Productivity and Quality Improvement
1.2 Interpretations of the Social Model
Several interpretations of the social model seek to address issues of productiv- ity, quality, and performance. While these models can be clustered in several broad categories, actual applications are rarely pure types—even when labeled as a productivity measurement system, a participative management process, or a quality management approach. Hybrid systems are generally the rule. Per- formance measurement and quality management approaches require employee acceptance and involvement. Participation and quality management approaches require some forms of measurement to focus efforts to solve problems and to evaluate results.
Most of the composite work measurement techniques developed by federal and state governments over the past 30 years have been incorporated in the comprehensive productivity measurement approach. While these methods have been around for some time, a more ambitious application of these techniques is involved in explicit efforts to incorporate measures of productivity into organizational processes for goal setting and budgeting. The composite approach goes well beyond the simple control and accountability systems applied in the public sector in the past (see Table 5.2).
The measurement concept has been taken a major step further by paradigms that attempt to combine multiple measures of performance with measures of pro- ductivity and resource usage. Participative management approaches that focus on correctional efforts usually result in a more integrated performance and pro- ductivity improvement model that includes more sophisticated measurement de- vices. These efforts attempt to link performance evaluation with the productivity capacity of the organization (see Table 5.3).
Major experiments to develop methods to analyze and evaluate knowledge- based, white collar organizations in terms of their resource and management requirements, and service and production capacity, are still in the initial stages of
TABLE5.2 Comprehensive Productivity Measurement I. Document organizational goals and objectives.
II. Identify specific organizational activities and programs to be measured.
III. Define work output measures. Methods include engineered work standards, time studies, average unit cost and workload measures, historical volume or output measures, supervisory estimations, and Delphi techniques.
IV. Define input measures (usually in terms of cost or resource utilization).
V. Determine requirements for data collection and productivity reporting systems.
Determine feedback channels.
VI. Integrate productivity measurements into organizational management practices through (a) performance appraisals, (b) monetary incentives, (c) performance targeting, (d) performance contracting, and (e) employee communication efforts.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Office of Personnel Management and U.S. General Accounting Office guidelines.
development (see Table 5.4). While early results are quite tentative, as methods for measuring white-collar productivity become more advanced, public and nonprofit organizations may be able to better understand their capacities for improved quality and productivity.
Team buildinginvolves a number of strategies designed to deal with intra- and inter-group competition and with unresponsiveness and structural rigidi- ties within an organization. Employees are encouraged to address productiv- ity and other operational problems by organizing flexible “semi-autonomous work groups”—operating teams, problem-oriented teams, or management teams
TABLE5.3 Integrated Performance Productivity Measurement
I. Define organizational goals and determine how performance management tech- niques can assist in achieving those goals.
II. Hold orientation meetings between management and employee representatives.
III. Determine productivity indicators.
IV. Survey employee attitudes toward work environment and assignments.
V. Survey client satisfaction with products and services of the organization.
VI. Discuss productivity indicators, employee attitudes, and citizen satisfaction levels in organizational meetings.
VII. Establish action plans to remedy identified problems.
VIII. Implement action plans and evaluate results.
IX. Institute employee–management problem solving, communications, and team building and capacity building training efforts.
Source: Adapted from Total Performance Management System Report, City of San Diego, California, 1985.
TABLE5.4 Experimental Productivity Measurement
I. Analyze significant factors associated with tasks undertaken within the organization.
1. Degree to which work assignments are structured and clearly defined.
2. Degree of multiple dimensions to work aspects.
3. Degrees of task ambiguity.
4. Levels of judgment discretion required and permitted.
5. Extent to which unforeseen events and results may impact work.
6. Time lag between actions and outcomes.
7. Subjectivity over value of outputs and inputs.
II. Develop an integrated approach to productivity measurement.
1. Definitions and measurements of output must be tied to organizational strategies and goals.
2. The analysis of productivity must focus on factors instinctively used by program managers.
3. Output must be assessed in subjective terms for many knowledge work organizations.
4. Reliability of data and relationship to performance must be stressed in produc- tivity analysis.
III. Design conclusions.
1. Managers are (or should be) concerned with broad concepts such as quality, innovation, and flexibility.
2. Detailed indicators of effectiveness are needed that can be reliably assessed and correlated with each other.
3. Systems must be flexible for different units of analysis.
IV. Experimental concept.
1. Detailed indicators of effectiveness must be aggregated into clusters represent- ing broad areas of output or effectiveness.
a. Creativity, challenge, and teamwork.
b. Standards and ease of work procedures.
c. Pace and work intensity.
d. Flexibility.
e. Experimentation.
f. Adequacy of resources for work.
2. Use statistical methods to ensure reliability of results.
V. System validation.
Source: Adapted from the work of Dr. Michael Packer, Laboratory on Manufacturing and Produc- tivity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
(see Table 5.5). A major emphasis is on building a framework for cooperation and communication.
Origins of thequality control circleare generally traced to experiences in Japanese industry where impressive productivity rates were attributed to highly goal-oriented, group activities within organizations. The underlying concept of
TABLE5.5 Team Building
Objectives: improving organizational productivity.
Job enrichment; increasing the variety of tasks to be performed and the skills of the employee.
Encouraging greater worker participation and cooperation.
Enhancing employee autonomy.
Major variations
Operating teams: groups of employees who perform their normal day-to-day tasks as a team.
Problem-oriented teams: groups of employees who are brought together to discuss and recommend solutions to specific problems.
Management teams: groups of supervisory management personnel who work to- gether regularly on operational problems and address problems with transcenden- tal objectives.
Critical variables for success
Teams must be assigned whole tasks with identifiable, meaningful, and significant objectives.
Members of the team must have a number of different skills required for group completion of the tasks.
Teams must be given autonomy to make decisions about methods by which work is completed.
Evaluation of the team should be based on performance of the group as a whole rather than team contributions of individuals.
Source: Adapted from John Greinier. Productivity and Motivation. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1981.
the quality circle is that small voluntary groups of key participants can do more than discuss problems—they can plan for and implement actual solutions (see Table 5.6). Three critical factors need to be considered in establishing such autonomous, voluntary groups: (1) management, employees, and the unions must be firmly committed to this cooperative approach, (2) a concept of measurement must be established to serve as the basis for the assessment of the work environment and productivity changes, and (3) some form of facilitative expertise must be provided to assist in organizing, focusing, and implementing the quality circle deliberations.
In thequality of worklife(QWL) approach, criteria for project evaluation can go beyond short-range performance and productivity measures to focus on broader measurements of the quality of life in the work environment. In the QWL approach, employees participate in all phases—research, planning, implementation of change, and evaluation—as part of a decision-making process based on obtaining consensus among all sectors of the organization (see Table 5.7).
TABLE5.6 Quality Circles I. Initiation
A. Obtain organizational commitment from management.
B. Locate employee level interest and participation.
C. Establish an organizational steering group and working group.
D. Plan for facilitator and circle member training.
E. Develop goals and objectives for the program.
II. Development
A. Train facilitators for quality circles in group dynamics, group leadership, and problem-solving techniques.
B. Solicit names of employees interested in becoming circle members.
C. Conduct circle member training (if desired, as necessary).
III. Implementation
A. Establish circles and resolve mechanical issues: name, minutes, proceedings, rules, logistics, and communications.
B. Conduct problem-solving techniques training within the quality circle process.
1. Problem identification.
2. Problem selection.
3. Problem analysis and information collection.
4. Develop solutions and make recommendations.
5. Review process.
6. Implementation by members of the circle.
IV. Evaluation
A. Follow-up on circle activities.
B. Assess impact of the circle’s recommendations.
C. Evaluate organizational impacts on circles.
Source: Adapted from NASA, Lewis Research Center, Report on Quality Circle Process. Cleveland, OH, 1985.
TABLE5.7 Quality of Worklife
Objective: Jointly determine and implement organizational effectiveness by addressing explicit internal goals and objectives to include performance, behavior, and effective dimensions of work.
Project evaluation criteria: Go beyond both short-range measures of performance (e.g., productivity, efficiency, standards of performance) and long-range productivity measures (e.g., absenteeism, cooperation, grievances, and turnover) by focusing on specific measurements of quality of work life and work environment.
Participative management: Throughout all phases—research, planning, change, and eval- uation. Organization and individual needs balanced in addressing productivity, perfor- mance, work environment, and quality of working life issues. Voluntary experiment to re-engage the “expertise” of the worker in dealing with organizational and individual problems.
2 TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Total quality management (TQM) involves a series of techniques, formulated initially by W. Edward Deming, while working with the Japanese in the early 1950s. These techniques were elaborated upon by Joseph M. Juran (also working with the Japanese) and Philip Crosby in the 1970s. The writings of Deming, Juran, and Crosby have found more recent favor in the United States in such industrial entities as Ford, Xerox, Motorola, and Hewlett-Packard. TQM is “a structural system for creating organization-wide participation in planning and implementing a continuous improvement process that exceeds the expectations of the customer. It is built on the assumption that 90 percent of problems are process, not employee, problems [4].”