National ^*
Quality Assurance
Management Meeting /v
Proceedings / \
Houston, Texas
January 30-February 3,1989
Quality Assurance Management Staff > Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PROCEEDINGS
NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGEMENT MEETING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HOUSTON, TEXAS
JAN. 30 - FEB. 3, 1989
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds a National
Quality Assurance Management Meeting. The conference offers EPA's key quality
assurance (QA) managers a chance to meet with one another and exchange ideas.
The 1989 week-long meeting, which took place at the Houstonian Hotel in
Houston, Texas, was a motivating experience for all who attended. An
impressive array of speakers from outside the Agency discussed cutting-edge
trends in Total Quality, which keynote speaker J. H. Fooks described as a
revolution. Here are some of the highlights of the meeting.
J. H. (Jack) Fooks, Vice President for Corporate Productivity and Quality at
Westinghouse, described the company's approach to quality improvement, which
resulted in its recent receipt of the Malcom Baldrige National Quality
Award. He defined Total Quality as excellence in meeting customer
requirements and expectations by doing the right thing right the first time.
Col. John Casper, Astronaut at the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion (NASA), showed how changes that NASA made in QA after the Challenger
accident, such as requiring accountability for QA inspections, led to the
successful return of the space shuttle program.
Sam Fratoni, Marketing Manager at Hewlett Packard's Avondale Division,
described the company's TQC program (Total Quality Commitment and Total
Quality Control) and explained how constant process improvement leads to
meeting customer needs and expectations.
Robert S. Cahill, Associate Administrator for Regional Operations at EPA,
shared his insights about how to influence change in an organization, offered
some concrete examples of change management at EPA, and explained why he feels
that EPA's quality program will flourish in the coming years.
RADM Frank C. Collins, Jr., President of Frank C. Collins Associates-Survival
Twenty-One, discussed the characteristics of quality circles — small groups
of people who meet on a regular basis to solve quality problems. With Marty
Russell, Vice President for National Affairs at the American Productivity and
Quality Center (APQC), he also provided a history of the National Quality
Award.
C. Jackson Grayson, Jr., Chairman of APQC, explained how elevating quality to
the highest level can provide a boost for sagging U.S. productivity. If this
does not occur, Japan will pass us in the year 2006.
Kathleen Sufcton and Jackie Comola, also of APQC, discussed their IMPACT
(Innovative Methods and Plans in Action) project, in use in 60 companies, to
develop continuous improvement in white collar areas.
EPA quality assurance officers (QAO's) then met in workgroup sessions in an
effort to apply quality principles to the Agency's environmental data
operations. The three workgroups represented EPA regional offices, national
program offices (NPO), and the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
-------
The regional QAO's discussed the following: validation of non-Contract
Laboratory Program laboratory data; initiative on QA-related common practices;
QA activities and pricing factors; estuary methods; support needed from the
Quality Assurance Management Staff (QAMS); regional QA training activities;
and a QA briefing package for regional administrators.
The NPO QAO's covered the following: 1988 action items (developed at last
year's Pensacola Beach meeting); Joint regional/NPO meeting; National Research
Council report; suggestions for QAMS; and 1989 action items.
The ORD QAO's looked at several areas: management relationships; data quality
objectives; QA for modeling projects; new administration briefing; and
training and communication.
The meeting culminated with the presentation of the Quality Assurance Manager
of the Year Award to Gerard F. (Jerry) McKenna. This award recognizes and
promotes outstanding accomplishments in the field of QA management at EPA.
This proceedings document begins with an agenda of the meeting, and bio-
graphical information about the major speakers. Then it provides a condensed
version of the presentations and EPA workgroup reports. Finally, it provides
the nomination packages for QA Manager of the Year.
The Quality Assurance Management Staff wishes to thank everyone who
participated in the 1989 meeting and made it such a success.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
Executive Summary i
Agenda v
Biographies of Speakers ix
PRESENTATIONS
Introductory Remarks: The Quality Concept in America
by RADM Frank C. Collins, Jr 3
Keynote Address: Total Quality Themes and Applications
by J. H. (Jack) Fooks 5
Quality Assurance Aspects of the Space Shuttle Program
by Col. John H. Casper 15
Satisfying Your Customers through the Total Quality Commitment
by Sam Fratoni 19
Implementing the Quality Concept at EPA by Influencing Change
by Robert S. Cahill 25
Quality Circles
by RADH Frank C. Collins, Jr 33
Quality—National Size-up
by C. Jackson Grayson, Jr 39
History of the Maicom Baldrige National Quality Award
by RADM Frank C. Collins, Jr., and Marty Russell 49
White Collar Quality and Productivity Improvement
by Kathleen Sutton and Jackie Comola 53
WORKGROUP SESSIONS
Regional Offices Workgroup 61
National Program Offices Workgroup 67
Office of Research and Development Workgroup 71
QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER OF THE YEAR AWARD
Nomination of Gerard F. McKenna by Louis Bevilacqua 77
Nomination of Gerard F. McKenna by Barbara Metzger 79
Nomination of Gerard F. McKenna by Charles Jones, Jr 81
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Typical Cost-Time Profile for a Product 9
Figure 2: Process Quality-Cycle Time Relationship 11
Figure 3: Key Ingredients of a Revolution 13
Figure U: The Quality Control Process 21
Figure 5: U.S. Productivity Growth Rate U2
Figure 6: If Growth Rates Continue 43
Figure 7: IMPACT Implementation Process 55
iii
-------
AGENDA
Monday. Jan. 30
12:45 pm - Welcome
1:00 pm - Introductory Remarks
1:15 pm - Total Quality Themes
and Applications
2:15 pm - Open Discussion
3:00 pm - Break
3:15 pm - Quality Assurance Aspects
of the Space Shuttle Program
4:15 pm - Open Discussion
4:45 pm - Organizational Workgroups
Meet to Plan Agenda
and
Get Acquainted Session for
State Representatives and
Other Non-EPA Participants
Stan Blacker,
Quality Assurance
Management Staff
(QAMS)
RADM Frank Collins,
Survival 21
J. H. Fooks,
Westinghouse
Fooks and Collins
Col. John Casper,
National Aeronautics
and Space
Administration
Casper and Collins
Tuesday. Jan. 31
8:00 am - Overview of Day's Proceedings
8:15 am - Meeting Participants
Self-Introductions/Receipt
of EPA Quality Pin
9:15 am - Satisfying Your Customers through
the Total Quality Commitment
10:15 am - Break
10:30 am - Implementing the Quality Concept
at EPA by Influencing Change
Stan Blacker
Sam Fratoni,
Hewlett-Packard
Robert S. Cahill,
Environmental
Protection Agency
-------
Tuesday. Jan. 31 (cont'd.)
12 noon - Lunch
1:15 pm - Organizational Workgroup Sessions
5:00 pm - Adjourn
Wednesday. Feb. 1
8:15 am - Overview of Day's Proceedings
8:30 am - Quality Circles
9:30 am - Break
9:45 am - Quality—National Size-up
10:15 am - History of the Malcom Baldrige
National Quality Award
11:45 am - White Collar Quality and
Productivity Improvement
12:15 pm - Lunch
1:30 pm - Preliminary Workgroup Presentations
on Cross-Cutting Issues
2:00 pm - Organizational Workgroup Sessions
5:00 pm - Adjourn
Thursday. Feb. 2
8:00 am - Overview of Day's Proceedings
8:15 am - Concurrent Sessions - Block 1
1) Technology in QA Training:
Exploring the Use of
Different Media
Stan Blacker
RADM Collins
C. Jackson Grayson,
American
Productivity and
Quality Center
(APQC)
RADM Collins, Survival 21,
and Marty Russell, APQC
Kathleen Sutton and
Jackie Comola, APQC
Stan Blacker
Teresita Hernandez
and Mary Ann Pierce,
JWK International
vi
-------
Thursday. Feb. 2 (cont'd.)
2) Alternative Laboratory
QC Procedures
3) Management Systems Reviews:
Status Report on Development
and Implementation
9:15 am - Break
9:30 am - Concurrent Sessions - Block 2
1) Influencing Organizational
Change: Power, Attitude,
and Relationships
2) On Developing a Strategy
for DQO Implementation
in the Regions
3) Superfund Caucus Proceedings
10:30 am - Break
10:45 am - Concurrent Sessions - Block 3
1) Communication Skills for
Influencing Organizational
Change
2) Marine and Estuarine
Validated Methods and
Analytical Reference Materials
3) QA Lessons Learned at
EMSL-Las Vegas
Gene Brantly,
Research Triangle
Institute
Gary Johnson, QAMS
Linne Bourget,
Positive Management
Communication
Systems, Inc.
Dean Neptune, QAMS
Duane Geuder, Office
of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Linne Bourget
Positive Management
Communication
Systems, Inc.
Joe Hall,
Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection
Jeff Van Ee,
Environmental
Monitoring Systems
Lab-Las Vegas, and
Craig Palmer,
University of
Nevada-Las Vegas
11:45 am - Lunch
vii
-------
Thursday. Feb. 2 (cont'd.)
1:00 pm - Demonstration of QA Computer
Software
Open Dialogue on
Total Quality Issues
3:00 pm - Break
3:15 pm - Organizational Workgroup Sessions
5:00 pm - Adjourn
Friday. Feb. 3
8:00 am - Overview of Week's Proceedings
8:15 am - Regional Offices Workgroup Report
9:15 am - National Program Offices
Workgroup Report
10:15 am - Break
10:30 am - Office of Research and Development
Workgroup Report
11:30 am - QA Manager of the Year Award
11:45 am - Wrap-Up
12:00 noon - Adjourn
Blacker and Collins
Stan Blacker
Stan Blacker
Stan Blacker
viii
-------
BIOGRAPHIES OF SPEAKERS
Robert S. Cahlll is the Associate Administrator for Regional Operations at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). His duties have included
providing a headquarters focus for the Environmental Service Divisions,
serving as Design Chair for the Senior Managers Forum, and serving as Chair
for both the Administrator's Task Force on Training and Technology Transfer,
and the EPA Institute Advisory Council. He is a member of the ERB Awards
Board and Productivity Board.
Cahill Joined EPA in 1983, where he served as Special Assistant to the
Administrator until appointed to his current position in 1986. Previously, he
worked for the Weyerhaeuser Company, where his positions included
Administrative Assistant to the Senior Vice President, Law and Corporate
Affairs; Assistant to the Vice President, Public Affairs; and Project Leader
for the Human Resources Department. Cahill possesses an M.B.A. with
concentration in administrative and organizational behavior, and a B.S. in
civil engineering, both from the University of Washington.
Col. John Casper (U.S. Air Force) is an Astronaut with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Selected as an astronaut
candidate by NASA in May 1984, Casper completed a one-year training and
evaluation program in June 1985, qualifying him for assignment as a pilot on
future space shuttle flightcrews. His technical assignments to support the
shuttle's return to flight have been in the areas of onboard computer software
and landing and deceleration hardware.
Before coming to NASA, Casper served as Deputy Chief of the Special Projects
Office, U.S. Air Force (USAF). He developed USAF positions on requirements,
operational concepts, policy and force structure for tactical and strategic
programs. Casper has logged over 5,200 flying hours in 48 different
aircraft. He received his M.S. in astronautics from Purdue University in
1967. He is a 1986 graduate of the USAF's Air War College.
RADM Frank C. Collins, Jr., (U.S. Navy, retired) is President of Frank C.
Collins Associates-Survival Twenty-One. His last flag officer assignment was
serving as Executive Director, Quality Assurance, for the Defense Logistics
Agency. Upon his retirement as Rear Admiral in 1983, Collins was elected
corporate Vice President, Quality, of the AVCO Corporation and was charged to
develop a "quality culture" in AVCO's 11 major divisions.
Following his 36-year Navy and industry career, Collins became a consultant in
1987, where he continues to implement the concept of "Total Quality." Having
made nine visits to Japan to observe the secret of their success in
international competition, he is convinced that management is their secret
weapon. A prolific writer, Collins has published many articles in
professional Journals in the United States, China, Korea, Japan, and France.
In 1987 Quality Press published his book Quality—the Ball in Your Court. As
the chief architect of the National Quality Award, Collins serves on the Board
of Directors of the Malcom Baldrige National Quality Award Consortium.
ix
-------
Sam Fratoni is Marketing Manager for the Avondale Division at Hewlett Packard
Corporation, where he is responsible for worldwide marketing of the gas
chromatography, sample preparation, and integrator projects.
Fratoni received his B.S. in chemistry from Purdue University with his
research in instrument design and computer interfacing. He spent four years
at Stanford Research Institute (SRI International) leading methods development
projects for EPA, NIOSH, and industrial clients. In 1979, he Joined Hewlett-
Packard Customer Support at the Avondale, Pennsylvania, Division. Fratoni has
served Hewlett-Packard as a Project Manager, Sales Manager, and Quality
Manager.
J.H. (Jack) Fooks is Vice President for Corporate Productivity and Quality at
Westinghouse Electric Corporation. He heads the Westinghouse Productivity and
Quality Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
After receiving a degree in engineering from Brown University in 1974, Fooks
Joined Westinghouse's Graduate Student Training Program. Following
engineering and management assignments in the Transformer Division, he
attended the Middle Management Program at Harvard Business School in 1956.
After completing several corporate staff assignments, he became Operations
Manager of the Consumer Electronics Division. From 1967 through 1981, Fooks
completed varied General Manager assignments in Major Appliances, Electronic
Components, Elevators, and Heating and Cooling. In February 1985, he was
elected to his current position.
C. Jackson Grayson, Jr., is Chairman of the American Productivity and Quality
Center. Beginning his career as a professor and dean, Grayson became widely
known in 1971 during the period of price-wage controls when he was appointed
to serve as Chairman of the U.S. Price Commission. During, his experience with
controls, he became aware of how important productivity was to the economic
wellbeing of the nation. He was one of the first people in the nation to
sound the alarm about our sagging productivity and competitiveness. After he
left Washington, Grayson founded the American Productivity and Quality Center,
a non-profit organization located in Houston, Texas, to alert the nation to
the danger and work on these problems.
Grayson is the author of many articles in magazines and newspapers. He has
published three books, the latest, written with Carla O'Dell, titled American
Business: A Two Minute Warning. He has an M.B.A. from the Wharton School of
Business at the University of Pennsylvania and a Ph.D. in business from the
Harvard Business School.
-------
PRESENTATIONS
-------
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
THE QUALITY CONCEPT IN AMERICA
RADM Frank C. Collins, Jr.
President
Frank Collins Associates - Survival Twenty-One
Welcome to what I predict will be one of the best meetings this group has ever
attended. I hope you've come with high expectations, because they're cer-
tainly going to be realized, at least to the degree that you participate in
the meeting. I'm confident that you will go home with a lot of fresh, new
ideas about what is going on at the Environmental Protection Agency.
The concept of quality has many facets. Of course, a big part of it involves
improving physical and organizational processes. But that is only part of
it. The concept also embodies human interaction. The degree of success you
will have in implementing this concept also depends on your abilities in
communicating with others. And, of course, above all, your success will
depend on how thoroughly you understand Just what it is you are dealing
with. Let me give you a couple of examples to illustrate these points.
There was an interesting story in Parade magazine last weekend. World War II
could have been averted if art critics hadn't been so tough on a young fellow
by the name of Adolf Schicklgrubers (Hitler). How about that, the guy was a
frustrated artist! Being unable to make his mark in art, he decided to do it
in mayhem and killing. This was not a very good alternative, I'm afraid. It
does demonstrate, however, that the way in which you approach others can
greatly influence their behavior, both positively and negatively.
Let's see if we really understand something as simple as numbers, particularly
numbers that we frequently need to consider in making choices. We are always
tossing around figures with careless abandon, particularly in the case of the
national deficit. We speak now in terms of trillions. When I was growing up,
we didn't really comprehend what a million was. Does anyone really have an
idea of what a trillion of anything is?
Let's consider a "second." That's a pretty short period of time. One million
seconds is equal to 11.5 days. One billion seconds equals almost 32 years.
How about a trillion seconds? Now, we're dealing with the kind of figures
that those in government can really understand. One trillion seconds equals
about 32,000 years.
Here's the thought for the day. I didn't coin it; I got it from a very dear
friend. It is: "THE TRUE RACE FOR EXCELLENCE IS THE ONE THAT YOU RUN AGAINST
YOURSELF."
We tend to compare ourselves with someone who isn't as good as we are: one
who is not as dedicated, as educated, or as socially oriented as we are. What
do we think about when we consider self-improvement? Is it something that we
use as a comparison or a milestone for someone who doesn't have our initia-
tive? Or is it an introspective approach where we look at ourselves? Where
were we yesterday? Where were we last year? Where would we like to be
tomorrow? Next year? Again, the true race for excellence is the one we run
against ourselves.
-------
KEYNOTE ADDRESS:
TOTAL QUALITY THEMES AND APPLICATIONS
J. H. (Jack) Fooks
Vice President for Corporate Productivity
and Quality
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Introduction
I would.like to share with you a journey that we've been on for about a
decade. It's a Journey that we started because we had to. We felt that we
wouldn't survive if we didn't do something. Let me caution you. You will
hear a lot about what we have done at Westinghouse, but I'm not suggesting
that you do exactly those things. We undertook a universal competitive
survival initiative. I believe that we all have to take similar action, but
in our own way, in our own culture, and in our own organizations.
Background
Our concerns went back to the early and mid-1970's. We began to see some
inordinate pressures on a lot of our product lines. As we went through the
1960's and *70's the pressure, specifically from the Pacific Basin, came to be
more and more pronounced. American industry, I believe, tended to think that
maybe we would have to give up some of the commodity kinds of business. We
thought for certain that once the Japanese got into the hi-tech business
areas, they wouldn't be able to stay with us. But, of course, what has been
happening is that they've been "eating our lunch" there as well.
The industrial model we had been operating with, as had all of U.S. industry,
was Fred Taylor's model on scientific management, produced in 1903. As you
may know, Henry Ford used it effectively in his 1913 assembly line. Others
over the years have been fine tuning and tweaking Taylor's old model. As we
began to see what we were up against, it became apparent that a new model had
begun to emerge from Japan.
This new Japanese model was started back in the 1950's. The reason it started
was because of the United States. Our Secretary of State, after World War II,
visited Japan and told the Japanese that, if they didn't fix the quality of
their products, they wouldn't survive. Many of you are old enough to remember
that, back in the 1950's, anything marked "made in Japan" was junk. Our
Secretary of State told them they had to fix it. The Japanese took him
seriously. They hired people like Juran and Deming to help them learn about
this attribute called "quality."
Out of those early Japanese efforts came some of the initiatives that we are
up against today. The development of this new model was greatly accelerated
during the oil crisis of the 1970's when oil prices quintupled in Just two
years. Cash flow became a survival imperative to the Japanese. Most of the
elements of the new model emerged from this imperative.
-------
Aspects of the Problem
Taylor's model says that you must specialize labor, i.e., train a person to do
one thing very well repetitively. What he didn't realize, and we didn't
either, is that when you fractionate labor, you also fractionate the knowledge
of the system and the process that goes with it. As a result, you then have
to find a way of coordinating that again, and so what do you do? You put a
layer of management in to coordinate it. Pretty soon, you have to coordinate
that layer of management, so you add still another layer of management. This
results in the building of a hierarchy of management bureaucracy that has been
detrimental, in terms of some of the things that we have to learn to do much
more effectively.
The question then was: what do we do about it? Should we go back to Fred
Taylor's old model and try once more to fine tune and tweak it, or do we have
to think seriously about radical change? Westinghouse decided back in the
late 1970's that it had to do something quite different.
The New Direction
Initially, Westinghouse perceived the problem as a productivity issue and
began to look at ways to improve productivity. As we began to study the
problem, it became evident that productivity wasn't the issue at all.
Productivity was the symptom of a much larger issue, one that we identified as
a "Quality Issue." We found that you pursue quality, and productivity
happens.
Viewing it from another perspective, we always looked at quality as an
attribute, but we were sensitive to the fact that you had better not put too
much quality in because it's costly. Today, we understand that high quality
is the way to lowest total cost. The Japanese taught us that.
Let's consider the old model's concept of "acceptable quality level." We used
to go out and buy competitors' products to see how good they were, set that as
our target, get there, and say our Job is done. Then, the new Japanese model
came along and said: the only acceptable quality level is zero defects. As
you begin to play one off against the other, you begin to see that we are
talking about a radical disparity. There is no similarity. All of a sudden,
the older managers who are pretty good at the old way of doing business begin
to realize that they don't know how to run a business this new way.
At Westinghouse, we looked long and hard for a comprehensive macrosolution.
We settled on one that made sense for Westinghouse, something we called "a
Global Solution," i.e., if we follow it, it's going to answer all of our
problems vis-a-vis survivability. We call our Global Solution "Total
Quality." It has been important enough in Westinghouse that we have put it
into what we call our strategic elements, i.e., the way we talk about the
Corporation. We see our mission as managing our enterprise in ways that
continuously build value for our constituency: the stockholders, customers,
employees, and the general public.
How do we accomplish our mission? We say we are going to do it by managing
the business in a way that we achieve Total Quality in everything we do. We
define Total Quality as performance leadership, or excellence, in meeting
-------
customer requirements and expectations by DOING THE RIGHT THINGS RIGHT THE
FIRST TIME.
Who are our customers? Of course, the final customer that buys our product or
service is obvious. He also say that customers are all of us in the
Corporation who are operating the processes. At some point in time, we are
either customers or suppliers of each other. Thus, everybody in the
organization is also a customer. That puts a whole different slant on it.
Implications of the New Approach
A study we did a decade ago illustrates the importance of the "zero-
defects/error-free performance" approach. At that time we surveyed the
Corporation to assess the quality failure costs, i.e., costs of not doing the
Job right the first time. The results gave us two big surprises. One was
that it was a big number, about 15 percent of our revenues or $1.5 billion,
annually. The other big surprise was that the single biggest piece of it was
in white collar rework, not in the factory. We immediately began steps to
address the problem and have been improving ever since.
To illustrate what we mean by excellence, i.e., doing it right the first time,
let's think about it for a moment in terms of acceptable quality levels
(AQL's). At one point we would have thought of a 99.9 percent AQL as being a
respectable target. But think about it in terms of human lives. A 99.9
percent AQL applied to airline safety would mean more than one plane crash per
day at Chicago's O'Hare Field, alone. This illustrates our need to have a
totally different standard of excellence regarding what is an acceptable
quality level.
The Total Quality Construct
At Westinghouse, we talk about quality in terms of a construct. It has three
pieces. The first is what we call requirements. This is whom you have to
satisfy, in terms of total quality. We say there are four constituencies that
must be satisfied if we are really serious about Total Quality. They are:
1. The customers who buy our products and services and expect them to
perform.
2. All of our internal customers, who have a right to error-free inputs
in producing error-free outputs.
3. The people who own the business. They have invested in it and they
expect the value of that investment to keep growing and improving.
4. All of the employees. They have a right to expect the Corporation to
be a safe, rewarding, and constructive place to work.
You have to know how well you are doing, and so you have to find a way of
measuring Total Quality. This is our second piece of the construct. We have
chosen three macromeasures for assessing Total Quality.
The first is the value of the product or service through the eyes of the
customer compared to the competition, relative to the price that the customer
-------
pays, i.e., the value/price ratio. If you think about the value/price
measure, it's not a bad measure of customer satisfaction, in a macro sense.
The second macromeasure is intended to determine what it costs you to provide
the given value. It is the value/cost ratio. The third macromeasure for
assessing Total Quality allows us to measure the numerator in the other two,
i.e., to measure "value." We've come up with a measure that we call the Value
Edge Process. It is a powerful way of looking at the perceived value of our
products and services through the eyes of our customers, relative to
competitive offerings. It gives us a way to come up with a hard, relative
number on value.
The third, and final, piece of the construct is what we call the impera-
tives. They are the "how to's," i.e., what it is that we have to do if we are
serious about Total Quality as an initiative. There are four imperatives: 1)
customer orientation, 2) human resource excellence, 3) product/process
leadership, and 4) management leadership.
Customer orientation. Customer orientation is simply providing more value to
price than your competition is either willing or able to provide.
Human resource excellence. Human resource excellence involves two things.
First, it is having the right people. Second, they must have the right tools
and the education, training, and understanding to use those tools. Even more
importantly, we have to understand that the big opportunities come by looking
at the total process. We live in a systems environment and are systems
driven. That suggests some insights we have to understand, particularly with
regard to human resources.
One is that the environment has to be a participative one, i.e., one in which
people can participate and become involved. If you're going to address total
systems, you've got to aggregate people across that system together in a
participative way so that they can address the total system. Thus, it's a
necessity to have a participative environment.
To illustrate the importance of this point, we found that 75 to 80 percent of
the life cycle costs of a product go into the early phases (e.g., conceptu-
alization, feasibility, and design). Generally, these phases were completed
before the factory was brought in on the effort. Thus, three-quarters of the
life-cycle costs were irrevocably committed at this point, and others (e.g.,
the factory personnel) whose inputs were essential to the product's success
had not yet been involved.
To do it smart, you need to aggregate all of the functions that are to be
involved (e.g., manufacturing, engineering, marketing, cost accounting,
etc.). They should be kept as a team all the way through the process in order
to ensure a superior value/cost ratio. This is exactly what Ford Motor
Company did with the Taurus/Sable car. It also is exactly what IBM did with
the Proprinter line that came out several years ago.
Product/process leadership. Let's consider what we call product/process
leadership. By product, we mean the products and services we sell. By
process, we mean everything that we do in the business to be able to deliver
that product. We call it process leadership because that's exactly what it
8
-------
means: we must lead in that area, we must be world class, i.e., the best
there is. You've got to design the product and the process together as an
integrated system because that is the only way you can end up with a superior
value/cost ratio.
The Japanese have another useful way of talking about product/process
leadership. That is, simply: get the waste out of the system. The approach
to be taken is to first look at the business process, see what kind of
organization is needed to support it, and decide what is the minimum
information system needed to support both. You must proceed in that order.
There is one tool that is worth discussing in some detail. It has been very
powerful for us. We have come up with a way of looking at a process. We call
it cost-time profiling (see Figure 1). The core concept is simple. It is
Just a picture of how your costs grow over the life cycle of the product. In
a factory, what we found out is that if you integrate the area under the
curve, it turns out to be the inventory you're using to run your business or
operate a product line.
Inventory is a direct result of cost and time, nothing more. What it says is
that the relative amount of inventory that I have in my business is a
barometer of how well I'm running it. Every profile is different for every
product and every business. However, they all have the same three
components. The vertical signifies the addition of materials to the system
(or in the case of the office, outside supplies and services). An incline
shows the addition of labor and overhead over time. Finally, the horizontal
represents the waiting component, which, if you think about it, is waste.
The name of the game is to shrink the profile. You draw the profile and then
work on reducing costs and cycle time. As you progress, what happens to
inventory? It goes down, because inventory is a direct reflection of cost and
time. However, don't make the mistake of simply reducing inventory. It is
merely a symptom, not the cause of lower quality. We have found that long
cycle time is always tied to quality problems. As we reduced cycle time, we
were forced to address all of our operating quality problems. We use this
concept today at Westinghouse to drive operating quality improvements.
This approach also can be applied to office operations. In an office
situation, the area under the curve represents invisible inventory. It is a
product of the office. It is information and knowledge. In a sense, all that
you do in an office is expend costs over time.
The power in this profiling approach is that you can analyze the problem in a
way that you can identify and arrange in priority order your key oppor-
tunities. You can pick and choose from a long list those few opportunities
that will shrink the profile the most in the shortest time with the least
investment. This is a powerful agenda-setting tool for addressing your big
opportunities.
How do you reduce cost and time? You do it by focusing on the magic word:
process. Nothing goes on in your lives, personal or professional, that isn't
a process. Process is the key because that's all we do, and process is made
up of cost and time. Every process is influenced by the quality of the
-------
process and the cycle time of the process. For example, if we are operating a
process error-free, we are operating it at the minimal cycle time for that
process. As the quality deteriorates, the cycle time for the process gets
longer and longer.
If you think about the cost-time profiles, every point on the process
relationship curve has a profile (see Figure 2). As you begin to address the
profile, you find ways of eliminating the waste and getting it down to the
point where you have error-free processes.
You need to keep improving the process you're using and, at the same time,
understand that somewhere there is another process that is better still, i.e.,
has even more potential in terms of cost and time. Total Quality is
continuous process improvement on behalf of your constituents. It is
constant, doing it every day, everywhere you can find improvements that can be
made.
I would like to address how the process concept is important regarding another
important resource: people. I maintain that quality is a People Process.
There is a great concern today that we are running schools, hospitals,
government, and everything else with too many people. How do you look at
people cost in the context of Total Quality? Under the construct I have laid
out, it shows up under the value/cost measure. The thing to do is not worry
so much about the cost, but worry instead about improving the ratio, which
gives you two numbers to work with instead of one.
At Westinghouse, we designed an approach called the Organization Management
Process, which is our Total Quality approach to people cost. If you think
about it, Total Quality really is the name given to people doing all of the
right things right the first time, i.e., a people process. You have to view
people as a value-creating asset, not Just a cost. You have to have more than
a little faith in your people and provide the environment in which they can
create the most value.
The problem is not that an organization has too many people. The problem is
that it has lousy processes. It has exactly the right number of people needed
to run the lousy processes it has. That is a whole new perspective on people
cost. The processes need to be improved or eliminated. They are what require
the people. You shrink the profile. Then you find out that you need a much
simpler organization. Then you can use the people to improve value instead of
operating lousy processes.
Management leadership. Let's consider the fourth, and last, imperative:
management leadership. To accomplish the above, you need to understand what
is meant by the term "a Total Quality culture." There are companies going
around giving courses on how you change culture. Courses don't change
culture. What changes culture is doing things differently where people work
together. Total commitment to this concept by management is essential.
One of the problems we managers have is that we walk one way and talk
another. Who do you think sees that first? The people who work for us and
with us. We have to be consistent in our communicating, i.e., in our talking,
our writing, and our actions. We have so many opportunities to do that.
People watch our actions. They don't much care about what we say or write.
10
-------
FIGURE i:
TYPICAL COST-TIME PROFILE FOR A PRODUCT
COSTS
Inventory.
CYCLE TIME
FIGURE 2:
PROCESS QUALITY-CYCLE TIME RELATIONSHIP
CYCLE
TIME
Existing Process
Improvements to Existing Process
QUALITY
100%
11
-------
Motivational incentives are extremely important, and recognition is a big part
of that. At Westinghouse, we have found that financial incentives really
don't matter. Non-financial incentives are better when it comes to quality
accomplishments.
Finally, Total Quality is different. I call it a revolution. A revolution
has been defined as an activity or a movement that is going to bring about
fundamental and lasting change. The people who are involved in one may see it
as a brand new management model, a total break with the past. The people who
are in the middle of this revolution are going through a stressful and
traumatic time. They were good at doing their Job the old way and were
promoted and rewarded for it. Then, all of a sudden they are told: "That
doesn't work any more." This is threatening. If we can't develop the
sensitivity to understand that, care for those people, and help them along
over that big abyss, we simply are not going to have a revolution.
One reaction by management often is: "Okay, we'll fire them and go out and
find people who really understand." I'll give you a little secret. There
isn't anybody out there who really understands. What you have is what you've
got. You need to find ways of bringing people along, caring for their lives
as they struggle with this radical discontinuity in how we have to live and
act, and make sure that they make it without crashing. It's tough, very
tough.
Total Quality and the Nature of the Revolution
It is useful to review the management of some earlier revolutions that
succeeded and some that didn't and try to identify what made the difference.
All revolutions start with an overwhelming mission or vision. Little missions
and visions don't do a thing. They have to be powerful, almost the impossible
dream. Financial imperatives, such as saying that you want to increase
shareholders' value by 10 percent, doesn't motivate anybody. It has to be
big, powerful, clear, almost impossible, and one that grabs people. Total
Quality will do that. It does do that.
Revolutions have two poles, in terms of mission. One is "word" and the other
is "deed." As in the Russian Manifesto, you start with the words. Then they
have to be followed up by the deed.
The next thing a revolution needs is somebody to lead it (a committed,
dedicated, looney fanatic), someone with the passion of personal purpose.
Every revolutionary leader has shown up with the passion of personal
purpose. But this still is not enough because the leader has only two arms
and two legs. It is the people who are going to pull it off, with the
leadership. You've got to have troops in a revolution.
What's the problem with troops? It's hard to keep troops interested for a
long time. How does that fanatic keep the thing going? Well, revolutions
have another attribute: nurture. Nurture has two poles, as well. One is
celebration, where they get together and rehearse who they are as a community
and what they are about. The other pole is study, where they really get
serious and do those things they have to do to give them the best shot at
succeeding. This is a serious business. (See Figure 3.)
12
-------
Why do revolutions fail? One reason is too small missions or visions.
Another reason is the perceived lack of commitment to the leadership by the
conductor. The troops are following the conductor, who is responsible for
implementing the leader's concepts. A third reason they fail is that the
leader gets too far ahead of the troops.
Conclusion
I have tried to address those things that are necessary for survival in a
competitive world market, but more than that, the approach discussed gives us
a means for marching down Just one road. We will be doing many things, but
with one major mission in mind. Doing what we have done well in the past will
not ensure our survival. And we are talking about survival.
FIGURE 3:
KEY INGREDIENTS OF A REVOLUTION
Celebration
Study
N
U
R
T
U
R
E
Word
»
TROOPS >»
»
Deed
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
13
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE ASPECTS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM
Col. John H. Casper
Astronaut
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Introduction
I am truly privileged to be here today to talk to such a distinguished group
about my favorite subject, the space shuttle program. I plan to cover where
we are and where we are going, from an insider's viewpoint. I'll try to touch
on the quality assurance (QA) aspects of the program, particularly changes
that have been made by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) since the Challenger accident.
Current Shuttle Program
Let me start by describing where the shuttle program is today. In a couple of
words, WE ARE BACK! We are back in the business of launching humans into
space. The shuttle is the only thing we've got in the free world that can do
that. Unmanned boosters are expendable and can put satellites and robotic
devices up into space, but the only thing we have in the western world to put
humans into space is the shuttle.
NASA is getting ready for an ambitious launch schedule. Of course, we flew
two missions last year. We've got seven missions scheduled for this year.
Nine missions are scheduled for 1990 and another nine are scheduled for 1991.
We're not sure what the maximum shuttle flight rate is. In the year before
the Challenger accident, we flew nine missions. We're not sure, in the post-
Challenger era, now that we have many more inspections and many more "wickets"
to go through before we fly, what our maximum sustainable flight rate is. We
believe that it is somewhere in the eight to twelve per year range.
Last September, in the first mission following Challenger, NASA launched a
communications satellite. The mission we flew last November was for the
Department of Defense and is classified. NASA's program for 1989 is quite
interesting. We have a mission coming up in February that will be similar to
that of last September's mission. We will be launching a tracking data and
relay satellite. Then, in April, we will be launching a Magellan Space Probe
out to Venus to explore its surface. In October, we will be launching a
Galileo probe to Jupiter. In December, we'll be launching the Hubble Space
Telescope (a man-tended telescope) that will enable astronomers to look some
250 times farther into the universe than we can now. Of course, the
astronomers are excited about this. They will be able to look at new stars
and stars forming new galaxies, which can't be done from earth.
We feel good and confident. We now have two successful missions under our
belt, and we want to continue to make each mission Just about perfect. That
is the good part of the ledger. To paint the whole picture, I've got to give
you the other side of the ledger. Part of the picture is not so rosy and
that's the part that has to do with the budget.
15
-------
We are concerned that the budget constraints being placed on NASA, as well as
on EPA and most other Federal agencies in order to reduce deficit spending,
will delay the changes that need to be made to the shuttle. We also are
concerned that we won't be able to do the Job that ought to be done to launch
the space station by the mid-1990*s.
I firmly believe that an investment in the space program is an investment in
our country's economic future. On board the shuttle, we have demonstrated the
commercial potential to make things in space that can't be made here on
earth. The pay-off is not in the next couple of months or years, however. It
is way down the road, but we have demonstrated that the potential is there.
We can make new materials in space, as for example, new alloys for industrial
use. We also can make much purer and much larger crystals than can be made on
earth. These crystals include silicon and gallium arsenite that go into your
watch, VCR, and all of the things that use microcircuitry and chips. Also,
there are many life-saving medicines that can be made only in space.
Quality Assurance Considerations
I'd like to talk about QA from an astronaut's perspective and what NASA has
done since the Challenger accident. In my own mind, I feel that we had the
Challenger accident because we didn't do the Job right the first time. There
were compromises made and risks taken. There wasn't enough money to do the
Job right, i.e., the proper design work and the proper testing on the solid
rocket boosters. We have done that now, by the way. We have Just completed
the fifth successful test on the solid rocket boosters.
There are three main areas of activity that I would like to cover. They
are: 1) accountability for QA inspections; 2) qualifications and
certification of QA inspectors; and 3) the scope of QA activities in NASA.
Accountability for QA inspections. One major change made in the program was
in the area of accountability. Let me give you a little background. After
Challenger, NASA looked closely at all of the hardware aboard the shuttle to
see if there was any way we could change it to make it better, safer, and more
redundant. As a result, a lot of changes were made. A few additional
desirable changes could not be made because of funding and time constraints.
We also looked at all of the computer software and made improvements there.
In addition to the hardware and software changes, management changes were made
as well. NASA replaced people, getting new faces with new ideas and new
approaches. In addition, and more importantly, NASA changed lines of communi-
cation and chains-of-command, providing more direct lines for authority in
decision making. For example, there is now one person at the Cape who has the
authority to say go or no go on a space launch. A lot of changes were made in
the way we do business. Many of these changes had QA implications.
The part of the business I'm involved with is getting Orbiter ready for the
next flight. This involves taking it from the last flight and doing all of
the things necessary to get it ready for the next flight. These include such
things as replacing the tiles, pumps, electrical connectors, and tires;
mating, stacking up, and attaching the solid rocket boosters, and going
through the thousands of systems on the shuttle to make sure they all work.
Preparations also include putting the payload in the shuttle and checking it
out.
16
-------
Before Challenger, there was not adequate accountability for the inspections
done during these preparations. By that I mean someone at the shop level or
lowest technical level could change or delete an inspection, change
procedures, or if they got behind schedule, could even fire the QA inspector
without having to get approval from above. All of this has changed. We now
have what we call a critical items list containing more than a thousand items,
and there is accountability in ensuring that all associated inspections are
carried out.
We start with the NASA premise that says all parts on board the shuttle have
to be fail-safe, i.e., if a part fails, it does so in a manner that the
shuttle is not destroyed. However, in reality, all parts do not meet that
criterion. In each case where a part doesn't meet that criterion, a waiver is
required from senior management. All of the items on the critical items list
are parts of this nature, i.e., their failure could lead to the destruction of
the Orbiter and its crew.
All of the items on this list now have an inspection tied to them. Nothing
can be changed or deleted or passed over without its coming to the attention
of senior management, who have to buy off on it every time.
Qualification and certification of QA inspectors. The second area of change
concerns the qualifications of NASA QA inspectors and their certification
requirements. Before Challenger, people were hired right off the street and
made QA inspectors. Preparation for carrying out their duties consisted of
little more than giving them a book on QA to look at and then sending them
into the shop to look over a guy's shoulder and sign off on whether or not the
guy had done his Job right. Obviously, that is not the way to do business and
it has been changed.
Now we require that the QA inspectors be experts in their areas of inspection
responsibilities. We desire that they have work experience in the particular
shop they are to inspect or that they have considerable experience and
expertise in the particular area of concern.
Furthermore, we now have a training program for those QA inspectors. In
addition to what they already know from experience, they go through the
training program and, upon successful completion, are certified for the
particular Job they are to perform. This is a big change from the way we did
it before.
The scope of QA activities in NASA. The last area I want to cover is what I
call the scope of QA activities. After Challenger, and after we went through
all of the soul searching within us, i.e., within both the hardware and the
management, we decided that we needed more QA people. We realized that we
Just didn't have enough QA inspectors to make sure that everything was being
done right. So we hired more people and also brought a number of people up
through the ranks to fill the QA inspector positions established.
I'm not positive that this is the right way to do things. Here are two little
anecdotes that make my point.
17
-------
I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal comparing the U.S. and
Japanese auto industries. The article contended that when someone tells a
U.S. firm to improve its quality, the firm's initial reaction is to hire more
QA inspectors. In contrast, the Japanese's approach is to go into the company
and work with the employees to solve the problem.
The other point concerns an Air Force study conducted some 20 years ago. It
looked at the probability of an error being committed by a worker and of a QA
inspector not catching that error. The probability of this happening was
0.01. Then they looked at other alternatives for reducing errors. One option
studied was to use two technicians where one would do the work and the other
would check it, and then at the end of a specified period they would reverse
roles. In this arrangement, the chance of an error slipping through was found
to be much, much less, viz., 0.00005.
These two anecdotes illustrate why I'm not sure we at NASA are doing the right
thing by hiring all of these new QA inspectors. People often ask me, "Now
that we have made so many changes since Challenger, do I feel a lot safer?" I
have to say that I don't know if we're a whole lot safer, but we certainly are
a whole lot more cautious.
Conclusion
That concludes all that I had to say on the subject. Now I would like to show
you a movie taken and narrated by the shuttle crew during last September's
mission, which was Shuttle Flight No. 26.
18
-------
SATISFYING YOUR CUSTOMERS
THROUGH THE TOTAL QUALITY COMMITMENT
Sam Fratoni
Marketing Manager, Avondale Division
Hewlett-Packard Corporation
Introduction
Your Job is to understand your customers and what their needs and expectations
are, and then help to provide for those needs and expectations. That is what
we do from a marketing sense. We try to understand the customer, and then we
try to provide the product. You and I really are in similar businesses. In
my case, my success in satisfying customers can be measured by my sales
statistics. In your case, it's a little more difficult to measure, but you
still have a product. It generally is saving money or making someone more
productive. In both situations, it is still the same process, i.e.,
understanding your customers' needs and satisfying them.
Today I want to cover Hewlett-Packard's (HP) approach to quality. I will try
to relate my remarks to parallel situations in the public sector, where your
primary interests lie. I also will try to illustrate how we line managers
have applied this approach in driving our new product business, how we run
projects, and how we try to improve our competitiveness.
The Total Quality Commitment
We call our program the TQC, which stands for Total Quality Commitment and
Total Quality Control. It is one thing to have a commitment or belief. It is
another to put things into place and make sure that you achieve it.
One of the biggest failings I have found in quality managers is that, when
something doesn't go right, they often say the problem is the commitment, when
the real problem is with the control. I have never found a person in
manufacturing who wants to produce a bad product. What he or she needs are
the tools and a process in place that can provide a good product. So the
problem is not necessarily in a person's beliefs; it is that people do make
mistakes in all areas and they don't necessarily do as good a Job as they
could. By providing people with the right tools and putting into place a
process that will guide them in the proper use of those tools, they will make
better decisions and do a better Job.
There are a lot of different definitions of quality. They are all valid in
the right circumstances. I have found that to get the concept of quality
across to people, you have to keep it simple and fundamental. Some time ago
when I became the quality manager for the division, I was told to go do
"it." I said, do what? My boss said: "Do quality, make it happen." I asked
what "quality" was and he couldn't tell me. I asked several other people and
they couldn't tell me either, but they said that they would know it if they
got it. You cannot shoot at that kind of target. We found that we had to get
some fundamentals into it.
19
-------
The definition we decided on was: "Quality is performance to requirements."
It took six months to get agreement on this definition and everyone to the
point where they really understood what it meant. Simply, if you meet the
requirements, it is quality; if you don't meet the requirements, it isn't
quality. By this definition, there is no such thing as high quality or low
quality. It either meets the requirements or it doesn't.
Using this definition, the "requirements" are the customers' needs and
expectations. "Needs" and "expectations" are different things. One is what
they need, and the other is what they expect to get. The differences between
the two should be clarified with the customer upfront, not at the time of
delivery. You have to get the customer's needs and expectations carefully and
specifically defined upfront. They need to be almost in the form of detailed
specifications.
Once you get the customer's needs and expectations, then you have to translate
them into internal standards and specifications. For example, my division
makes gas chromatographs. The customer, a chemist in a laboratory, wants
something that gives certain peak widths and retention times and, from these,
to calculate the composition of a sample. My division makes hardware boxes,
sheet metal folded to certain tolerances, with so many bits and bytes in a
certain array. So what we have to do is make a translation between what we
provide and what the customer expects.
It is essential to realize that the customers' needs and expectations
constantly change. This is where the important changes come from. At HP, we
try to maintain a constant awareness of the customers' changing expectations
and continually improve our performance in an attempt to stay well ahead of
them. Even if you are meeting customers' expectations today, you still need
to be sure that you will be able to meet them tomorrow.
Following this approach, if you work all the way through the model, it leads
you to the conclusion that quality improvement has two equally important
steps. First, you have to improve the process to ensure that the new require-
ments will be met. Second, you must continue to define and refine all of the
customers' changing expectations and requirements being placed on you, and
then translate them into internal specifications.
Another way of saying the same thing is: quality improvement has two parts,
one is obtaining a better definition of the requirements and the other is
improving the process to meet them. They are equally important.
Total Quality Control
In addition to defining quality, we found that we also had to define what we
mean by "quality control." We decided that we liked Juran's definition best,
viz., that "quality control is the process through which you measure actual
performance, compare it with standards, and act on the difference." Being an
electronics company, we translated this definition into a diagram (see Figure
4).
An important part of the quality control process is feedback from the
customer. This is the only way to learn whether or not you are doing the
20
-------
FIGURE 4:
THE QUALITY CONTROL PROCESS
Inputs
Corrective
Action
Feedback
Customer
Data**-
Standards.
Goals
21
-------
right thing. You have to measure what you give to your customer. This isn't
done too often. People tend to go day in and day out doing the same thing and
never asking: was it good enough? You must look at the needs and compare
them with the standard and then take any corrective action necessary.
Corrective action usually involves changing the process. The key is to
measure your actual output from the process, compare it to the standard based
on the customer needs, and then go back in and change the process, as
appropriate.
You have to look at yourself as a provider of services. You have to put
yourself into the model. Who is your customer? What are their needs and
expectations? Are you meeting their needs and expectations?
For example, a new quality manager came on after I left the position and the
first thing he told us was that we all had to receive training on quality. He
had already arranged for people to come in and provide the training. I said,
"Wait, I don't have time for this; I have a Job to do, I have to introduce new
products to make sure we get sales." He said, "Yeah, but the Division Manager
said you've got to get trained."
Was he meeting a need or expectation that I had? No, he was interfering with
one of the needs and expectations I had. What that quality manager should
have done was come to me and say: "What are the challenges and problems that
you have? How could you be more effective as a marketing group?" Then I
would say: "We develop applications for our customers and, you know, we put a
lot of people on this and we still can't get enough of those out." And then
the quality manager would say: "You know, if we looked at the statistical
design of the experiments they use and make some changes, then they could be
more productive."
Now he is starting to meet a need that I have. If he succeeds in helping me,
then the next time he comes by I'll remember that and be more receptive to
what he has to say. This concept applies equally to those like yourselves who
are in the public sector. Again, you have to relate your "product" to the
needs of your customers.
In our concept of Total Quality Control, we look at everything as a process,
which says that everyone is involved. We also look at constant product
improvement, and the reason for that is customer needs and expectations are
constantly changing. This means that we have to have continuous process
improvement with perfection as the ultimate goal. We say this is the only way
to be truly committed to customer satisfaction. You have to get out of the
emotional state (saying you want to meet customer needs) and into the process
so that it drives your actions to actually do something.
The Management Process
In my experience, problems with quality have been associated mainly with the
management process, not the manufacturing process. Do you know what a
management process is? We talk about MBO (management by objectives). Do you
know what the process of MBO is? If you can't write it down as a process,
22
-------
then you are not following through on what I Just described as the quality
process. At HP, we have been working on this. We have put together a
training course for all managers on what we call the management process.
In the management process, you begin with a vision. Then you describe the
expectations. You provide feedback on the way to it. That is basically what
HP is trying to get their managers to do, which serves to keep all of the
processes in control. To better control the management process, we are
constantly looking at systems that can be used to measure how we spend our
time and our outputs.
When we look at annual income from new products HP introduced each year over
the past decade, we see that the single biggest increment of current income is
a result of products we introduced back in 1983 and 1984. This illustrates
that the key to HP's future success is continuation of new product intro-
duction. If we ever stopped or even missed one year, we would be in
trouble. Thus, HP's biggest issue is how to optimize its new product
development.
When we start a project, we project financial returns on it and estimate when
it should be completed. And guess what. We don't meet that date. Things
slip. One interesting concept is that projects slip one day at a time, but
you can't see it. We have missed target dates by as much as two years.
When a project slips, you have the following alternative courses of action:
1) add resources; 2) narrow the project's scope; 3) accept a lower standard;
4) increase the cost; or 5) change the schedule. These are your only
alternatives. You have to choose one of them. In reality, we don't like any
of them. The real answer is to get and keep the development process under
control. It is only when the process is out of control that you are forced
into choosing one of these five alternatives. This means that you have to
anticipate and solve the problems on the front end.
The System Life Cycle
To facilitate doing it right on the front end, HP has come up with an approach
for managers to follow. We call it the System Life Cycle. It defines each
step to be taken in each phase of a product's life cycle.
It starts with Phase Zero, in which the requirements are stated, i.e., what
the market needs. At the end of this phase, a product is proposed. Next is
the Investigations Phase, where we define what technology we want to bring
into the process. This also is where we look in detail at how many of the
products we want to sell. At this point we also work up estimates of the
number and types of personnel that will be needed, the need for a new
manufacturing line, and the development costs.
Then we go through the actual execution of the plan. Next, we do the internal
design for the process and the product. Then an internal reference standard
is prepared. Next, a breadboard of the product is prepared. Then we go to
the next stage, which is development of a production prototype.
Next, manufacturing produces the product using the manufacturing processes
designed for this purpose. Next comes internal testing of the product.
23
-------
Following this, we get the customers to do some testing of it. Then we
finally say it is a finished unit and we introduce it to the market. The life
cycle continues on to maturity. At the end on the life cycle, we obsolete the
product. This entails another entire process: Next, we start the cycle all
over again with a new product.
The System Life Cycle also defines what specific actions are to be performed
by each functional group within HP (e.g., marketing, research, manufacturing,
quality assurance, accounting, etc.) in each phase of the cycle. It makes it
clear that we can't go on to the next phase until each functional group has
completed the action items listed for it. It also makes it clear in which
phase specific actions are supposed to be taken. Without this, some groups
would be attempting to undertake certain actions too early, before sufficient
data have been supplied by another group.
This concept is taken one step further. The manufacturing group develops a
Manufacturing Life Cycle. It goes through the same series of phases, but the
focus is on the manufacturing process and changes that have to be made in it
in order to be ready to produce the given product. It allows early
identification of new equipment and process needs. Similarly, the marketing
group prepares a Marketing Life Cycle. The end result is a complete plan
laying out what each functional group has to do when in each phase and the
associated deliverables in order to develop, market, and service a new product
over its life cycle.
The approach provides for identification of the dates on which a project is to
be moved from one checkpoint to the next and requires a review at each of the
checkpoints. The only aspect of this planning process that HP has not yet
resolved is the process by which these checkpoint reviews are to be carried
out.
Conclusion
We first try to understand the customers' needs and expectations. Then we
translate those into a set of specifications that describe the product we
believe will meet those needs and expectations.
Next we design a project to produce, market, and service the product. We
define the project as a process. This includes identification of actions to
be carried out by each functional group and the associated deliverables to be
produced at each checkpoint. We also make sure that the schedules are public
so that everyone knows what they are shooting at.
Another key part of the process is the formalized checkpoint reviews. In the
process, it is important to continually clarify responsibilities and the
deliverables expected. And finally, it also requires patience.
-------
IMPLEMENTING THE QUALITY CONCEPT AT EPA
BY INFLUENCING CHANGE
Robert S. Cahill
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Introduction
I consider the work being carried out by you to be among the most important of
that going on today at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is
important from a number of perspectives. Also, the concepts I am being
exposed to at this meeting represent some of the most forward thinking work of
which I am aware. It is also some of the most exciting.
Today, I would like to share my thoughts with you in four areas:
1. Some of the insights I have gained, in terms of how to influence
change in an organization.
2. Two concrete examples of how those insights were applied in
influencing change: 1) an EPA senior management forum that I helped
sponsor two years ago; and 2) what we have done in EPA in the area of
human resources management over the last five years.
3. Why I think the time has come for the concept of quality to make a
major contribution in EPA.
4. How we might work together to advance this cause.
Influencing Change in an Organization
As I discuss how to influence change in an organization, I would like each of
you to reflect on how you work with and through people to effect change. Let
me begin by showing you these eight letters and having you form a single word
with them. The letters are:
E
R
T
E
C
I
V
A
When shown to audiences like you, the majority response is "reactive," as
opposed to "creative." The fact that so many of you formed the word
"creative" is a positive sign. Part of the message here is: How do we see
things differently? In large part, it is determined by where you are standing
and what you are looking at.
Change, itself, is a creative process. It is not a reactive process. In
working with organizations, people often look at some of the high performance
25
-------
models, consisting of a grid of organizations that build on one another. In
these situations you often find organizations that are in a reactive mode.
What you want to do is to move organizations into a responsive mode. This, in
turn, will allow them to enter a proactive mode. Then they can move on to a
high performance program mode.
A large part of the change process is to help people recognize where they are
and where they need to go. It gets exciting when you realize that we are
starting to create the future in terms of where organizations are going. This
is not endemic to government organizations, but to private sector
organizations as well. It is important for anyone in a leadership capacity to
stay one step ahead of everybody else.
There is a power in language and in the specific choice of words that we use
in communicating to others. For example, studies have shown that individuals
respond more positively when asked to do a given task than when asked to try
to do the given task. We have grown up in a system where people were often
asked to "try to do your best" as opposed to "do your best." We are learning
how debilitating that can be, in terms of what we now know about how people
think and how they process information. The underlying message here is: when
you pursue something, pursue it with conviction, don't Just try to do it.
Tools for Influencing Change
Ralph Waldo Emerson used to greet friends whom he hadn't seen in a long time
with the salutation: "What has become clear to you since we last met?" This
is a question I have asked myself regarding what I have learned over the years
about influencing change in an organization. The operative word in my mind is
"influence." My response to this question is that there are three elements:
1) leadership; 2) understanding the context of change; and 3) having
confidence in your own ability to effect change and make a difference.
Leadership. When we talk about assuming an active leadership perspective, it
must be one based on influence, not authority. The seduction of assuming an
authoritative style is almost irresistible, but it is wrong to do so. It runs
counter to the belief of sharing the principles of individual freedom and the
human spirit. It also stifles creativity and promotes a fear-of-failure
network. I am not familiar with any situation where you can successfully
force people to respond positively to change. The best approach, I have
found, is to encourage them to change.
With regard to motivation, the two strongest forces are fear and desire. All
too often, we consciously or subconsciously tend to fall back on the "fear"
motivator to effect change. Also, never try to motivate people by the reverse
of an idea. For example, if a baseball manager tells the pitcher not to throw
a low inside ball to the next batter, he has implanted the idea of a low
inside ball in the pitcher's mind, and what do you think the next pitch likely
will be?
Instead, talk about where you want to go. Try to create a higher vision,
i.e., a clear vision of a higher future state. The way to do this is to
motivate people by using the other force (i.e., desire) in pursuing the
positive aspects of an idea.
26
-------
If you look at current reality on one level and the vision on another level,
it should create a little structural tension to bring the two together.
However, too often what happens is that the vision is lowered to bring it into
closer alignment with current reality, instead of the reverse. What we need
to recognize in the change process is, first, that we must know exactly where
we are starting from. Also, we need to recognize that change is not a linear
process. It is much more of an evolutionary process. This makes it all the
more difficult for managers to accept the non-linear aspects of change because
they cannot really control it and, often, they cannot even guide it. What you
can do is adapt to it.
Thus, when you are trying to attain a vision, you certainly won't get there in
a straight line. You'll be all over the map on the way there. You simply
must keep that vision in mind and try to enjoy the ride to it, or you may not
enjoy the vision once you get there. You will encounter roadblocks along the
way and they are something that you should be anticipating, rather than
allowing yourself to be surprised when you do come upon them.
Why is it important to have a vision? The immediate answer to that question
is that a vision is so important that people would rather dedicate their lives
to something of value to them, that they believe in, rather than run an
aimless diversion. I think this is fundamental, especially in an agency like
EPA, in terms of the kinds of people it attracts and retains. A vision
produces that emotional glow that binds us all together as an organization,
rather than our operating individually as small fiefdoms or individual
organizations apart from the whole. The major leadership challenge is how you
pull all of the disparate groups together and achieve some kind of common
vision.
Understanding the context of change. If you hope to sustain any change you
are able to make, it is important that you establish a system that is able to
support that change. You also need to recognize that you are not starting
from scratch. You need to understand some of the barriers you are going to
confront in the context of your particular situation. We could run off a
laundry list of typical barriers, e.g., lack of top management support, poor
commitment, poor communication, investment in the status quo, a reactive
orientation, etc. What we need to do is get smarter in terms of understanding
the barriers so that we can put forth strategies to overcome them.
It also is important to understand the organization we are working in. How
well do we know EPA, in terms of what we are about and what we should be
about? What business is EPA in? I have often asked that question and have
spent some time discussing this with others. A lot of the trauma that existed
in the Agency at the time when William Ruckelshaus returned had to do with
uncertainties over who we were and what we were trying to do. It is important
to separate what we are supposed to be doing from how we are to do it.
Some people say that EPA's business is to manufacture regulations. Now, if
employees believe that their Job is to produce regulations, they will be
operating in one kind of mode. Other people say, no, EPA's Job is
enforcement. When William Ruckelshaus came back, he saw EPA's role as that of
seeking compliance. He saw enforcement as a tool to get there because we
don't live in a perfect world and there are some uncooperative elements out
there who don't want the playing field to be level.
27
-------
We also need to think about where EPA is headed in the future. It is going to
be involved in technology transfer, education, outreach, and helping our
customers succeed and do their Jobs better. Who are our customers? The
states and local communities are our customers. They are the people on the
front line discharging environmental responsibilities.
Let's reflect on the Agency for a moment. It is very young as Federal
programs go. EPA is only 18 years old. When EPA was established, 200
thousand people submitted applications for the four thousand Jobs in the
Agency. That is a meaningful indication of the public's view of the
importance of the work of the Agency. Today, our workforce is about 15
thousand strong and we have a budget of about $5 billion. We influence about
$80 billion to $90 billion of environmentally related expenditures annually
around the country. Forty percent of the people in the regional offices have
been hired in the last four years. Where do these people get their
understanding of the business that EPA is in, how they should behave, and what
vision we are pursuing? Along the way, we seemed to have forgotten to impart
this vision.
When President Nixon first created EPA in 1970, it was set up with a holistic
mission. As the years went by, we were assigned new responsibilities, and we
sometimes allotted new responsibilities to ourselves that tended to put wedges
in the original mission, rather than pulling everything together. We need to
take our uniqueness and use it to our advantage. Also, as we get more and
more involved in international environmental activities, the rest of the world
looks more and more to EPA for leadership. This sense of expectation has a
reverse type of impact by defining for us the Agency's leadership role. The
way we behave, and the kinds of examples we are setting, define the leadership
that we are providing.
Importance of self-confidence. It is important to have sufficient confidence
in yourself to make a difference and to be able to visualize that success. I
believe in that old adage: it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask
for permission. In a big organization, not too many people have gotten into
trouble for doing things right, but often people are hesitant to ask the
questions or to be a revolutionary in this process of change. One former EPA
assistant administrator used to say that he didn't stop doing something he
thought needed to be done until after the third time he was told to stop. Big
bureaucracies simply do not invite people into that operating mode.
In setting out to influence change you need to find someone else with whom to
collaborate. Frequently, only five percent of the people in an organization
may be working on the cutting edge of any situation. Generally, it takes only
about 20 percent of the people to bring about a major change in the organi-
zation. There are many different tacks that you can take in collaborating
with others to effect the changes needed to pursue a vision. They may be
upfront and highly visible, or they may be behind the scenes. The fundamental
thing is to have a vision that you believe in and not be afraid to express it.
There have been many fine books written about excellence and achieving it.
Maybe what is needed is a book on: In search of passion. It is important to
engage both your head and your heart in what you are doing. And never lose
sight of the fact that change involves human lives. Whatever else we do or we
are, remember that we are human beings first. Often, in big organizations we
28
-------
become impersonal. I don't think that people can be effective operating in
two different modes, i.e., being a friendly person after hours, but impersonal
while on the Job. Showing your warmth for fellow human beings can only gain
you respect and motivate others, as long as it's genuine.
As already stated, we will encounter obstacles and we need to be ready to make
some sacrifices along the way. How often have you achieved something
significant that didn't also have a sacrifice associated with it? As the book
The Road Less Traveled says in the first line: "Life is difficult." The
people who have the most trouble adjusting to life are those who believe that
life should be easy. This orientation affects how we discharge our role and
how we affect other people in pursuing our vision.
Examples of Approaches to Influencing Change
I would like to spend a little time describing two examples of efforts to
influence change within EPA. One was the Senior Management Forum and the
other was the development of the Human Resources Program in EPA.
Senior Management Forum. Lee Thomas had developed seven management themes to
guide his leadership of the Agency. However, he was experiencing some
frustration in trying to instill them throughout the Agency. A senior
management forum was suggested as a means to accomplish this, and he agreed to
one. It was held almost two years ago, about midway through his tenure as
Administrator. This was the first time in the history of the Agency that its
senior management had ever assembled together in one place. There were about
350 people in attendance. Our vision, in terms of what we wanted this forum
to accomplish, was that we wanted to build a common language, a common
framework, and a common plan for guiding the future of the Agency.
In the beginning we sensed significant resistance to the idea of having a
forum. The reason was that many people felt they were already putting in 60
to 70 hours a week and should not be expected to give up a week for something
of questionable value. We recognized that if people came to the forum with
that mindset, there would be no way that we could change their minds during
the course of the forum. Our only hope was to at least get them to a neutral
position before the forum.
Our approach in achieving this was to show them the value of coming to the
forum. To avoid the possibility of having the idea immediately shot down, my
colleagues and I decided that the Administrator, not us, should bring it up at
one of his staff meetings. We got him to announce that he was thinking about
having such a meeting. This way, those in attendance were less likely to
respond negatively and kill the idea.
We had not fully realized at this point the extent of the risk we were
taking. This had never been done anywhere in the Federal government at this
management level. It came under the scrutiny of tens of Congressional
committees and subcommittees having Jurisdiction over EPA. We also began to
realize that we might be competing for the Golden Fleece Award. If our plans
for the forum were broadcast outside the Agency and looked upon negatively by
outsiders, it could be politically destructive to the Agency, and its value
could never be demonstrated. We had to find a way to work through these types
of criticisms. A statement by Albert Einstein was appropriate to the
29
-------
situation we were facing: "We are unlikely to solve the problems of the
future if we are at the same level of thinking we were at when we created
them."
Our approach was to convince senior managers that the immediate consideration
was whether they should have a discussion now, or five or more years from now,
on where the Agency should be headed. We questioned whether the senior
managers could really say where the Agency was headed, or if they were
comfortable with the direction in which they thought the Agency was headed.
We sought out those who were most likely to be our biggest adversaries to get
them with us, and also to make sure that we were seeing all sides of the issue
and to learn of any blind spots that we might have.
We also wanted the whole thing to reek with teamwork and quality. It was
essential that the feeling of "ownership" for this forum be quite broad in
order for it to succeed. Senior managers with a high level of credibility
among their peers had to be in on this ownership. A design team composed of
such individuals was put together to plan the forum. We also felt that these
individuals were the most aware of Agency programs and associated concerns
that needed to be addressed.
We also made it clear that the forum was not to be a spectator type of
meeting. Everyone was expected to participate. They were going to the forum
to create something, not Just copy something. This is where the real energy
for the meeting was to be generated. The forum wasn't to be limited Just to
senior executive service level managers. All of those considered by regional
administrators and assistant and associate administrators to be on their
senior management teams were to be included. To facilitate participation by
all, a theme paper was prepared and distributed on each of the seven
management themes that had been proposed by Lee Thomas.
The seven management themes were:
1. Risk Reduction: EPA's basic mission is to reduce the level of risk
to health and to the environment posed by pollution. Toward that
end, the Agency will focus its resources, and those of society at
large, where pollution causes the most damage.
2. Balance Environmental Gains Against Other Goals: Environmental
protection actions should be designed to achieve the greatest social
benefit. The Agency will strive to manage its resources to achieve
the greatest overall benefits for the public.
3. Environmental Federalism: We recognize that each level of government
has a proper role in public health and environmental protection, and
that the concerted and coordinated efforts of Federal, state, and
local agencies will best serve the public interest.
4. Better Environmental Science: We will work to expand the knowledge
available to manage health and environmental risks. This priority
involves improving the scientific basis for environmental protection
decisions.
30
-------
5. Negotiation and Consultation: In finding solutions, we will expand
the use of negotiated regulations and consultative proceedings with a
wide range of representatives from industry, environmental
organizations, state and local government, and the general public.
6. Enforcement: We will enforce environmental laws vigorously,
consistently, and equitably to achieve the greatest possible
environmental results.
7. Human Resources: We will promote excellence and growth in EPA staff
at all levels.
All of the attention given to the preparations paid off. I believe that the
forum deserved high marks. The only disappointment might be the follow-up
that was made subsequent to the forum. Perhaps the follow-up deserved only
medium to low marks.
Human Resources Program. The whole human resources concern rests on the
premise that we all want to be involved in decisions that affect our lives.
We learned five or so years ago when Bill Ruckelshaus returned to find a
traumatized staff that there was no system in place to "move the train down
the track" in a direction in which people had some ownership and a commit-
ment. Clearly, the Agency's energy comes from the people in it, and senior
management needs to let them know that it recognizes that they are the key
contributors to achieving the Agency's mission. It was clear that more
attention needed to be given to the Agency's human resources.
Bill Ruckelshaus commissioned a study to be done on the systems that needed to
be put in place to ensure proper management of the Agency's human resources.
He recognized, however, that we couldn't wait until the study was completed to
initiate action, and so a dual approach was taken. We looked at what we could
do immediately to improve the situation in this area.
One thing we did was to make use of Human Resources Councils that provided a
channel between the employees and the Office of the Administrator. This
provided a way for the employees to express what was on their minds and to
provide feedback on senior management's efforts to improve the situation.
This approach was far superior to the only other means, which was for the 15
thousand employees to individually write to the Administrator about what was
on their minds.
The development of the EPA Institute resulted from an early concern over our
having a lot of new people coming into the Agency who had to be trained. We
also recognized that the Agency has a number of bright and talented employees
who were quite capable of providing that training. The question was how we
could help these people to provide that training and reward them for doing so.
We also believed that the reassignment of SES personnel would serve to
revitalize this group. The Agency had now grown up with many of these people
having moved vertically within program areas. We really had a vertical
organization as a result. Environmental issues are not vertical. The need to
change this model became apparent. These same people were seen to be valuable
for their insights on cross-media problems, as well as for their ability to
give fresh insights to problems in environmental media other than the one with
which they had been associated.
31
-------
We then looked for ways to achieve congruence with an individual's interest,
the organization's interest, and the interests of the Agency. We tried to
optimize these three interests in making reassignments, and the personnel were
supportive of these efforts. This led to the development of a framework for
achieving managerial excellence criteria and several other things. We quickly
realized that the human resources system affects other Agency systems (e.g.,
personnel performance reviews and management systems reviews) and that we
needed to do some integration of these several systems.
Conclusion
I am very optimistic that we will make considerable progress over the next
four years in adopting the concept of quality in the Agency. Here are my
reasons:
1. The timing is right, with a new administration coming in that has
identified the environment as a priority concern.
2. A number of the Agency's programs, such as the Quality Assurance
Program, have had a chance to mature and are now better able to seize
the opportunity of a new administration that is coming along.
3. Some of the things that Lee Thomas had initiated are now Just
beginning to bear fruit, e.g., technology transfer, pollution
prevention, the focus on upfront planning.
1. The momentum that is really coming from the private sector, which can
serve to provide some friendly competition and greater exchange of
knowledge.
5. The new language of "quality" that is being integrated with the rest
of the Agency's language and is becoming a way of life.
6. The stronger partnership with the states that will have to emerge
during the next four years, as an economic necessity.
7. Improvements coming in the personnel appraisal and merit pay system.
8. Quality is something that people can relate to in their personal
lives, and I think it will be injected back into the Agency from this
direction as well.
In closing, I would like to quote Dr. Deming. He said: "There is no
substitute for knowledge. So many of our current ways of doing business do
not produce an ability to analyze, make Judgments, and thereby put us in a
position to improve. That's not thinking, that is cramming your head full of
answers, and I'd rather for Johnny to tell me why."
I feel that as we go forward over the next four years and find more answers,
we should be concerned about how good our questions are. I think that is why
the whole quality movement is right on target.
32
-------
QUALITY CIRCLES
RADM Frank C. Collins, Jr.
President
Frank Collins Associates - Survival Twenty-One
Introduction
I would like to talk to you this morning about an' issue that I believe will be
of significant importance to both the Environmental Protection Agency and the
United States. People are under the illusion that they understand what
quality circles are all about. In most cases, unless you have personal
experience in a quality circle, you don't fully understand them. In many
cases, they are discounted as being an invention of the Japanese that don't
have application in our culture. After all, we are rugged individualists. I
hope that after I have finished this presentation you will put aside any
misconceptions you may have, and see the benefits of quality circles and what
they can do for you.
In one of my assignments while in the Navy, I used to keep a sign on the wall
of my office that said: "Why is it that there is always time to do it over
but never enough time to do it right the first time?" When you think about
it, that statement has application to Just about everything we do. Whenever
we get rushed to do something, we almost always find that hurrying creates
more havoc than positive results. Whatever it is, we always find time to do
it over again.
History
Some of you can remember pre-World War II. Japan had a reputation for pro-
ducing inferior products. They were cheap, but inferior. Normally, when you
turned the product over you found that it had been made of a soup can or a
sardine can or something else because the printing still was on it. I am not
saying anything about the Japanese that they don't say about themselves. They
readily admit that what they made before and shortly after World War II was
Junk.
After the war, General MacArthur found himself as the Supreme Commander of
Japan, i.e., basically the new Emperor of Japan. He had inherited a country
that had been devastated by war; the peoples' morale was low; there was a
large population that needed to be fed; and even more important, they had to
be occupied in something productive and positive. They needed something that
could turn them around and cause them to recognize their place in society. In
1946 as a step toward resolving the economic problems Japan was suffering, its
scientific and technical community formed the Japanese Union of Scientists and
Engineers, an organization that still is in existence.
Meanwhile, General MacArthur was looking for someone who could help him turn
Japan around economically. One member of his staff mentioned a person by the
name of W. Edwards Deming. He was a statistician who spoke the gospel of
statistical quality control. He had done a great deal for America. He had
worked for the War Department during the time it had geared up to become one
of the biggest war machines the world had ever known and which, of course,
33
-------
enabled us to win World War II. He had been preaching the gospel of quality
and it had taken on during the war. Actually, he had been preaching quality
during the preceding two decades, but few people had listened to him. He
continued preaching it after the war. General MacArthur asked that Deming be
brought over, so in 1950 the Japanese government invited Deming to come to
Japan.
Deming accepted their offer and came to Japan. He stated that he wanted to
meet only with the top industrial leaders. Their initial response was that
his advice was something that should be given to their middle management and
they need not be involved. His response was that'if they did not meet with
him he was going back home. The top industrial leaders agreed to do it his
way and they all went to a mountain resort for five days. He made them a
promise. He said, "If you listen to what I have to say and do what I
recommend, within five years the world will be beating a path to your door."
The Japanese industrialists' ears perked up. He had their attention. They
asked what they had to do. He spent the next five days discussing statistical
quality control.
If you think U.S. industrial leaders were autocratic, you should have met
Japanese industrial leaders before and shortly after World War II. Without a
doubt, they were the most autocractic species of animal that ever walked the
earth. They said something and it was done. There was no team spirit, no
management participation. It was a matter of "you do it" and it was done.
They did listen to Deming, however, and began implementing what he had taught
them. They almost immediately realized that they were taking a big step into
the future. In 1951, the Japanese established a national quality award, and
because Deming had made such an impact on them, they named it the Deming Prize
in his honor.
In 1954, Joseph M. Juran, another great quality guru, was invited to Japan and
accepted. He told them that statistical quality control was important;
however, there is another element that was being overlooked, viz., the role of
management. He told them that unless management was really interested in what
was going on in the company, no one else was going to be interested either.
He emphasized that top management had to be involved if anything was going to
happen. They took Juran seriously as well and began implementing his
teachings.
In 1956, the Japanese began a nationwide weekly radio show devoted to the
subject of quality. This brings up the question: How do you go about getting
an entire nation to change its view about what it is that they are doing? The
Japanese did it by radio. This, of course, was in the days before television
was popular. In 1960 they designated November as their national quality
month, and they still recognize it as such.
On December 31, 1962, Dr. Ishikawa created quality circles. The concept
created almost no interest for about two years. Then Japanese companies began
to understand what quality circles could do for them. They caught on much
more slowly in the United States. It wasn't until about 1975 that Lockheed
got the vision and thought they might have some merit. Lockheed sent a group
to Japan to find out what quality circles were all about. It wasn't until a
year later, however, that Lockheed got sufficiently interested to start
quality circles within its organization. About three years later, other U.S.
-------
corporations began to get interested in quality circles. By 1985, 8,000 U.S.
businesses had started quality circles.
A number of years ago, I met with Dr. Ishikaua and during our conversation I
asked him if he thought quality circles would ever catch on in the United
States. He replied that when he had first thought about it he felt the answer
would be: Probably not because our cultures are so different. The Japanese
are more easily organized, more easily led, and their religion makes them more
susceptible to this type of a philosophy. But he said that after he had
thought about it more deeply, he recognized the fact that people are people
and, regardless of their cultures, they have a motivational aspect that is
similar throughout the world.
Characteristics
A quality circle is defined as a small group of people doing similar work who
voluntarily meet on a regular basis to identify, analyze, and solve quality
and other problems in their own work area. The number of members should not
be less than 3 or more than 15. The optimum number is between 8 and 12. The
reason for these limits is that, for a quality circle to be effective, all
members must participate. With fewer than three people, you don't have enough
members to share ideas. With more than 15 people, full participation by all
is difficult.
It is important that all members are doing similar work. Experience has shown
that if they are doing dissimilar work, they have too much trouble learning
each other's language and little gets accomplished. It is also important that
they meet voluntarily. Again, experience has shown that when quality circles
are mandated by management and employees are directed to belong to them,
little gets accomplished.
Everyone who is to Join a quality circle should first take the training course
on quality circles before becoming a member. This is important. The training
also is useful to anyone, whether or not they plan to Join a quality circle.
For best results, a quality circle should meet weekly. This provides the
proper -continuity. Less frequent meetings often create a discontinuity that
biases, as well as strings out, the results. Another reason is that one of
the motivating factors of a quality circle is to see results. This is true
from both the members' and management's perspectives.
A quality circle is expected to base the problems and their solutions on hard
data that they gather. First, the members go through a brainstorming session
to identify problems in their own area for consideration by the quality
circle. They, alone (generally by majority vote}, select the one problem they
are going to pursue. Then the members collect hard data on the problem and
possible solutions. It is essential that the problem and the solution be
characterized using hard data. Opinions do not count. Next, they analyze the
data and agree on a solution.
Finally, they present their solution to management. The presentation should
include an implementation plan and a method of measuring the results of the
improvements that are expected from implementation. Measurements that allow
determination of dollar savings are most useful.
35
-------
Following the presentation, management reviews the recommendations of the
quality circle and the back-up information and makes a decision. It is
management's role to make the final decision. If management accepts the
recommendations, they are implemented. If management rejects them, it should
take the time to meet with the members, present its data supporting its
position, and explain why the recommendations were rejected. It is important
that the members be kept motivated and this approach will demonstrate that
management respects them, even though it has disagreed with them in this
instance.
Code of Conduct
Quality circles have a code of conduct and it is important that the members
understand it. The key tenets of this code are:
1. Do not criticize others. The meetings are not intended to be gripe
sessions or a time to get even with management.
2. The only stupid question is the one not asked. Members are not
allowed to belittle the comments or questions of other members.
3. Be open to the ideas of others.
4. Use the win-win approach (selecting problems for consideration, etc.,
by voting).
Training Course Topics
There are eight topics covered in training courses on quality circles. They
are:
1. Case studies and problem prevention techniques. This topic gives an
introduction to the subject of quality circles and provides an
overview of what they are all about.
2. Brainstorming. The participants are taught the techniques of
brainsterming, i.e., how to generate ideas. They also are given the
procedures used in selecting problems for consideration and in
choosing the one problem to be pursued. These are accomplished
through two voting sessions.
3. Data collection techniques. The types of data generally needed and
the procedures normally used to gather those data are covered.
1. Data presentation formats. Techniques for summarizing and displaying
the data for use by the quality circle and in presentations to
management are covered. This includes how to present data in graphs
of different types.
5. Use of the Pareto chart in displaying data.
6. Basic cause and effect analysis. Emphasis here is on use of the
Ishikawa fish-bone diagram in identifying cause-effect relationships
associated with the problem, categorizing the causes, and selecting
36
-------
those having greatest influence on the adverse effects of concern.
(The main cause of the problem is then decided through a vote.)
7. Process cause and effect analysis. Once the main cause of the
problem has been tentatively identified, then it should be evaluated
more closely to verify that, indeed, it is a major contributing
factor to the problem of concern. This topic covers how to lay out
the key steps of the process associated with the main cause that was
selected and to then analyze each of these steps.
8. The management presentation. This topic covers how the presentation
to management on the conclusions and recommendations of the quality
circle should be made, who should be involved in making the
presentation, and time constraints.
The Facilitator
Every quality circle should have a facilitator. Quality circles are
important, but it is the facilitator who really makes it happen. He or she is
selected by the steering committee. He/she must be a member of the steering
committee. The facilitator reports to a high level in management. He/she may
be a facilitator on either a full-time or a part-time basis. Part-time is
usually better, because too often they lose sight of the real world if they
are doing it full-time. A part-timer can be a facilitator for up to 10
circles without any problem at all.
The facilitator's role is to coordinate the circle's activities and make sure
that the circle is active and is meeting on a regular schedule. He/she should
never take over the role of the quality circle leader. The facilitator also
must communicate effectively at all levels of the organization to make sure
that everyone knows what is going on. He/she also teaches the quality circle
leader how to perform in that role. Last, he/she maintains the records of the
quality circle. The training course for facilitators usually lasts five days
and covers the above eight topics in greater depth than is provided in courses
for the others.
The Leader
The quality circle leader is responsible for both training and leading the
other members of the quality circle. Training for the leader of the quality
circle includes instruction in the above eight topics and also in the
following areas: quality circle techniques; achieving group participation;
measuring goals; and use of role-playing techniques. The training course for
leaders usually last four days. The training course for quality circle
members covers one of the above eight topics each week and lasts eight weeks
(not full-time).
The Steering Committee
The steering committee plays an important role—to identify the needs of the
company with regard to the quality improvement process. It is the one that
determines whether or not the quality circle is the way the company wants to
go. It also selects the facilitator. The steering committee is not intended
as a means for skipping the chain-of-command.
37
-------
There is one person who definitely should nob be on the steering committee and
that is the boss, i.e., the CEO, president, or director. His/her presence is
too intimidating. Members of the steering committee collectively represent
each organizational unit in the hierarchy, e.g., the union, industrial
relations, operations, finance, quality control, etc. The facilitator also
should be a member. Membership should not exceed 12 people.
Conclusion
In summary, quality circles have proven to be extremely valuable. They
normally meet one hour per week. That may well be the most productive hour
that each member puts in all week. Management has brought the members
together as a team, indicated that it is interested in what they have to say,
and that it is going to listen to what they recommend be done.
The payoff can be quite large. Be sure that you measure it, particularly in
terms of dollar savings resulting from implementation of their recommenda-
tions. A study was done in the Paul Revere Insurance Company to quantify the
payback from personnel time spent on quality circles. It found that in the
first year, the payback was 45 to 1. Clearly, this was an extremely good
return.
38
-------
QUALITY ~ NATIONAL SIZE-UP
C. Jackson Grayson, Jr.
Chairman
American Productivity and Quality Center
Introduction
I know your interest is in quality and so is ours. We use the two terms,
"productivity" and "quality," because some people prefer one and others prefer
the other, but in our view they are the same. You get to high productivity
through quality, as the Japanese have told us for years. If you achieve
quality, you're going to get productivity. If you work on productivity in its
broadest sense (not the narrow sense of efficiency, but effectiveness), then
you get quality. So we call our Center the American Productivity and Quality
Center. Our aim is improvement of processes and products in public and
private sectors and internationally. We are not interested just in what
happens in this country.
Five Revealing Questions
I want to start by asking you five questions:
1. What is the per capita income in a) Japan? and b) the United States?
2. What was the rate of growth in (nonfarm) productivity in the United
States last year?
3. Which corporation received the greatest number of U.S. patents in 1987?
4. Of the top 25 banks in the world (measured by assets/deposits), how
many are U.S. owned?
5. Since we've had productivity growth in the world, there have been
three nations that have led all the rest in productivity. Which
nations are they?
Response to first question. The per capita income in Japan is $19,461 and in
the United States it is $18,446. The point is, the income per person in Japan
is greater than the income per person in the United States at current exchange
rates. There is something called purchasing power parity, which is how the
yen converts to something you can buy in the respective countries. If you
convert this figure at current rates, the United States still has a slight
lead over Japan. But at market exchange rates, they are richer than we are
every year. Someone recently said that if Donald Trump wanted to buy the
United States, he would have to ask the Japanese if they wanted to sell.
Response to second question. U.S. productivity last year was only 0.8
percent. No nation can keep the leadership (which the United States now has)
in productivity with annual increases of less than one percent. We have got
to pick up that rate. If you look at our rate of productivity growth over the
past decade, it comes out to be about 0.9 percent. We are almost stagnant in
productivity, particularly relative to our competitors. A growth rate of at
39
-------
least 2 to 2.5 percent would be needed in order for the United States to keep
the lead.
Response to third question. For a long time, GE was the leader in obtaining
U.S. patents. Now Canon, a Japanese company, is the leader. Number 2 is
Hitachi. Number 3 is Toshiba. General Electric is now Number 4.
Response to fourth question. Of the top 25 banks in the world, none are U.S.
banks. The top 10 banks are all Japanese. That gives the Japanese incredible
financial power.
Response to fifth question. The three nations that have led the world in
productivity growth are the United States, England, and Holland. The
Netherlands was the first to lead the world and the English copied from
them. They learned agriculture, shipping, and all kinds of technologies from
the Dutch. Then the English surpassed the Dutch and then the United States
passed England.
We are still leading the world in productivity, but we are behind in growth
rate. You might compare it to a horse race where your horse took an early
lead and now the other horses are catching up. It makes you worry. That is
what is happening to the United States. This is the two-minute warning that
my book by that title addresses. Hey, wake up, America. We are still ahead,
but at the rate we are going, we are losing.
Importance of Productivity
Productivity, although it isn't something you work with every day, is the
lifeblood of any country's economy. The resources you have to deal with are
going to be influenced by this country's total pot of resources available for
everything, e.g., for cleaning up the environment, for health, for military,
etc. The smaller the pot, the less you have to do what you want to do. The
size of the pot is determined by productivity growth. In reality, the only
way a nation grows is through improved productivity. When the United States
slows down, you get less and less to divide among more and more needs. It
also affects you internally as you try to get the most out of what you have.
Productivity is what determines how much you will get out of what you have,
not Just dollars, but people as well. Improving productivity is not Just
working harder and faster; it is working smarter and better, involving people,
improving the quality of what you do, and the quality of life of the people
involved. If those things are integrated, you can get your Job done, you will
feel better about it, and you will do more with the resources you have.
Another reason for bringing up the subject of productivity is that it affects
your personal standard of living. Incomes are stagnant in the United
States. Those numbers affect your income. If you take the hourly earnings of
American workers right now (adjusted for inflation), they are no more than
they were in about 1972. How is it that the United States is spending all of
this money? Why is it that we are having such a nice economy and we are
consuming like crazy? It has been said that Americans can consume a lifetime
supply of anything in three weeks. How is this happening? If I have reported
to you that incomes are stagnant and yet we are having such prosperity, how
are we doing it? By borrowing like crazy, that's how. The national debt and
foreign debt, look at it.
40
-------
The other way to have greater prosperity is to put more family members to
work. So, we have had to put more members of our family out to work to
increase our family incomes. Family incomes have increased, but individual
incomes have not; they are stagnant. Thus, over time the only way this
country can support itself and provide the resources available for you to do
your Job is if we increase the incomes of people and the country.
If you look at a breakdown of productivity figures (see Figure 5), you will
see that although the non-farm business productivity level in 1987 was only
0.8 percent, the manufacturing productivity level was 3.4 percent. This is
not too bad; Japan's figure was 4.1 percent. That is not where the biggest
problem is.
The biggest problem is in the rest of the economy, the services sector. This
is what you are in. The services sector represents two-thirds of the U.S.
economy. In 1987, the productivity growth rate for this sector was a negative
0.5 percent. In 1986, it was only 1.4 percent and the year before that it was
a negative 0.2 percent.
I have taken the 1973-87 and 1979-87 growth trend rates in per capita income
(GDP/employee) of the leading industrialized nations and projected ahead to
determine which countries would surpass the United States and in what year,
assuming those trend rates continue (see Figure 6). At the 1979-87 rate,
Italy will pass the U.S. in the year 2002. At that same trend rate, Japan
will pass the U.S. in 2006. France, Belgium, Canada, Korea, Germany, and the
United Kingdom also will pass the U.S. That is why we have got to wake up.
Outlook for the United States
There are some encouraging developments. I think that the battle is going to
be won or lost in the following areas:
Quality
Integrated Operating Systems
Job Design/Organization Structure
Accounting Systems/Measurement
Employment Security
Compensation and Rewards
Involvement
Training, Selection, and Development
Symbols, Status, and Membership
Union Role
I do not think, though, that it is important what the tax rate, the monetary
policy, and the fiscal policy are. I don't mean to belittle them, but they
are not the main things. The 10 items listed are the main ones. What happens
inside organizations with regard to these 10 items is going to determine
whether or not we revive productivity and quality in this nation.
Quality was placed at the top of the list, not because I was coming to speak
to you today, but because quality has to be at the forefront of every organ-
ization, public and private. I am not Just talking about the "motherhood"
41
-------
FIGURE 5:
U.S. PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH RATE
BUSINESS NON-FARM BUS. MANUFACTURING SERVICES
1978 0.8* 0.8* 1.5* 0.5*
1979 -1.2 -1.6 -0.1 -2.4
1980 -0.4 -0.5 0.0 -0.6
1981 1.4 1.0 2.2 0.4
1982 -0.3 -0.5 2.2 -2.0
1983 2.8 3.4 5.8 2.0
1984 2.5 2.1 5.5 0.3
1985 2.1 1.4 4.6 -0.2
1986 2.2 2.0 3.3 1.4
1987 0.8 0.8 3.4 -0.5
1959-69 2.4* 2.7* 2.2*
1969-79 1-1 2.3 0.5
1979-87 1.2 3.3 0.1
Manufacturing Productivity Growth Has Improved, But Other
Nations Have Grown Faster:
1973-79 1979-87 1987
JAPAN 5.5* 5.1* 4.1*
U.K 1.2 4.7 6.8
FRANCE 4.6 3.0 3.2
ITALY 3.3 4.6 3.2
U.S. 1.4 3.3 3.4
GERMANY 4.3 2.3 1.4
42
-------
FIGURE 6:
IF GROWTH TRENDS CONTINUE
If Growth Trends Continue, These Nations Will Pass the U.S.
in GDP/Employee Level in the Indicated Years:
1973-87 TRENDS 1979-87 TRENDS
CANADA 1995 ITALY 2002
FRANCE 1997 FRANCE 2003
ITALY 1999 JAPAN 2006
BELGIUM 2000 BELGIUM 2009
GERMANY 2001 CANADA 2013
JAPAN 2002 KOREA 2016
NORWAY 2003 GERMANY 2023
KOREA 2010 U.K. 2023
-------
aspects of quality; we are all for better quality. I'm talking about quality
in the hard sense, day by day, improving the quality of the products and the
processes. No matter what you do, whether it's in hospitals, health, EPA,
government agencies, universities, industry, or whatever, productivity and
quality need to be improved.
The kinds of gains in productivity and quality needed can only be produced
through integrated operating systems. We must consider the entire process
involved and improve it. For example, you cannot make adequate improvements
by merely establishing quality circles and saying, "Well, I've taken care of
the quality problem." A piecemeal approach Just won't do it.
Changes in Job design are needed on a large scale. If you are going to
improve, it is likely that whatever you are now doing in job design and
organizational structure will have to be changed. Before automating or fixing
the system you have, ask yourself if this is the system that delivers what you
really want. In most cases, it will need to be redesigned.
Measurement and accounting systems are poor collectors of the right kinds of
information. Most of you, particularly in the government, have inherited a
system and are stuck with it. I know people who are keeping a separate set of
books (legally) that tell you what is really going on. Most systems involve
all kinds of arcane and conventional assumptions that are not the ones that
necessarily give you good data for decision making. For example, accounting
systems do not pick up measures of quality. Why? Because accountants say you
can't measure it. You can't measure it precisely, but you can measure it.
Most of the companies we work with are now setting up ways to measure it.
They are looking at such things as absenteeism, downtime, and percent
defects. Most accounting systems don't pick these up.
Somewhere in the scheme of things, employees have a right to feel they have a
position of security with their firm or organization and that by contributing
to improved productivity they will not be working themselves out of a Job.
There is much concern by employees that if they help improve operations, their
Job will no longer be needed and they will be fired. The employee must be
able to feel that if he makes a recommendation that results in his Job being
abolished, he will be given another Job to do. You cannot blame people for
not contributing good ideas to improve productivity if they think that as a
result they could be let go or hurt in Job status.
Another obstacle in many organizations is the failure to design a system that
rewards people for performance. I am not talking about performance appraisal
systems for individuals. I am talking about team-designed performance systems
and compensation systems that relate to the job being performed, not some
overall measure that an employee doesn't really understand and has little
influence over. More firms in the private sector are turning to gain
sharing. In the government sector, I know that the General Accounting Office
is starting to work on a pay-for-knowledge system. Thus, there are ways, even
in government, to set up compensation systems that relate to what the team
does and not necessarily to an individual.
There must be true, sincere involvement by management, not Just token
involvement with the attitude of "let's keep the troops happy." People are an
organization's most important asset, and this must be reflected in the
-------
behavior, not just the words, of management. Real involvement includes
delegation, respect, giving people a chance to try and a chance to fail, not
Just paper involvement.
Training is important. I tell organizations that whatever they are spending
on training, they should at a minimum triple their budget for it. The
Japanese firms provide much more training for their employees. Their training
is not the one-shot kind, but continuous training of their employees. I'm
talking about not only training in a classroom, but also training on the Job.
Get rid of the symbols that set people apart. This includes the executive
dining rooms, limousines, and closed private offices. Any of the badges that
say, "I'm a member of the elite and you are a member down there being watched"
should be removed so that management is not sending two messages. With these
badges, management in effect is saying, "We want you involved; by the way,
we're in first class and you're back in steerage." I see a lot of symbols
that are destroying the credibility of management's statements about real
participation and real involvement.
If there is a union in the organization, it ought to be involved right from
the beginning. If you wait until the end and then tell the union, "We have a
nice neat program here and we would like your participation," don't expect any
enthusiasm on its part. The unions should be brought in on the design of the
program right at the beginning as real partners, not adversaries that we are
going to fight and try to win points from.
Agenda for Adjustment
The following are what I see as the shortcomings of most quality improvement
efforts today:
1. Quality is still treated in the traditional "inspection" mode,
instead of applying it in a preventative mode.
2. Organizations are oriented to reducing customer dissatisfaction,
instead of increasing satisfaction.
3. Employees feel low responsibility for quality. They think it is the
job of the quality control or some other department.
4. Functional walls prevent common concern for quality. This fosters
the attitude: that is the other department's Job or concern, not
ours.
5. Quality is not high on top management's agenda. Top management often
tells those below it to go get training on quality while its members
head back to their yachts or whatever. Top management ought to be
among the first to receive training on quality and it ought to be
visible in the leadership of quality.
6. Quality is regarded as a "cost," not as a competitive strategy.
7. A basic belief is that "quality" is akin to "motherhood."
8. One-shot efforts; not continuous improvement.
15
-------
Some of the reasons why change Is difficult are:
1. Focus is short term; quality is long term.
2. Quality control specialists resist change.
3. Functional structure attitude: "not our fault."
4. Firms reward supplier for price, not quality.
5. Managers and employees have little training in quality.
6. U.S. managerial model: "AQL" (acceptable quality level).
Some of the options for improving quality include:
1. Make quality improvement a business objective and strategy with
numerical targets and performance measures.
2. Have all senior managers explicitly trained in quality and personally
involved.
3. Involve suppliers and customers in Joint quality effort.
4. Initiate TQC (Total Quality Control), involving all parts of the
organization and customers.
5. Shift quality focus from defect detection to prevention.
6. Create cross-functional teams for quality.
7. Visit domestic and foreign firms where quality is high.
Conclusion
Quality has to be elevated to the highest level. It needs to permeate the
organization. It needs to be thought of as an overriding concern that drives
all of the processes and systems. With that approach, you will get
productivity; you will get customers who believe in you and will accept what
you want to do and will work with you.
If we don't change things, then the scenario I gave you earlier regarding our
falling behind in per capita income, with associated reductions in our
standard of living, will happen.
I have often said that my role is that of three people: Cassandra, Pandora,
and Lady Godiva. It is similar to Cassandra in that I am delivering an
unpopular message. My message really is not of gloom and doom. Cassandra's
curse was not to tell of gloom and doom; it was to tell the truth. Her second
curse from Apollo was that no one would believe her. More people are
beginning to believe that the United States has got to change. So my role as
a Cassandra is to deliver a message that I believe sincerely.
-------
My second role is that of Pandora. You remember her: she opened the box and
out flew pestilence, death, and other bad things. She snapped the box shut
and, because hope was slow, it remained trapped in the box. I want to now
reopen that box because I think that the country can change, and it is
beginning to change.
My last role is that of Lady Godiva, who I understand has on her tombstone:
it's time to stop horsing around.
-------
HISTORY OF THE MALCOLM BALDRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY AWARD
RADM Frank C. Collins, Jr.
President
Frank Collins Associates-Survival Twenty-One
and
Marty Russell
Vice President for National Affairs
American Productivity and Quality Center
PART I — BY RAOM COLLINS
Introduction
In 1982, I took my first trip to Japan to see what they were doing in the way
of quality. After seeing what the Deming Award had done for Japan, I was
really on fire to see that the United States also have a national quality
award. I went to the National Academy of Sciences and suggested that they
sponsor one. After consideration, the Board of Directors decided that the
Academy should not sponsor another award. A colleague, at the same time,
tried to get the Department of Commerce interested in doing the same thing.
Commerce told him they didn't think such an award was very important.
My old friend Jackson Grayson (the previous speaker) also had been very
interested in getting such an award established and pumped new hope into the
effort. He organized a group and loaned us the capable Marty Russell for a
four-year period to work on establishing the national quality award. I have
to say, Jack is the real father of this award. The team that Jack organized
consisted of representatives from American Airlines, Campbell Soup, General
Motors, Xerox, Ford Motor Co., McDonnell-Douglas, Paul Revere Insurance Co.,
Textron, the American Society for Quality Control, and the American
Productivity and Quality Center.
The first hurdle to get over was what we were going to call the award. We
eventually got a consensus to call it the National Quality Award. The second
step was to decide on the criteria that would be used in selecting the
winners. We worked on this for three years. We wanted it to be tough enough
so that no one who didn't deserve it could win it. We didn't want it to be a
cheap prize. We wanted to be sure that smooth boardroom talk and slick ads
wouldn't do it; we wanted it based on hard, objective evidence on the most
important aspects of quality.
After much compromise among the 12 people on the team, we came up with seven
criteria and the maximum number of points that each would be worth in scoring
the nominees. They are:
1. Leadership (120 points)
2. Information and analysis (60 points)
3. Planning for quality (80 points)
4. Human resource utilization (150 points)
5. Quality assurance of products and services (140 points)
6. Quality results (150 points)
7. Customer satisfaction (300 points)
(Total points = 1,000)
U9
-------
The criteria and subparts of each are described more fully in the "Application
Guidelines 1989 - Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award."
About three-and-a-half years into the project, our financial support was
pulled out from under us. Our chief sponsor suddenly decided that a national
quality award was not needed. Talk about not feeling appreciated. This
really hurt. But then Florida Power and Light Co. came to our aid, contacted
U.S. Representative Fuqua, and sold him on the idea of a national quality
award. Congressman Fuqua introduced a bill in the House and it was passed. A
similar bill was introduced in the Senate and about that time the late Malcolm
Baldrige had the misfortune of being sat upon by a horse. This served as a
catalyst in bringing the package together and the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award was signed into law (P.L. 100-107) on August 20, 1987, by
President Reagan. Therein lies the tale.
Then came the shock. We asked when they wanted to present the first award.
They told us "before President Reagan goes out of office." At this point no
publicity had been given on the award. There still was organizational work to
be done; we still had to bring the entire community of organizations and
associations that would be involved into it and to gain their approval; and we
had to solicit and receive nominations and select the winners—all between
September 1987 and October 1988. The Department of Commerce had been given
the ball and the National Bureau of Standards had been designated as the
implementing agent.
Marty Russell called on the Department of Commerce and basically said: "We've
already done a lot of work on this. Would you like to see what we have
done?" Fortunately, they took us up on the offer. We were incorporated into
their efforts. Marty will tell you the story from this point on.
PART II — BY MS. RUSSELL
The Award Process
Congress had incorporated into P.L. 100-107 the requirement that the award
program be managed by the National Bureau of Standards (renamed the National
Institute of Standards and Technology). It also mandated that it be a Joint
public sector/private sector effort. We have been fortunate in that this
aspect has worked extremely well. There was a high level of dedication on
both sides in ensuring that the 1988 awards effort was successful.
The way the program works is that it is managed by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology and administered by the private sector. The program
also is funded by the private sector. Almost $10 million has been raised by
corporate executives to fund the awards program. There are 100 people from
the private sector who serve as examiners.
Each application for nomination received is independently reviewed by three
examiners. The results of their reviews are forwarded to a senior examiner,
who consolidates that information into one report and then forwards the report
to the Judges. The Judges then decide which nominees warrant a site visit.
The site visit is designed to clarify and verify the information contained in
the application. The process is designed to make sure there is no political
50
-------
bias, corporate bias, or money bias in the examination and evaluation of the
applications.
This year, we have received 66 applications, 45 from manufacturing, 12 from
small business, and 9 from the service sector. The service sector has been
slow in getting interested but is now coming up fast and strong. Governmental
agencies are excluded from consideration, under P.L. 100-107. The award is
given annually to a maximum of two winners in each of three categories:
manufacturing, small business, and service sector.
The award has generated considerable interest in the private sector. A lot of
companies that previously showed no visible interest in the quality issue have
become interested in competing for the award. They are now beginning to
compare themselves to the selection criteria contained in the application.
These criteria, in effect, are becoming a performance standard for companies
to pursue. Also, a number of large companies with good reputations, who feel
they are right at the top when it comes to quality, have taken a look at the
selection criteria and decided they need to improve still more before
submitting an application.
Conclusion
The criteria are doing what we had hoped they would do. They are focusing
U.S. industry on what it takes to have outstanding quality. We also are
pleased that the Japanese group responsible for the Deming Award has taken our
selection criteria and plans to use them in revising its selection criteria.
Last year, there were three winners of the award. They were Motorola Inc.;
Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division, Westinghouse Electric Corporation; and Globe
Metallurgical Inc. They were Judged to have outstanding performance in each
of the seven criteria. Each was presented the award by President Reagan in
ceremonies held last November.
The award itself consists of a metal contained in a crystal base. The metal
bears the inscription "Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award" and "The Quest
for Excellence."
51
-------
WHITE COLLAR QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS
Kathleen Sutton and Jackie Comola
American Productivity and Quality Center
PART I — BY MS. SUTTON
Introduction
We would like to tell you about some exciting and innovative work that the
American Productivity and Quality Center has done in the area of white collar
quality and productivity improvement. In this presentation we will focus on
white collar service sector Jobs. Since the early 1980's we have been working
on a research project to develop and implement a continuous improvement
process in white collar areas, and we have had a great deal of success with
it. I would like to give you a brief description of the process, the kinds of
results we have had in the public and private sector areas, and explain how it
works.
We are including a wide spectrum of workers under our definition of white
collar worker. It spans from the skill-based Jobs (e.g., keypunch operator)
at one end, all the way to the cognitive-based Jobs (e.g., design engineer) at
the other end, with workers like computer operators and accountants somewhere
in the middle. Others generally apply a narrower definition to the terra.
Fundamental Concepts
We named our research project IMPACT, an acronym for Innovative Methods and
Plans in Action. It was started in the early 1980's and continues today.
IMPACT is two things: a continuous improvement process and a 12-month project
(i.e., given organizations and companies participate for one year and then are
replaced).
The process is built on some fundamental concepts that, we have discovered,
transfer well from the manufacturing side. They also are critical to changing
the way we look at white collar work and the way we look at improving
organizational performance in white collar organizations. Just as with
factory workers, we know that employee involvement is fundamental to the
improvement of white collar operations.
We now know that it is critical for white collar workers to understand that
they too have customers. Most times, the customers are internal, but their
work does serve a customer. This sounds simple and logical, yet the lack of
understanding of this concept is the biggest obstacle we find upon entering a
white collar organization.
We knew that measurements of quality had to be different for white collar
workers than for factory workers. We had no quantitative measures for white
collar workers as we did for the factory workers; we had only qualitative
measures. We also knew that this had to be a continuous improvement process,
not a one-shot effort. We knew that it had to focus on quality and that the
concept of quality had to be meaningful for service-type work. The measures
would have to be intangible kinds of things, e.g., timeliness, accuracy, and
reduced cycle time.
53
-------
It soon became apparent that the white collar Jobs we were evaluating would
have to be redesigned. We didn't want to build a problem-solving process that
simply looks at what has been going on, puts patches on the problem, and then
goes on to the next problem. We wanted to take a process that would look at
what the customers really need and redesign the work to serve those needs.
It also became apparent that white collar workers needed to look outside of
what is popularly called "their functional silos" and look at and relate to
the business they're in. For example, an accountant in a car rental company
should be thinking: "How do I contribute to making the car rental process a
more efficient one?" instead of: "I'm an accountant and I produce this many
reports."
Project Implementation Approach
IMPACT is in use in 153 workgroups in about 60 companies. How does the
continuous improvement process happen? It's really pretty 'good management
sense. It is a process that takes a workgroup of about 125-150 people,
usually a department. The manager of that department is responsible for
implementing the process, but everyone in the department is involved to
varying degrees over the course of the year that it takes to implement the
process. The implementation process for the pilot activities is depicted in
the chart (see Figure 7).
A key part of the process is team development and training. Here, the people
are trained in various skills (e.g., leadership skills, small group dynamics
skills, communication skills) needed to make the improved process happen. As
indicated in the chart, the process begins with planning, i.e., determining
how it is going to happen and where in the organization is the best place to
start, which groups should do it, and which issues to start with.
The implementation phase includes the following three steps: assessment,
direction setting, and measures development. Here we look closely at the
workgroup and the kinds of things being done. We look at it from the points
of view of the customer, workgroup, and supplier. We have found that the best
source of measures is the customer. The customers are great at Judging
performance. The resulting base of information provides a clear snapshot of
what is going on in the group.
Based on the information gathered, we develop direction statements for each of
the services that have been clearly identified as relevant. Next, we develop
measures associated with these services. This gives us what is needed to tell
where we are, where we need to go, and the measures that will tell us when we
get there.
The change, or action, takes place in the Service (Re) Design and Implementa-
tion phase. This is where we look at the services being produced in that
workgroup versus what they need to be. We then redesign the work to more
effectively meet the needs.
After the new process has been implemented and in operation for a while, we
come back and review the results to determine if we really achieved what we
had intended in the planning stage. If further improvements are needed, we
recycle through the project steps.
54
-------
Team
Development
&
Training
FIGURE 7:
IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Impact Planning
Assessment
Direction Setting
Measures Development
Service (Re) Design
& Implementation
Review Results & Recycle
Recycle
To Other
Departments
55
-------
This new process becomes the way that the white collar workers manage their
business. They communicate more effectively with their customers, suppliers,
and co-workers. The manager begins managing the work so that it is
consistently and continually responsive to the rest of the organization and to
the external customers.
Typical Results
Typical comments we hear from the white collar groups we have worked with
are: we are working much better as a team; we have great communication; we
have changed the way we do business; we've changed the way we deliver our
product or service to our customers.
As a result of our project at the Hartford Insurance Co., a savings of
$5,226,000 was realized. Our project in Just one department of the Official
Airline Guide, a subsidiary of Dunn & Bradstreet, resulted in an annual
savings of $68,000 by reducing the number of remailings of its airline
guide. At McDonnell-Douglas, we were able to significantly reduce the
lateness of submittals of bids on government contracts. We have had a number
of other successes, such as a 33 percent improvement in productivity in one
firm, reductions in employee turnover, and error reductions in accounting
operations.
PART II — BY MS. COMOLA
Clarification of Terms
I would like to clarify a couple of terms used frequently in this project.
The first term is "action research." This research is somewhat different from
what might be thought of as typical research in that it is not done separately
or remotely from the practical implementation that we have been talking
about. Action research is participation with the people in an organization to
implement change that is oriented toward improving quality and productivity.
The second term is "we." This term signifies our relationship with management
and the people inside each of the departments.
Historical Perspective
I would like to step back in time and tell you how we got involved in this
project. Then I will summarize what we have learned about white collar groups
from 1983 to date.
In 1982, a lot of attention was being given to the low rate of productivity
growth, particularly in the manufacturing industry in the United States versus
Japan. The U.S. manufacturing industry was transporting back the techniques,
which the Japanese were using, to gain a competitive edge against Japan. This
did allow for some positive results for the United States.
In our role as a research organization, we also were looking at productivity
problems in the services industry. The services industry, of course, includes
a large white collar workforce. Ue found that little was going on in the way
of productivity improvement in the white collar area. At that point no one
had yet bothered to find out how productivity and quality could be improved in
56
-------
this workforce, now the majority of the U.S. workforce. We decided to Join
with an organization and conduct a survey. Steelcase, an office furniture
manufacturing company, had similar interests and so we Joined together,
constructed a questionnaire, and sent it out to several companies that had
large white collar workforces.
In the study with Steelcase, we were working with five assumptions. Three of
them were significant and have proven themselves over time. We see some of
them expressed today as total quality management principles. One of those was
that productivity and quality improvement requires more than Just quality
circles, more than Just office automation, more than Just a piecemeal
approach. It requires the integration of all of these aspects: the people,
the place, and the tools with which we work.
Another assumption verified by the data was that there needed to be a greater
focus on the customer. This is really the reason why an organization
exists. This means that a greater focus must be provided on the delivery of
the product, process, or service to whoever it is that receives it, whether it
be an internal customer, intermediate customer, or the final customer.
Another point is, you hear the terms "productivity" and "quality." Back in
the dark ages of 1982, the terms in predominant use were "efficiency" and
"effectiveness." One of the things we learned early was that there needed to
be a greater balance between efficiency (similar to productivity) and
effectiveness (similar to quality).
We solicited 13 pioneering organizations to Join with us in constructing a
research methodology that could be implemented in their companies. This
became a group effort, and the methodology was constructed between 1983 and
1985. Implementation quickly followed, and we have been compiling and
evaluating results from the studies that ensued. Kathleen has shared with you
some of the results of that first experience.
We also looked at which aspects of our methodology worked well, which didn't,
and what should be changed. As a result, we made some changes and then
undertook a second set of studies over a 15-month period. We repeated this
approach again and, last March, completed a third IMPACT project with another
group of companies. In January, we kicked off our fourth multi-company
project. Annually, we compile information from the participating companies on
the methodology and revise it. Thus, we are making continual improvements on
the methodology.
The methodology we apply in these studies of white collar groups recognizes
five key principles of quality:
1. Focus on the customer
2. Management commitment
3. Involving people
4. Measurement
5. Continuous quality improvement process
We are not only working toward solving existing problems, but we also are
looking toward the future and moving toward whatever it is that will best
satisfy the customer's needs.
57
-------
Conclusion
I would like to give you an overall summary of our findings from 1983 to
date. Our major conclusions are:
1. Organizational instability creates a need to redefine ourselves.
2. Strong leadership is needed to clarify and set new direction and to
focus resources.
3. There is a void between the company-level direction/strategic plan
and its implementation at working level.
4. There is a lack of understanding, loyalty, and commitment to the
whole; focus is on individual activity and professional advancement.
5. White collar workers are motivated through involvement.
6. Where productivity/quality awareness is high, workers recognize the
importance of remaining competitive and feel that they can influence;
but they also feel that their efforts are not recognized or rewarded.
7. Quality issues at the work level are very important to the white
collar workforce.
8. Technology (e.g., automation) is adequate, but under-utilized.
9. Data processing is evolving from support to mainstream operations.
58
-------
WORKGROUP SESSIONS
59
-------
REGIONAL OFFICES WORKGROUP
General (Presented by Robert Forrest, Region 6)
The workgroup identified seven topics of interest to regional quality
assurance officers (QAO's). They were:
1. Validation of non-CLP laboratory data
2. Initiative on quality assurance (QA)-related common
practices
3. QA activities and pricing factors
4. Estuary methods
5. Support needed from the Quality Assurance Management
Staff (QAMS)
6. Regional QA training activities
7. QA briefing package for regional administrators
The workgroup's comments, findings, and conclusions regarding each of these
topics are summarized below.
Validation of Non CLP-Laboratory Data (Presented by Kent Kitchingman, Region
9)
The validation of non-Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) data from Superfund
sites is a problem in all regions. The CLP provides the region with a known
product that the region can then validate. This program appears to be doing a
good Job. However, there are a lot of Superfund data that are not coming
through the CLP. Sources of these other data include: responsible parties,
Federal facilities, and states.
Ultimately, it is EPA's responsibility to know the quality of all of these
data. A lot of time is spent in attempts to obtain the associated quality
control (QC) information and to otherwise validate these data. Frequently,
these efforts are less than successful. Region 9's approach to this problem
may be of interest to the other regions.
The Region 9 QAO proposed to the region that the non-CLP sources of data be
provided with specific requirements before the data are collected. Initially,
consideration was being given only to requirements associated with data
validation. Then, the regional Superfund Program expressed interest in having
the requirements cover all QA/QC aspects of the data collection activities for
all types of studies at all types of Superfund sites. This policy was adopted
and guidance was prepared and provided to the non-CLP sources of Superfund
data. It describes the region's minimum QA requirements for each type of site
and identifies who is to be responsible for each activity. Responsibilities
for QA/QC are delegated to the extent possible. (Copies of the document
containing these requirements were distributed to participants.)
61
-------
Initiative on QA-Related Common Practices (Presented by Fred Haeberer, QAMS)
This initiative was undertaken primarily as a result of the National Research
Council's recent report on QA activities in EPA. One of the findings of the
National Research Council was that, in the area of common practices, EPA was
somewhat vulnerable, i.e., it was difficult to compare data across EPA
organizations and across timeframes. In addition the Sec. 518 Report,
produced in accordance with the 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments, supports
these findings. This report indicates that the QA/QC system for the Agency's
methods varies across programs, making it difficult to compare data.
QAMS is preparing a concept paper and an implementation plan that addresses
this problem. The document is currently in draft stage and is expected to
reach final form within the next week or so. At that time it will be
distributed to the EPA QA community.
The purpose of this presentation to the meeting participants was to make them
aware of the initiative; generate interest in it; and to elicit volunteers for
the effort. QAMS particularly would like to obtain the assistance of
management and technical experts that should have input to this effort.
The concept plan calls for a steering committee, consisting of the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratories (EMSL) liaisons (Dan Bender,
Gene Easterly, and Ron Patterson), to act as facilitators for workgroups that
would do the actual defining of the common practices. The steering committee
also will coordinate the workgroups to ensure that no duplication of effort
occurs among them. The workgroups will be responsible for defining the common
practices that need to be developed and also for preparing drafts of these
common practices. The steering committee then will be responsible for getting
the draft common practices reviewed by the various programs and getting them
accepted by the Agency and implemented.
The first meeting of the steering committee and others involved in the effort
was held December 13-14. The purpose of this meeting was to review the draft
concept paper and further define what should be done. Agreement also was
reached on what should be done first in order to achieve an early success that
then could be built upon. It was recognized that the Agency does not have a
common QA Glossary and so the first effort will be to develop one. It is
recognized that a number of groups have worked on QA glossaries in the past
and there are a number of them around, including a set of definitions of terms
in the Federal Register. So far, 25 or so sets of definitions of QA terms
have been found. QAMS is working with Research Triangle Institute to build a
database of these QA terms and definitions.
The steering committee and Fred Haeberer plan to meet soon to review and
consolidate these glossaries into one of a manageable size. The resulting
draft QA Glossary will then be distributed within the Agency for review, and
it is hoped that thoughtful comments will be provided and that those providing
them will continue to participate throughout the remainder of the effort.
62
-------
QA Activities and Pricing Factors (Presented by Jerry McKenna, Region 2)
The work covered in this presentation resulted from one of the initiatives
that came out of the Berkeley meeting. The QAO's and their Environmental
Service Division (ESO) directors left that meeting with a lot of enthusiasm.
They made a major breakthrough in that they made a combined commitment to go
beyond their ESD's in a clear way in taking responsibility for QA and making
it work across the entire region. At that meeting several obstacles to this
goal were identified, and initiatives were put forward for achieving the
goal. One of those initiatives covered development of pricing factors. A
second, covering preparation of a QA briefing document, will be addressed
later.
It was recognized more resources will be needed to meet the goal. The best
way to work toward obtaining the necessary resources is believed to be through
the workload model process. One of the things that those attending the
Berkeley meeting agreed to do was to compile solid information that would help
the various regions identify and justify their resource needs. Barry Towns of
Region 10 led this effort. Together, the regions completed a very good
resource document that shows the costs necessary to carry out all of the
various QA activities for all of the various regional programs and accounts.
This document provides good, solid facts, not rhetoric, and will be most
useful when the QAO's get into the battle for resources.
Along with the commitment to prepare the document was a commitment by all to
work very hard as a team in obtaining the necessary resources to achieve the
goal. In the preparation of this resource document, the team commended the
considerable contributions of Ramona Trovato and Region 3 in their development
of an exemplary workload model descriptor on regional ESD activities in the
Superfund area.
Estuary Methods (Presented by Bettina Fletcher, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay
Program)
There are 14 estuaries in the United States, in which there are approximately
100 projects underway. Many of these projects are being carried out by the
states and universities, and EPA's role in these projects varies
considerably. There appear to be a lot of independent efforts underway
without any central guidance or common guidelines or assistance that would
serve to ensure the necessary commonality and that the end products will be
useful. The parameters being evaluated and the matrices of interest (e.g.,
water column, sediment, tissue) vary widely across these projects. There is
limited guidance available from EPA or any other central source on methods for
these evaluations. There is little available in the way of validated methods
applicable to this type of work in estuaries. There is no inventory of
performance evaluation samples applicable to estuarine work, either. Such
samples are needed to establish some sense of comparability across the various
projects.
Regions 2 and 3 have had many discussions about their own needs in this
area. Both would like to get some sense of the level of concern among the
other regions and headquarters about the deficiencies in this area. Regions 2
and 3 contacted OMEP about the matter and OMEP encouraged them to query the
regions directly. The regional QAO's were asked to be the conduit in both
63
-------
directions, i.e., in gathering the information and in reporting it back to
Regions 2 and 3. Information desired includes an inventory of ongoing
estuarine projects, the focus of analytical endeavors, analytical methods
currently available, and analytical methods needs.
This project currently is in the data-gathering phase. The objective of this
effort is to identify where the state-of-the-art is, where it needs to be,
develop a sense of priorities, and be able to express these findings to a
variety of audiences. The Office of Research and Development (ORD) is very
supportive of this effort and has shown a willingness to carry out methods
validation work. It may be that some of the necessary work can be carried out
by the regions and that a combination of approaches on the part of many will
be able to produce the methods most needed early on. Over the longer term, a
more deliberate and methodical program will be needed to provide the full
inventory of validated and documented methods that are necessary.
The regional QAO's will be hearing more on this subject in the future, and it
is hoped that they will be able to provide assistance as it is requested. The
convening of a workgroup is planned for sometime this spring. Its purpose
will be to develop a strategy to follow in meeting the needs identified by
that time.
Support Needed from QAMS (Presented by Richard Edmonds, Region 8)
The regional QAO's had a breakout meeting at the Berkeley meeting referenced
earlier by Jerry McKenna. One conclusion was the need for additional support
from QAMS beyond that which QAMS is now providing. Each QAO provided a list
of three to four items that he or she would like QAMS to do. These lists were
compiled and consolidated, resulting in a final list of 19 items. Key items
on this list include the following:
• Ensuring that QA requirements are incorporated into
regulations involving environmental monitoring.
• Providing better Agency guidance on how one assesses and
reports data quality.
• Revising QAMS1 005/80 document to provide a more realistic
approach.
• Conducting audits of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) programs.
The regional QAO's had planned to reach a consensus in the workgroup session
on the relative priorities of the 19 items on the list. For now, they agreed
to disagree on the priority array. They hope that within the next two weeks
they will be able to reach agreement of the priority of each item. Once
agreement is reached, they will present the list to QAMS for consideration.
Regional QA Training Activities (Presented by Richard Edmonds, Region 8)
All regions were recently polled to determine what QA training was being
carried out. A wide variety of training activities were found to exist.
Training topics included QA project plan preparation, sampling plan
64
-------
development, data validation, certification of contractors for data
validation, etc. The conclusion was that the "wheel should not be
reinvented"; i.e., if one region already has prepared a training course on a
subject under consideration by a second region, then the training materials
should be obtained from the first region rather than independently preparing
similar course materials. The QAO's are also looking to QAMS to update the
list of QA training materials available nationally.
QA Briefing Package for Regional Administrators (Presented by Jerry McKenna,
Region 2)
It was recognized at the Berkeley meeting that a transition in regional office
leadership would be taking place as the new administration takes over the
reins of government, and that it would be highly advantageous if a common
briefing document on regional QA programs could be prepared for use in
briefing the new regional administrators (RA's) and deputy regional
administrators (DRA's). The meeting participants decided that such a document
should be prepared. A workgroup, consisting of Jerry McKenna, Mary Woods,
Charles Jones, and Jim Stemmle, was established for this purpose. The
preparation of such a document proved to be more difficult than first assumed,
primarily because of different perceptions among workgroup members regarding
what the new "typical RA" would be like.
The workgroup prepared what it thought to be a professional and complete
document and provided it to the other QAO's. It learned, however, that the
other QAO's did not like the document. The document created much more
controversy than the workgroup considered possible. The dynamic created by
all of the QAO's thinking about what was wrong with the proposed document
resulted in each QAO developing a good idea of what he/she plans to cover in a
briefing for his/her RA. Because of the mental energy that has gone into the
effort, all QAO's are now well prepared to give this briefing.
The workgroup, however, does plan to take the best of the comments provided
and revise the briefing document accordingly. February 21 is the target date
for completing this revision. We hope that this date will still allow the
document to be timely.
The workgroup recognizes that the document will have use beyond its immediate
purpose. Some of the state personnel have indicated they would find it useful
in helping them prepare briefings for their new management. EPA headquarters
personnel also may find it useful in preparing similar briefings. The
workgroup will be making the revised document available to the regions, and
QAMS is to take responsibility for making it available to other interested
parties.
Conclusion (Presented by Robert Forrest, Region 6)
Kevin Hull was thanked for coming to the regional workgroup sessions and
describing to them: 1) QAMS1 training activities and 2) the status of the QA
career development project.
The ORO workgroup also was thanked for its willingness to Join with the
regional workgroup and discuss several topics of mutual interest. These
topics included:
65
-------
o QA in annual operations guidance
o QA in program reviews by headquarters of the regions
o QA in regulatory development
o QA in the workload model process
Marty Brossman was thanked for his presentation at one of the workgroup
sessions on QA project plan guidance being prepared by the Office of Water.
The workgroup also discussed QA issues in the RCRA program, and the results of
that discussion will be provided to the RCRA headquarters program since no
RCRA program representative could be in attendance.
Stan Blacker had asked Just the right question (viz., how would we carry back
and maintain throughout the rest of the year all of the energy that had been
generated in each participant this week). The reply to that can be given in a
couple of different ways. Probably every speaker touched in some way on
individual responsibility, i.e., you first have to change yourself before you
try to change others in practicing the Total Quality concept. That is part of
it.
The second part of the answer was provided by RADM Collins when he discussed
quality circles. It seems that we really have a quality circle that we
haven't touched on, and that is the quality circle in our head. Each of us
has within our head a set of different personalities. These include that of a
parent, child, adult, dreamer, realist, doer, intuitionist, artist, follower,
leader, and thinker.
66
-------
NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICES WORKGROUP
(Presented by Jim Marzen, Office of Mobile Sources)
General
The workgroup covered the following topics in its deliberations:
1. 1988 action items (i.e., those developed last year at the
Pensacola Beach meeting)
2. Joint regional/national program office (NPO) quality
assurance officers (QAO's) meeting
3. National Research Council report
4. Suggestions for the Quality Assurance Management Staff
(QAMS)
5. 1989 action items
The workgroup's comments, findings, and conclusions regarding each of these
topics are summarized below.
1988 Action Items
The workgroup began its deliberations by going back to the action items it had
developed last year and determining progress made to date in satisfying each
of them. One of them was a request for career development guidance from
QAMS. QAMS has made excellent progress under the direction of Kevin Hull in
responding to this request. The workgroup members would like to be more
helpful to Kevin, including the providing of a more consistent set of
responses to him. Part of our problem is that the group members are quite
different in their perspectives.
Last year the workgroup had also requested from QAMS some training on quality
circles. We consider the presentation by RADM Collins on quality circles to
represent an excellent response to this request.
We also had asked QAMS for communications skills training. The two sessions
by Linne Bourget were excellent and responsive to this request. Unfortu-
nately, Linne Bourget's presentations were a part of the concurrent sessions
and so everyone could not attend them. This point will be covered later in
more detail.
We had agreed last year that we would have monthly meetings among ourselves,
but we had only one. We did not do as well on this one as we had intended.
We also had asked that EPA Order 5360.1 be clarified. However, we did not
follow up with QAMS to let it know more specifically what we wanted done.
Nothing did get done on this one.
67
-------
We had said that we wanted to include in our QA program plans information
requiring certain guidance. We did not accomplish this, either.
We acknowledge that the things we asked QAMS to do did get done. The things
that we were going to do didn't get done. We plan to do something about that.
The regional workgroup has already covered much of what transpired our Joint
meeting. Some other topics also addressed included:
• Including resources for the preparation of QA aspects of
operating guidance as a budget line item in the workload
model.
• Including QA activities in the program reviews conducted
by the NPO's on regional offices.
• QA in regulatory development.
• QA questions on Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) extramural activities.
The workgroup also had planned to talk about QA in methods development, but it
ran out of time before getting to this topic.
Joint Regional/NPO QAO's Meeting
It may appear that the workgroup does not have a detailed approach laid out
for what it is going to do, particularly in assisting the regional QAO's in
resolving problems. However, the national program offices do recognize that
there are difficulties that need to be fixed. The NPO QAO's were unanimous in
their commitment to be of help to the regional QAO's.
We feel that additional clarification would be helpful to us in resolving the
problems of concern to the regional QAO's. We suggest that the regional QAO's
get together and form a consensus on exactly what they want done and put it in
writing. This would be very helpful to us in moving forward in the resolution
of these problems. (It also would be helpful if this documentation could be
sent from the highest possible level to the highest possible level in our
chain-of-command.}
Until this is done, the NPO QAO's would like for the regional QAO's to come to
the particular NPO QAO that could be helpful on any particular problem. We
are committed to doing our best in being helpful.
National Research Council Report
The NPO QAO's have reviewed the report by the National Research Council on QA
at EPA. We have considered the recommendations in the report and have no
disagreement whatsoever with them. The next consideration is: what do we
do? We plan to have further discussions among ourselves. We also would like
for QAMS to include us in further discussions. We have questions on
implementation of the recommendations. If not involved, we still would like
to remain informed on what is going on.
68
-------
We would like to have a role in this, but we don't really know what our role
should be. We haven't decided what we want it to be and we haven't been asked
to participate, but we do want to be involved. We do know what QAMS has done
so far in response to the report, but we don't know what QAMS will be doing in
the future in this regard. We have no objections to anything that QAMS has
done. We recognize that QAMS' role will be changing and its reactions will be
changing, depending on what inputs it gets. Again, we would like QAMS to
consider us as a resource and to involve us in this effort.
The workgroup also discussed the concept of Total.Quality and agree that it is
an "Admiral-able" goal and a "Capt-ital" idea. (This is our way of giving
credit to some fine people who are advocates of this concept.) Most of our
discussion on Total Quality centered around how we go about implementing the
concept in our own organizations. Some of our questions on this were answered
in subsequent presentations. It still is not crystal clear how we are going
to do it, but that is okay.
The workgroup also discussed operational problems of QAO's. A lot of us have
had similar problems over the years. They are a result of a combination of
assigned responsibilities and associated lack of resources, time, clout,
access, and formal QAO training.
Suggestions for QAMS
The workgroup came up with some suggestions for QAMS. They are:
1. Give consideration to changing the name of QA Officers to
QA Managers. This might give us more clout.
2. Put Linne Bourget on next year's program, expanding her
time to one full day, and not as part of a set of
concurrent sessions.
3. Give consideration to adding field trips to the agenda
for next year's program. For example, many of us thought
that it would have been nice this year to have visited
the Johnson Space Center and the American Productivity
and Quality Center. This sort of thing could be done and
still cover all of the planned topics by holding evening
sessions, as we did at the Williamsburg meeting several
years ago.
1. Proceed with development of common practices. We enjoyed
Ron Patterson's excellent presentation to the workgroup
on what is being done in this area. We fully support
this effort and agree it is an excellent idea.
5. The data quality objective expert systems software now
deals with the sampling of water wells subject to
possible contamination. Expand the sample problem set to
cover other media.
69
-------
6. Develop similar expert systems software in the area of
audits and management systems reviews.
7. Encourage all NPO's and regions to provide representation
to these annual meetings. For example, many questions
came up about QA associated with RCRA program activities
and no one from the RCRA program was here to respond to
them. In sending out the meeting announcements, it is
good that you have been informing our office directors of
the value of our attendance. It also might be helpful
if, in the future, these announcements also make it clear
that those attending also are expected to contribute to
the meeting and of the importance of having all offices
represented.
8. Give consideration to having a National Quality Forum.
We feel that these annual meetings have been trying to
serve two purposes: to cover technical issues and also
management issues. We feel the technical issues should
be dealt with in a separate national meeting, where
people would be brought in from academia, the private
sector, and other government agencies to address how
things are done at the bench level. An added advantage of
doing this is that it would further publicize EPA's QA
program and get other people beyond this group involved
in it. (This suggestion was presented by Elizabeth
Leovey.)
1989 Action Items
The workgroup's 1989 action items are to:
1. Schedule meetings and teleconferences among the workgroup
members. We have some specific items that we know we
have to talk about. We are going to identify the items
we believe need clarification in 5360.1 (e.g., it appears
to place QA requirements on modeling). We have an action
plan and commitments from individuals and we plan to move
ahead on this.
2. Meet with the regional QAO's at the spring meeting in
California.
3. Insert a requirement, when revising the NPO QA program
plans, for the program office to make headquarters
guidance documents available in draft stage for review by
the ESD's.
4. Respond, per our commitment, to individual requests from
the regions while we are working on identifying and
resolving the more formal problems of broader concern to
the regions.
70
-------
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WORKGROUP
(Presented by David Smith, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory)
Introduction
The workgroup began its deliberations by going over a list of common issues it
had generated last summer. We made some changes in the list, reached a
consensus on the relative priorities, and came up with the following items
that we proceeded to discuss this week:
1. Management relationships
2. Data quality objectives
3. Quality assurance (QA) for modeling
1. New administration briefing
5. Training and communication
The workgroup's findings and conclusions are summarized below.
Management Relationships
We sense a need in the Office of Research and Development (ORD) to get our
senior management more in tune with what quality assurance (QA) is all about
and to try to increase the visibility of the program. In discussing ways to
accomplish this, we identified action items to pursue.
First is the establishment of an ORD QA workgroup, consisting of QA officers
(QAO's) in ORD, to work on this problem. The initial task of the workgroup
will be to write down more clearly the specific QA-related roles and responsi-
bilities of ORD managers at each management level. One of the things that we
expect will come out of this effort is identification of gaps in these roles
and responsibilities. Then we plan to work toward getting those gaps filled.
One gap already identified is the absence of a single person in ORD who can
serve as an ORD QA spokesperson. The Quality Assurance Management Staff
(QAMS), of course, is in ORD but it really is the Agency's QA representa-
tive. What is needed is an ORD QAO.
Another gap is a clear delineation of the ORD QAO's role with respect to the
client offices. Obviously, better communication between QAO's in ORD and the
client offices is needed.
Data Quality Objectives
The second issue is the need to clarify the application of data quality
objectives (DQO's) in research projects. For the most part, any given single
research project is quite small and many are conducted totally within a
laboratory. The DQO Expert Systems process developed by QAMS, although quite
71
-------
good, is really intended for rather large-scale outdoor monitoring studies,
and we don't feel it has much application to the majority of our research
projects. We believe that some modification of the Expert Systems software is
needed to make it more applicable to small-scale research projects. About a
year or two ago, an ORD workgroup did look into needs in this general area and
produced a report on them.
In our workgroup session this week, we had a presentation on how we are going
to try to address the intent of DQO's in the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) at Cincinnati. The approach is to prepare project quality
objectives (PQO's). We purposely are using a term different from "DQO's" in
order to avoid confusion.
A format has been developed for preparing the PQO's for small-scale
projects. Their intent is to get project definition and quality issues
defined upfront to facilitate communication between the laboratory and its
clients. The format for PQO's is intended to be easier to follow and apply to
small projects than is QAMS' suggested DQO process. Copies of our PQO format
were distributed to the ORD QAO's during the workgroup session. We will be
trying out this process in the RREL and identifying and working out any "bugs"
in it. We plan to report our findings back to the ORD workgroup members.
Early on we plan to present this PQO process to our clients. We intend to
first set up a meeting with the NPO QAO's to describe the process to them and
explain what we would like them to do with the PQO's when we forward them to
the program offices.
There is interest on the part of several ORD QAO's in trying to test QAMS' DQO
Expert Systems software on some research projects and see how it works. Those
individuals will be contacting QAMS for some guidance and assistance in these
efforts.
Several ORD QAO's have taken the DQO training offered by QAMS and, although
helpful, they found it to be directed toward the types of studies carried out
by national program offices and regional offices. We request that QAMS
consider modifying this training to make it more directly applicable to
research projects typical of those conducted by ORD. We would be glad to work
with QAMS in such an effort.
QA for Modeling
The topic of QA in modeling projects received considerable attention in our
workgroup. Several ORD laboratories are involved in model development and
application. There is some confusion regarding the extent to which Agency QA
policy, the Order (5360.1), and conventional QA considerations apply to these
modeling projects. Part of the confusion probably is a result of the lack of
guidance on what QA should be associated with model development, verification,
calibration, and application. The concern actually is with both the data that
go into the model and the QA of the modeling decision itself.
We unanimously agreed that there is a place for QA in model development and
application. Jim Kingery (RSKERL-Ada) shared with the workgroup some QA
requirements associated with modeling that his laboratory has developed, and
these should prove helpful as a guideline to others. After we are able to lay
72
-------
out more clearly specifically what needs to be addressed in a guidance
package, we plan to make a formal proposal to QAMS regarding the development
of a comprehensive set of guidance on QA in model development and
application. We would like to work with QAMS in its development.
New Administration Briefing
The workgroup also is interested in briefing documents for use in briefing the
new ORD management team. The purpose of a briefing document would be for use
in making the ORD senior managers more aware of the importance of QA and what
it is all about in research programs. We hope to make use of the regional
QAO's briefing document in developing one applicable to ORO.
The workgroup discussed the level of detail that should be in ORD's QA
briefing document in order for it to serve its intended purpose. There was a
range of opinions on what that level of detail should be. To pursue the
development of a briefing document, we established a workgroup consisting of
the headquarters ORO QAO's. We would appreciate it if the parallel regional
workgroup could make its current draft of its briefing document available to
us. .This would give us an excellent starting point.
We discussed some of the topics that should be covered in the briefing
document. One was the possibility of including a couple of case studies
illustrating Just how QA had benefited research projects. We don't expect to
have any problem coming up with those. We also wanted to include comments
from a recent Congressional report that contained some very positive
statements regarding QA. We also plan to incorporate highlights of the
National Research Council's report on QA.
Most importantly, we believe the document should include specifically what it
is we expect the new ORD administration to do with regard to QA. One of the
things we tentatively concluded is to have the new ORD assistant administrator
(AA) put his signature on a mission statement regarding QA. Another thing we
might include is a request for a uniform funding policy for QA throughout
ORD. Another item we plan to include is the need to have a more active
central QA figure in the AA's office.
Training and Communication
The ORD QAO's had a meeting this past summer in which a number of issues of
common concern were identified. One of them was our lack of a good way to
communicate with each other and especially the lack of a central person to
facilitate the communications. Since that meeting we have lost two QAO's, but
on the positive side, we have gained two. This change has brought some fresh
enthusiasm to the group. We are particularly pleased by Linda Kirkland's
enthusiasm and willingness to serve in this capacity. She has agreed to serve
as a distributor of pertinent materials to the rest of us and to follow up
with us to make sure that we follow through on our commitments.
73
-------
The workgroup unanimously agreed that the teleconferences that QAHS had been
arranging should be continued. He are willing to come up with the agenda and
run those teleconferences. It still would be helpful, however, if QAMS would
continue to arrange for the teleconference facilities. The monthly schedule
that we were shooting for is worth continuing.
We received some criticism last year for our lateness in arranging last
summer's ORD QAO workgroup meeting. We took it to heart and now have
completed arrangements for next summer's meeting. It will be held in Boulder,
Colorado, in June. Arrangements have been completed by Bill McCarthy for the
site, and we now are arranging for participation from the National Institute
of Standards and Technology. Participation by the National Center for
Atmospheric Research also is a possibility.
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER OF THE YEAR AWARD
75
-------
SUBJECT: Nomination of Gerald F. McKenna as Quality Assurance Manager of the
Year
FROM: Louis Bevilacqua, Chief
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section
TO: Kevin Hull, Program Analyst
Quality Assurance Management Staff
My staff and I wish to nominate our Branch Chief and Regional Quality
Assurance Officer, Gerald McKenna, for Quality Assurance Manager of the
Year. I have worked in quality assurance (QA) for eight years now, six of
which have been directly for Jerry, and I know of no other EPA manager,
nationally, who has done so much to promote understanding of the benefits and
values of QA.
Jerry is entrusted with the mission of ensuring that all work done in Region 2
is of the highest quality, technically sound, and legally defensible, and he
does so with a dedication to an effective and productive QA office. He serves
EPA and the public by eliminating unreliable data, unnecessary collection of
data, or duplication of effort, thus resulting in cost efficient monitoring
programs.
Jerry is committed to an effective and formalized QA program for monitoring
carried out under all programs in Region 2. He advocates a well defined and
easily understandable QA/quality control (QC) program and works to build QA/QC
into monitoring efforts to become an integral part of them, not Just a set of
rules and regulations to be adhered to.
He initiated the regional QA training course that his staff provides to EPA,
states, contractors, and other Federal agency personnel. This course
introduces QA/QC concepts and gives field, management, and analytical
personnel a better understanding of the reasons behind the requirements, and
how their roles and responsibilities affect the quality and usability
of the data generated.
He has promoted and participated in cooperative efforts between EPA, state,
contractor, private party, and other Federal agency staff and management to
exchange ideas and opinions on QA issues in order to expedite project
schedules and to prevent QA from becoming a "bottleneck."
Jerry has dedicated his time to the following projects or programs:
1. Because of his expertise, he was instrumental in
developing the QA objectives for a Quality Assurance
Management Staff workgroup. This entailed establishing
national program policies. He traveled extensively to
Washington, D.C., for a period of about six months,
sacrificing personal time to get the work completed.
77
-------
2. He works with the International Joint Commission, Niagara
River Monitoring workgroups, to assure that Niagara River
investigations are carried out at the highest level of
quality.
3. He was the driving force in Region 2 in the decision to
develop and implement the QTRAK system, which tracks QA
project plan compliance and activities in the region.
Jerry was instrumental in developing the "Good Buy/Bad
Guy" list, which is a unique QTRAK application.
4. He has a commitment to the Superfund programs to make QA
an integral part of all monitoring done in the region to
train non-technical personnel in the importance of QA,
thus ensuring the technical soundness and defensibility
of all data generated.
5. He has been an integral part in the development and
implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) QA program for Region 2. RCRA monitoring
programs are of a diverse nature and developmental; thus,
this has been an extremely difficult task. Jerry has
also served as a member of RCRA's Hazardous Waste Ground
Water Task Force and has provided significant input into
the development and implementation of the nationwide QA
policy of this taskforce.
6. He developed the Region 2 QA program plan in 1983, which
became a national model, assigning responsibilities and
work activities to enhance the regional QA posture.
7. He was the driving force in the creation of the Long
Island Sound Quality Assurance Subcommittee. This
committee was delegated the responsibility of assuring
the generation of high quality data from the various
projects involved in the Long Island Sound Estuary
Study.
8. Under his guidance, the Region 2 CLP Data Review Program
was developed. This entailed review of data
characterizing Superfund/hazardous waste sites,
determining its quality, and eliminating poor quality.
9. Under his guidance, states within Region 2 have developed
equivalent programs and committed resources to implement
QA throughout their programs.
In conclusion, we feel that Jerry represents the highest ideal of a QA manager
in his belief in and implementation of QA as an integral and valuable part of
any monitoring program. He has personally and professionally brought this
ideal into reality and given an irreplaceable service to EPA.
78
-------
SUBJECT: Nomination of Gerald F. McKenna as Quality Assurance Manager of the
Year
FROM: Barbara Metzger, Director
Environmental Services Division, Region 2
TO: Stanley M. Blacker, Director
Quality Assurance Management Staff
THROUGH: James R. Marshall, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator
Perhaps the most important task for quality assurance (QA) managers in EPA
these days is the selling of the concept of QA outside the QA community. This
QA marketing is the specialty of Gerald F. McKenna, the QA Officer (QAO) in
Region 2. It is Jerry's vision and implementation of QA marketing that has
significantly increased the value and effectiveness of data collection in the
region, and that is the basis for this award nomination.
However, QA outreach today would make no sense if the QA community had not
first developed a QA program that made sense for the Agency and that could be
implemented by the QAO's in the regions, the Office of Research and
Development, and the program offices. The fact that EPA is now in this
position is due in no small part to Jerry McKenna's persistence and dedication
to the cause.
As Region 2's first and, so far, only QAO, Jerry has worked with other QAO's,
with the Quality Assurance Management Staff (QAMS) and with other Region 2
personnel, to develop practical QA procedures. He and his staff participated
extensively in the development of the guidance for preparing a QA program plan
(QAPP), the key to unlocking an organization's data quality management.
Region 2 also produced under his leadership a regional QAPP that has been used
by others as a model.
Jerry and his staff have also led the national effort to develop a consensus
description of an ideal regional QA program as a means of bringing the 10
regional offices to a common ground of understanding, and to be used in
negotiating with the program offices for QA resources. This ideal program
description was finally approved at a Joint meeting of the Environmental
Services Division directors and regional QAO's in November. Not incidentally,
Jerry was one of the main organizers of this highly successful meeting.
During the past few years, it has become clear that a sufficient framework
exists for Region 2 to be able to define its data needs and to oversee the
satisfaction of them.
But it became equally clear to Jerry that he and his QA staff could not and
should not do it alone. The Job could only be done through the cooperative
efforts of the managerial and technical staff in EPA, the states, our
contractors, and the regulated community. The cooperation would only come if
this disparate group of people all "bought the concept." Jerry's answer?
Sell! Jerry sells by communicating tirelessly with all of these different
79
-------
groups, and by encouraging his staff to do the same. The communication takes
the form of formal training, formal seminars, papers, informal presentations,
and countless phone calls and meetings.
Sometimes the message is straightforward, as in the formal training course
that Jerry and his staff present to Superfund and RCRA project managers (PM's)
in which they teach the PM's what to do and how to do it. Sometimes it is
more oblique, such as the informal session he arranged with the regional
administrator (RA) and deputy RA to show them the data quality objectives
(DQO's) program that QAMS has developed in the hope that they would buy
playing the game. Sometimes the outreach is indirect, such as his tough
insistence that QAMS make its DQO training more responsive to the real needs
of the region. Sometimes it fits into the political scene, such as presenting
sessions for the state environmental grantees on the effects and requirements
of the new grant regulations. Sometimes it is outside the normal EPA
channels, such as Jerry's recent participation in a Hewlett Packard
Teleconference on Quality as one of 10 distinguished national leaders, getting
the QA message to a huge national audience of "movers and shakers."
The benefits of his selling of QA in Region 2 are equally varied. As a direct
result of Jerry's outreach, Region 2's Superfund PM's now routinely include QA
considerations in scoping meetings and project plans, thus greatly increasing
the appropriateness of monitoring and greatly reducing the frequency of
rejected data and wasted monitoring. The region's three major states all now
have effective QA programs that are supported honestly by management, rather
than by the empty commitment associated with early signings. In one of the
largest air toxic monitoring projects in history, two states, four
universities, and several EPA offices all agreed to pursue a host of
extraordinary QA measures, a considerable benefit of the QA selling done by
Jerry and his staff.
The most important, and most lasting, benefit of Jerry's QA outreach is that
non-QA people in the regional office, in the states, and in the private sector
are beginning to think about QA independently, not just because EPA will come
and get them if they don't. One of our states is, for the first time,
actively prosecuting laboratories that cheat on drinking water analyses. The
Region 2 laboratory voluntarily asked to be audited. Independent labs and
contractors call up to request guidance for setting up QA programs.
In Region 2, Jerry has the nickname "Father McKenna," in large part because of
the loving and considerate way he treats his staff. In fact, the nickname is
equally appropriate for Jerry as the father of Region 2's QA program. He has
brought it from infancy to a blossoming maturity. Now, through QA marketing,
he is sending it out to the world, and deserves recognition for this entire
guiding process.
80
-------
SUBJECT: Nomination of Gerald F. McKenna as Quality Assurance Manager of the
Year
FROM: Charles Jones, Jr., Regional QA Officer
Environmental Service Division, Region 3
TO: Stanley M. Blacker, Director
Quality Assurance Management Staff
I am proud to submit the name of Gerald F. McKenna, EPA, Region 2, for
consideration as Quality Assurance Manager of the Year. Jerry, as he is
affectionately known, has served EPA as a Laboratory Analyst, Manpower
Training Officer, Regional Quality Assurance Officer, and currently as Chief
of the Monitoring Management Branch, which also manages the quality assurance
(QA) program for Region 2. His experience and achievements over the last 15
years more than satisfy the criteria exemplified by the award in question.
As an analyst (field and laboratory), he gained firsthand information on the
problems/conditions that affected and continue to affect our environment. Not
satisfied with existing conditions that prevailed in the laboratory, he sought
more efficient ways (methods) to improve performance. Data availability and
interpretation were paramount if sound environmental decisions were to be
made. Jerry originated a process that permitted technical staff to understand
this need, and this in turn allowed non-lab personnel to utilize the data more
readily.
His analytical experience/accomplishments gave him an insight for any
environmental problems along with their resolution. This insight proved
invaluable as the manpower training officer. His technical skills, his
concern for the environment, coupled with his interest in people, enabled him
to have a meaningful and successful QA training program. (One of Jerry's many
strong points is his proven record in dealing with people to get the job
done.) His training program proved beneficial to EPA staff, state personnel,
and members of the regulated community, enabling them to execute their
responsibilities toward cleaning up the environment.
During his tenure as the Region 2 QA Officer (pre and post QAMS), Jerry has
been conscientious in his efforts to enhance a QA program. Towards this end
he has worked with many groups—EPA, states, Canadian government, industry,
academia—for the implementation of QA. Specifically, he has served on
numerous headquarters workgroups, participated in the initial QA management
systems audit (MSA) of a national program office as a regional representative;
and also assisted QAMS in the initial QA MSA of a regional office.
During the formation of EPA's formalized QA program under QAMS, he
demonstrated an uncanny ability to logically view the issues that were
presented by the "QA experts" and then state them in a format that was readily
understood by the layperson. This resulted in timely development of Agency QA
policy and guidance documents to support EPA's fledgling QA program. Jerry
also provided a high level of detail to specific QA problems; yet he
demonstrated his ability not to lose sight of the overall objectives of the
81
-------
program. He fostered cooperation among key individuals to understand and
resolve specific issues, and he puts people at ease (most of the time) while
he is working with them.
As Regional QA Officer/Chief of the Monitoring Management Branch, his region
was the lead region for QA. Jerry proved to be very resourceful, taking the
initiative to get the Job done. He had no particular reluctance in taking
initiatives necessary to implement QA concerns that enhanced the overall
program. If he needed information, he simply figured out the best way to get
it; if he needed assistance, he actively pursued the means to get the Job
done. Both staff and management enjoy working with him because he is a man of
his word. Given the task as lead region for QA, he has successfully nurtured
the concepts of QA and spearheaded their incorporation into many national
program offices' environmental monitoring program activities. Emulation of
his accomplishments in this capacity would ensure continued success in
reversing environmental degradation.
Based on his cited accomplishments and attributes, I am privileged to nominate
Gerald F. McKenna for the QA Manager of the Year Award. Having worked with
Jerry on numerous Agency QA activities, I thank you for the opportunity to
enumerate many of the contributions he has made to EPA and the cleansing of
our environment.
82
------- |