Patterson did in preparing
DQO guidance for the Office of Water projects that were selected. They hope
to have a draft of the guidance by March or April, at which time it will be
distributed to the Workgroup members to review it, massage it, and make sure
that it is something practical and can be used out in the Regions. That
basically is where the Workgroup is, as of now.
If the Workgroup is successful in this endeavor, it stated its willing-
ness to provide assistance to other Programs who may be planning a similar
undertaking.
IV. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT - AUDITS OF STATE LABORATORIES (presented by Bob
Forrest - Region 6)
Bob Forrest indicated that he was involved in helping to turn an older
program in a slightly different direction. They were looking at everything
associated with the program to see how it might be improved. The first step
was to attempt to find out what everybody else is doing. To accomplish this,
they sent out a questionnaire to everybody (from the 10 Regional QA
Offices). The results from completed questionnaires were extracted and
summarized. They provide general information on who is doing what and why and
how often. They indicate the scope of the audits, criteria used in developing
protocols for an audit, format used in reporting, the scope of a given audit,
etc. It appeared to Bob Forrest that Region 6's activities were pretty much
in concert with what was going on in the other Regions. He did note, however,
that Region 6 was the only one auditing every year. He thought he may have
difficulty in Justifying the continuation of this practice, since he was the
only one doing it that frequently. The other very important thing that came
out of the questionnaire was the response received from these two questions:
1) would you like to participate in another Region's audit team when it
reviews State laboratories to certify them, under the Safe Drinking Water Act?
and 2) would you like to have someone from another Region Join your audit team
in carrying out these same activities? Results were nearly unanimous in favor
of such reciprocal participation.
Bob Forrest sees that as a very good thing, providing some hybrid vigor
and also, at least giving the perception of providing greater objectivity on
the part of the team. He felt that any communication, networking, and sharing
among the Regional QAOs in this regard would be mutually beneficial.
57
-------
The group also extensively discussed performance evaluations. All
members were of the opinion that there are a lot of PE studies conducted by a
number of different organizational units and that they are not integrated too
well and are overlapping. There was a sense of a need to consolidate and
coordinate these PE studies. Apparently there is no central group that could
be expected to take responsibility for consolidation of these PE studies. So
it is an issue that has no particular solution, except for biting the bullet
in the Region, perhaps, with the lab director, QAO, and whomever and being
assertive and saying, look, this is the way it's going to be done.
Bob wanted it to be clear that the problem was not just with the Office
of Drinking Water's activities, but with all of the program offices
collectively (e.g., RCRA, Superfund, water pollution studies, air studies,
etc., as well). This main problem, again, was the need for coordination and
consideration of the resultant workload from these overlapping and duplicative
requirements.
V. SUPERFUND DATA VALIDATION (presented by Gerald McKenna - Region 2)
This was a pet topic of Kent Kitchingman of Region 9 (who had to leave
before this presentation, so Jerry McKenna agreed to handle it).
The aspect of this topic that the Workgroup dealt with was reviewing of
CLP data. Although some may not perceive this as QA, it becomes QA because it
is recognized as QA in the Agency and becomes QA, in terms of resources and
responsibilities, and is the Job of the QAO in most of the Regions. It's the
kind of work the QAOs do most of the time as work in their In-Boxes when they
get back to work. So, for them, it is a big part of the QAO program. A
problem that is nagging all of the Regional QAOs is the review of all of the
contractor laboratory program data, with the mix of resources they have. The
reason it is a nagging problem is because they can't get the Job done the way
they want to do it and also because the time and resources they are spending
on it, which in turn results in this work getting in the way of other things
that are of equal or greater importance. Right now they are validating (or
reviewing, as some would call it) 100 percent of all of the analytical data
that comes out of the contract laboratory program. They want to find a
mechanism or way out so they don't have to review 100 percent of it or that
others can review more of it. They believe this problem has been recognized
in the Superfund audits. Certainly the review team composed of QAMS and the
Superfund Program is aware of this problem.
Workgroup members do want 100 percent of the data reviewed by somebody.
They do not Just want to cut back blindly and sacrifice quality. They feel
that the QA people are the last resort of the Agency, in terms of quality, and
that the QAOs should not start compromising carelessly in an attempt to
accommodate the big backlog and the pressure and screaming that they get.
They also are concerned about what people call the "QA bottleneck," meaning
that the QAOs are not doing their Jobs well enough. They do not want to
sacrifice the quality of the data.
-------
Because the QAOs are having to review 100 percent of the CLP data, they
have backlogs stretching out to weeks and months. This backlog is holding up
Superfund projects and getting the attention of some Superfund managers, whose
view of the matter is that the QAOs are causing them some problems.
The Workgroup considered various options for resolving this problem. The
first option they discussed was one where they are limited to the existing
resources. In this case, they felt the best course of action would be to
arrange the work in priority order and simply do the most important things.
They would work closely with the data users to look at specific sites or
specific data subsets viewed to be important and then Just take the risks and
the lumps with the remaining data.
The Workgroup, however, did have a problem with this option because they
ffelt that it is the un-QA'd projects that always come back and "bite" you. It
always seems to haunt the QA people most and destroy their credibility and the
credibility of the QA program. They weren't really happy with this option,
although they realize that, realistically, it may be the only one.
The second option they discussed was taking advantage of what industry
often does in its quality control programs; namely, letting statistics drive
where they place their effort. The Workgroup speculated on how well
statistics would work in identifying the critical problems. For example,
would the problems be associated with certain parameters, matrices, or
laboratories? The feeling of the group, although not based on facts and
figures, was that it is not a predictable population, because of the
variability between lab directors and chemists and it is very hard to get a
statistical handle on the system. Also you still run the risk of not looking
at certain things and having that "bite you in the foot."
The third option was to optimistically look toward the Agency to provide
bigger and better things and look toward the advent of automated contract
compliance screening (CCS) data. They have watched such approaches through
the effluent guidelines program years ago and are watching it now through
Superfund. They don't really know what the status of this activity is
relative to the Superfund program and could use some feedback. They did feel,
however, that this option would be good only for routine analytical services,
the nuts and bolts type of contracts, as opposed to special analytical
services, which is the classier customized work.
On Option 4, the Workgroup got into a philosophical discussion about who
is responsible and who is knowledgeable of the thing. The question came up:
Shouldn't the CLP laboratories, themselves, be responsible for inspecting
their products, viz, the data they produce, and certify that they meet EPA
requirements? Of course, this idea isn't new. It has been presented many
times at different times and places in the Agency. We don't know why, but it
Just hasn't seemed to fly. They recognize that this option has some
potential, although there may be some obstacles and hurdles that they are not
aware of as to why this can't be done. If this approach were used, then the
QAOs could use their resources to check the veracity of the contract
laboratory reviews, rather than putting the data through a screen. If they
are self certifying and not telling the truth, then that is fraud and so there
59
-------
is a way to put teeth into getting them to do the Job right. The QA Offices,
then, are upgraded from one of being validators to that of being auditors.
They plan to go back to their Regions and explore this option further to see
if there are any real obstacles to it and, if so, what they are.
VI. REGIONAL QAO COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING (presented by Bob Forrest -
Region 6)
The Workgroup didn't get a chance to discuss this subject very much.
However, it is of interest, not Just because of fear, but because they
recognize that out in the Regions, collectively, there is a gold mine of
information. The Regional QAOs interact well at these meetings and at their
own annual meetings in the spring, but there is a need to interact on a much
more frequent basis to exchange information on what they are doing and how
they are doing it. The objective would be simply to increase communication
among the Regional QAOs. They sometimes need a little catalyst to get
together. They also recognize that there is a second level out there that
needs to be communicated with. These are the National Program Office QAOs,
R&D QAOs, etc.
Stan Blacker stated that, as long as there remained an interest in
participating in the 4-6 week interval teleconference calls with the Regional
QAOs, QAMS would continue them. He also stated that others (e.g., Program
Office QAOs) who would be interested in joining in on these calls are welcome
to do so. Should a time come when fewer than 20-30 percent of the Regional
QAOs are interested in participating in the calls, then at that time QAMS will
stop placing them.
VII. MODEL QA PROGRAM (presented by Gerald McKenna - Region 2)
The ESD Directors and the Regional QAOs are involved in an effort to
define a model QA program. Interest in this evolved about six months ago at
an ESD Directors' meeting, where they decided what their real priorities
were. QA was one of their top three priorities. They charged two of the ESD
Directors (from Regions 2 and 9) to come up with a QA strategy on behalf of
the ESDs. At the last ESD Directors meeting (last December), they decided
that what would serve the development of a strategy best would be a model of
an ideal QA program. They enlisted the help of the Regional QAOs in this
effort. The QAOs, in their meeting yesterday, decided to come up with four
"pictures" of what a Regional QA Program should look like. Emphasis is to be
on what actually happens in a good QA program, not simply what a good one
looks like.
The first picture will be of what a good generic process should look like
in the Region for the program to work well. The second picture will be
looking at the different data bases, i.e., the types of data that the Regions
are involved in day-to-day and what they should be doing with each major data
base. This would include what a good QA program plan should look like and how
it should be developed and used. It also would include good auditing proce-
dures; the annual report and how a Region goes about getting the resources for
its QA program; a training program; etc. The QAOs from Regions 5 and 10 have
agreed to put together the first strawman of these two pictures.
60
-------
Then, in the privacy of their own Regions, each Regional QAO and ESD
Director will be able to compare their own QA Program with the two
"pictures." These actual situations in each Region would represent the other
two pictures.
In going after these two snapshots, they should be going down to the
level of specifics. The focus will be on the products. The main product is
data. They will try to take a couple of measured data bases for which the
Regions have responsibility and come up with what they would consider to be
an ideal model or mix of QA activity to get the kind of data they feel they
need. And in doing that, they will try to make some management Judgments in a
relative way as to how good these data bases are.
They will be coming up with a menu of activities that they will be
considering. A tentative list includes the following:
QAPJP Review PAIs
Lab Audits Tech Support
Field Audits Splits/Spikes
DQO Preparation and Review Contract Development
Training Sessions
PE Samples
Data Review
This approach should allow the QAO and ESD Director in each Region to be
able to see Just where they are and to better determine where they want to be
in terms of both the process and in serving various Regional programs. It
also will help them to identify the barriers to their getting to where they
want to go. If any of those barriers are national problems, they can become
part of a national strategy for attacking the problems. They also will be
able to identify those barriers that are within the Region and be able to give
thought to what can be done about them.
Stan Blacker commented that he liked the approach and was looking forward
to seeing the results. He also suggested that in this effort each of the QAOs
keep in mind that, although they were focusing on the ESD Directors, they are
the QAO for all of the Region's managers, not Just the ESD Director, and that
QA is a responsibility of all Regional managers. Accordingly, they should try
and bring into the excellent process they are laying out, not only the ESD
Director, but all of the other Regional Division Directors, as well.
61
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER OF THE YEAR AWARD
ELIGIBILITY:
NOMINATIONS:
PURPOSE: To recognize and promote outstanding accomplishments in the
field of quality assurance management at EPA.
FREQUENCY: Annual (initial presentation scheduled for January 1988).
CRITERIA: The award acknowledges unusual achievement in one or more of
the following areas:
(1) Promotion of broader understanding of the value and
benefits of quality assurance (as opposed to quality
control).
(2) Promotion of cross-organizational cooperation and
dialogue on quality assurance issues.
(3) Demonstrated success in the implementation of
uniquely valuable quality assurance concepts,
procedures, or tools.
The recipient must be an EPA employee (or group of
employees). Members of the Quality Assurance Management Staff
are not eligible.
Any interested EPA organization or individual may submit
nominations for this award. The format of the nomination
should be a simple and concise (not to exceed two pages)
narrative description of the achievement being proposed for
consideration. At a minimum, nominations should address the
following questions:
(1) What is the nominee's contribution to improving the
quality obtained from EPA's environmental data
collection activities?
(2) What is the nominee's direct role in that
contribution?
(3) What is the specific benefit derived by the
nominee's organization (or by the Agency as a whole)
as a result of this contribution?
DEADLINE: Nominations should be submitted to the Quality Assurance
Management Staff by December 18, 1987.
SELECTION The selection panel will consist of three senior EPA managers
PROCESS: representing the three basic quality assurance constituencies
(Regions, ORD, and Headquarters Program Offices).
AWARD: The recipient of this honor will receive a cash award and a
commemorative plaque. The award will be presented at the
January 1988 National Quality Assurance Management Meeting in
Pensacola, Fl.
62
-------
December 18, 1987
MEMORANDUM.-
SUBJECT: Quality Assurance Manager of the Year Award
FROM: Ralph R. Bauer
Deputy Regional Administrator
TO: Vaun A. Newill
Assistant Administrator
Research and Development (RD-672)
Region 10's nominee for the Quality Assurance Manager of the Year Award
is William Barry Towns, Chief of Region 10's Quality Assurance Management
Office. This is in recognition of Barry's exceptional leadership and
exemplary accomplishments in the development and effective implementation of
the Agency's Quality Assurance (QA) Program.
Barry's skillful and longstanding managerial leadership in promoting and
shaping Intra-Agency Program coordination has been absolutely critical to the
evolution of this program from a subsidiary technical function to the
fundamental component it now represents in the Agency's technical programs.
Of his many significant accomplishments, none better exemplifies Barry's
ongoing role in national program leadership than his efforts in developing a
model Regional QA Program Plan.
This important document was the focus of a National Quality Assurance
Workshop which Barry personally promoted, planned, organized and conducted.
This workshop was considered fully successful by the national and regional
representatives who attended. The model plan not only served to establish
detailed and uniform policy and guidance for the expeditious preparation of
region-specific QA program plans, but represented a significant resource
savings to the other regions and headquarters by eliminating redundant
preparation and plan review efforts. The Quality Assurance Management staff
praised the workshop as a significant step toward improved quality assurance
programs and data quality for all regional offices.
Also, as a result of Barry's concerted efforts, Region 10's QA Program
was the first Regional Quality Assurance Program to be approved by
headquarters. It is widely acknowledged that by being the first region to
submit such a plan, Barry set the standard by which headquarters would
ultimately evaluate the efficacy of similar plan submittals from other
regions.
On his own initiative, Barry has also developed numerous QA guidance
manuals designed to provide explicit guidance for the preparation of regional
"program-specific" QA project plans. By establishing detailed program-
specific monitoring and QA requirements, these manuals represent a significant
resource savings to the monitoring programs (contractors) and QA Office alike
by foreshortening the often lengthy plan preparation and review/revision
process. These manuals are also being used by other regional offices and
63
-------
state agencies. Implementation of these QA project plans has resulted in a
noticeable and documented improvement of the overall data quality generated by
these programs.
Recognizing that Region 10 had significant programmatic and resource
investments in its states' monitoring programs, Barry developed a model QA
Program Plan for use by state agencies and other jurisdictions. The ready
availability of such a model plan made it more palatable for the states to be
responsive to agency QA requirements imposed by both federal grant and
monitoring regulations, and regional initiatives reflected in the annual
State/EPA Agreements (SEA's). In addition to its use by all of Region 10's
state environmental agencies to expedite the preparation of their own QA
programs, this plan is being used by other regions and state agencies across
the nation. Implementation of these QA guidance has resulted in the
development of credible and effective QA programs by these agencies.
Barry is regarded by his peers as the leading spokesman for the regions
and a national authority in all matters relating to quality assurance. In
this capacity, Barry has chaired many national committees and workshops and
technical sessions at the Agency's Semi-Annual QA meetings. He is also a
leading proponent for the inclusion of QA activities in the National
Monitoring Workload Models and the development of agency data quality
objectives that have received so much attention in recent years.
Barry has successfully guided Region 10's QA Program since its
establishment in 1979. As Chief of the Regional QA Management Office (RQAMO),
Barry was responsible for the growth of a one-person operation into a QA
Office whose professional staff, efficiency and innovation are without peer in
the agency. As a result of the effectiveness of the RQAMO, Region 10 is in an
excellent position to realize continued improvements in the overall quality cf
its environmental data.
In summary, the credibility and effectiveness of the Agency's Quality
Assurance Program has been significantly strengthened as a result of Barry's
positive leadership and important contributions. EPA is fortunate to have
someone of Barry's experience, energy, and initiative.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AM 2 6 1988
SUBJECT: Selection of Barry Towns as Quality Assurance
Manager of the Year
FROM: ^S^AlJ\«ii#rk, Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development (RD-672)
TO: Robie G. Russell, Regional Administrator, Region 10
In an effort to honor and promote excellence in quality assurance
management at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of
Research and Development has initiated a new award entitled the Quality
Assurance Manager of the Year Award. I, as the senior official for
Agency QA policy, am very pleased to inform you that Barry Towns of
Region 10 has been selected as the first recipient of this important
honor.
The award selection panel consisted of three distinguished senior
managers: Michael Cook of the Office of Drinking Water; Alexandra
Smith of Region 8; and Thomas Murphy of the Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory. Due to the impressive number and quality of the
nominations which were received, this panel faced a daunting challenge.
The fact that they unanimously chose Mr. Towns despite the high
caliber of the competition should be especially gratifying to you.
Mr. Towns has already received a plaque during a ceremony at the
recent National Quality Assurance Management Meeting in Pensacola,
Florida. In further recognition of his accomplishments, he will
shortly receive a check for $2,000. We will keep your staff informed
of when this check is available, in case Region 10 management wishes
to take advantage of that opportunity to make a formal presentation
to Mr. Towns.
Recognition of noteworthy achievements in environmental protection
is one of our most «relco>ne responsibilities as EPA managers. In this
case, I am especially happy to join with you in applauding Barry
Tovms' contributions to the vital Agency-wide quality assurance
65
-------
program. The accomplishments of Mr. Towns and his colleagues
throughout the Agency serve to -assure that the Agency's decision-
making is consistently supported by sound, appropriate and defensible
environmental data.
cc: The Administrator
The Deputy Administrator
Regional Admistrators
Assistant Administrators
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations
Deputy Regional Administrators
Office Directors
ORD Laboratory Directors
Environmental Services Division Directors
Quality Assurance Officers
AA Quality Assurance Representatives
Barry Towns, QAO, Region 10
66
------- |