Managing for Results: Answers to Hearing Questions on Quality Management
(Correspondence, 09/10/1999, GAO/GGD-99-181R).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on quality
management in the federal government, focusing on: (1) whether a
vigorous quality management program should be implemented in addition to
the strategic planning framework mandated by the Government Performance
and Results Act; (2) whether the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has the necessary resources and institutional knowledge to implement a
quality management initiative; (3) whether the National Partnership for
Reinventing Government (NPR) initiative should be located in an agency
like OMB; (4) whether there were other quality management programs that
were initiated by previous administrations; (5) how information in
agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and performance
reports can be used to identify and facilitate improvements in the
quality processes; (6) whether agencies can successfully integrate total
quality management and the Results Act to address management problems;
(7) how Congress can best use agencies' strategic and performance plans
to identify the degree to which agencies have implemented quality
management; and (8) how the Results Act provides for employee
involvement.

GAO noted that: (1) GAO's work concerning high-performing organizations
provides useful insight; (2) leaders in successful organizations
integrate the implementation of separate organizational improvement
efforts; (3) regardless of whether these reforms are self-initiated or
mandated by legislation, agency top leadership needs to meld these
various reforms into a coherent, unified effort; (4) there are serious
questions about whether OMB would have the institutional knowledge and
resources needed to implement a quality management initiative; (5)
historically, OMB has been reluctant to become heavily involved in some
management initiatives because of the small size of its staff and its
view that federal agencies themselves are responsible and accountable
for making management improvements; (6) prior to NPR, previous
administrations undertook a series of related quality management
efforts; (7) in February 1986, President Reagan issued an Executive
Order that formally established a governmentwide effort to improve the
productivity, quality, and timeliness of government products and
services; (8) the President's Quality Award Program, begun in 1988, has
given awards to federal government organizations for: (a) improving
their overall performance and capabilities; and (b) demonstrating a
sustained trend in providing high-quality products and services that
results in the effective use of taxpayer-dollars; (9) the information in
agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and performance
reports can be an important tool to identify and facilitate improvements
in quality processes; (10) no serious effort to fundamentally improve
the performance of federal agencies can succeed without addressing
long-standing management challenges and program risks; (11) GAO noted
that it has long advocated that congressional committees of jurisdiction
hold augmented oversight hearings on each of the major agencies; (12)
information on missions, goals, strategies, resources, and results could
provide a consistent starting point for each of these hearings; and (13)
the Results Act does not have a specific requirement for employee
involvement, other than to identify the development of strategic and
annual performance plans and performance reports as inherently
governmental functions that must only be done by federal employees.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-99-181R
     TITLE:  Managing for Results: Answers to Hearing Questions on
	     Quality Management
      DATE:  09/10/1999
   SUBJECT:  Total quality management
	     Strategic planning
	     Public administration
	     Performance measures
	     Accountability
IDENTIFIER:  GAO Total Quality Management System
	     President's Quality Award Program
	     National Partnership for Reinventing Government

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

    United States General Accounting Office
    General Government Division Washington, D.C.  20548 B-283613
    September 10, 1999 The Honorable George V. Voinovich, Chairman
    Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,
    and the District of Columbia Committee on Governmental Affairs
    United States Senate Subject:  Managing for Results:  Answers to
    Hearing Questions on Quality Management Dear Mr. Chairman: This
    letter responds to your request for information following your
    July 29th hearing on quality management.  The enclosure contains
    our responses to questions we received from your Subcommittee
    dated August 23, 1999. Our responses are based primarily on our
    previously issued work on management reform, and we therefore did
    not obtain agency comments on a draft of this letter.  We are
    sending copies of this letter to Senator Richard J. Durbin,
    Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
    Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Senate
    Committee on Governmental Affairs.  We will make copies available
    to others upon request.  If you have any questions concerning this
    letter, please contact me at (202) 512-8676. Sincerely yours, J.
    Christopher Mihm Associate Director, Federal Management and
    Workforce Issues Page 1                             GAO/GGD-99-
    181R Answers to Hearing Questions on Quality Management Enclosure
    Responses to Subcommittee Questions Following July 29, 1999,
    Quality Management Hearing 1.  Should a vigorous quality
    management program be implemented governmentwide in addition to
    the strategic planning framework mandated by the Results Act? We
    have not done work to specifically identify whether a
    governmentwide quality management program, separate from the
    statutory and management initiatives already under way, is needed.
    However, our work concerning high-performing organizations
    provides useful insight.  First, as noted in our statement for the
    hearing, leaders in successful organizations integrate the
    implementation of separate organizational improvement efforts.1
    Regardless of whether these reforms are self-initiated, such as
    Total Quality Management (TQM), or mandated by legislation, such
    as the Results Act, agency top leadership needs to meld these
    various reforms into a coherent, unified effort. Second, high-
    performing organizations understand and can articulate how their
    day-to-day performance contributes to results and improved
    customer satisfaction--a key tenet of quality management.
    Consequently, any effort to improve governmentwide performance
    also needs to pay attention to the day-to-day processes and
    strategies that agencies employ to achieve mission-related
    results.  Effective implementation of the Results Act requires
    such attention.  Our work that looks at agencies' fiscal year 2000
    performance plans has shown that agencies need to improve how
    their human capital and management resources and strategies are
    linked to achieving mission-related results.2  Understanding and
    then articulating how these resources and strategies can best be
    mobilized to produce results is crucial if agencies are to improve
    their performance. The fiscal year 1999 program performance
    reports, due to Congress by March 31, 2000, under the Results Act,
    will provide valuable evidence concerning the degree to which
    agencies have considered and understand how their processes and
    strategies lead to results.  Each agency, in its report, is to
    compare the agency's actual performance against the goals
    established in its annual performance plan.  In cases where a goal
    has not been met, the agency is to explain why and discuss the
    plans and schedules for achieving the established performance
    goals.  Agencies that lack a clear understanding of the
    relationships among the agency's 1 Management Reform:  Using the
    Results Act and Quality Management to Improve Federal Performance
    (GAO/T-GGD-99-151, July 29, 1999). 2 Managing for Results:
    Opportunities for Continued Improvements in Agencies' Performance
    Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215, July 20, 1999). Page 2
    GAO/GGD-99-181R Answers to Hearing Questions on Quality Management
    Enclosure Responses to Subcommittee Questions Following July 29,
    1999, Quality Management Hearing resources, processes, products
    and services, and results will not likely be in a position to
    successfully meet this requirement. 2.  Does the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) have the necessary resources and
    institutional knowledge to implement a quality management
    initiative? While we have not examined this issue directly, we
    would note that in 1990 OMB's governmentwide TQM leadership
    functions and its staffing devoted to TQM were moved into the
    Federal Quality Institute (FQI), which at the time was part of the
    Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  As a result, there are
    serious questions about whether OMB would have the institutional
    knowledge and resources needed to implement a quality management
    initiative. The degree to which OMB provides management
    initiatives with the necessary resources and commitment has been a
    perennial question, and we have found that the effectiveness of
    OMB's leadership with regard to management issues has been uneven.
    OMB's challenge is to carry out its central management leadership
    responsibilities in a manner that leverages the opportunities of
    the budget process, while at the same time ensuring that
    management issues receive appropriate attention in an environment
    driven by budget and policy decisions. 3.  I consider the National
    Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) the Clinton
    Administration's quality management initiative. Its stated goals
    are making government work better and cost less, with an emphasis
    on customer service.  However, NPR lacks institutional leadership
    that transcends one person or one administration.  Given that,
    would it make more sense to locate an initiative like NPR in an
    agency like OMB? As your question suggests, management initiatives
    must have sustained support from the political and career
    leadership to be successful.  As long as top leadership support
    exists, a variety of organizational arrangements can be used to
    implement management reforms.  Absent top leadership support, a
    management initiative is unlikely to be sustained and successful,
    regardless of where responsibility for leading the initiative is
    housed.  In response to our 1996 report on NPR's Reinvention Labs,
    administration officials noted that OMB's historical role, its
    budget responsibilities, and its statutory management
    responsibilities often compete with exercising a role as a "change
    agent" seeking to foster Page 3           GAO/GGD-99-181R Answers
    to Hearing Questions on Quality Management Enclosure Responses to
    Subcommittee Questions Following July 29, 1999, Quality Management
    Hearing innovation.3  Historically, OMB has been reluctant to
    become heavily involved in some management initiatives because of
    the small size of its staff and its view that federal agencies
    themselves are responsible and accountable for making management
    improvements. In this context, we have found that effective
    collaboration with the agencies-through such approaches as task
    forces and interagency councils-has emerged as an important
    central leadership strategy in developing policies that are
    sensitive to implementation concerns and the need to secure
    consensus and consistent follow-through within the executive
    branch.  OMB's work with interagency councils has been successful
    in fostering communication across the executive branch, building
    commitment to reform efforts, tapping talents that exist within
    agencies, keeping management issues in the forefront, and
    initiating important improvement projects. 4.  Can you identify
    any other quality management programs that were initiated by
    previous administrations?  What became of them? Prior to NPR,
    previous administrations undertook a series of related quality
    management efforts.  In February 1986, President Reagan issued an
    Executive Order that formally established a governmentwide effort
    to improve the productivity, quality, and timeliness of government
    products and services.  This effort was continued with OMB
    Circular A-132, which until 1989 mandated a governmentwide TQM
    effort and provided guidelines for the development and
    implementation of a productivity and quality improvement process
    in the executive branch.  An OMB official recalled that agencies
    viewed the reporting requirements of this initiative as too
    burdensome, and consequently emphasis on this particular TQM
    program waned. The Federal Quality Institute was also established
    in 1988 to serve as a source of information, training, and
    consulting services for agencies engaged in TQM.  As noted
    earlier, in 1990 OMB's governmentwide leadership functions and
    resources devoted to TQM implementation were consolidated into
    FQI.  In 1995, Congress eliminated FQI's funding, and its
    responsibilities were shifted within OPM.  The Federal Quality
    Consulting Group, FQI's successor, is a federal franchise activity
    within the Treasury Department that offers federal agencies
    consulting and facilitation services. 3 Management Reform:  Status
    of Agency Reinvention Lab Efforts (GAO/GGD-96-69, Mar. 20, 1996).
    Page 4                         GAO/GGD-99-181R Answers to Hearing
    Questions on Quality Management Enclosure Responses to
    Subcommittee Questions Following July 29, 1999, Quality Management
    Hearing Additionally, the President's Quality Award Program (PQA),
    begun in 1988, has given awards to federal government
    organizations for (1) improving their overall performance and
    capabilities and (2) demonstrating a sustained trend in providing
    high-quality products and services that results in the effective
    use of taxpayer dollars.  OPM manages the program, and its award
    criteria are closely aligned with the Malcom Baldrige National
    Quality Award criteria used to recognize private sector
    organizations.  The PQA award criteria have evolved to become more
    results-oriented and now include a distinct category for producing
    results in areas such as customer focus and human resources.  This
    adaptation reflects quality management's overall evolution from a
    focus primarily on quality and employee issues to a broader,
    results-oriented focus.  Since 1988, the PQA program has
    recognized federal organizations 85 times, including most recently
    9 organizations last July. 5.  How can the information in agency
    strategic plans, annual performance plans, and performance reports
    be used to identify and facilitate improvements in quality
    processes? The information in agency strategic plans, annual
    performance plans, and performance reports can be an important
    tool to identify and facilitate improvements in quality processes.
    The connection between what agencies do on a daily basis and the
    results that those activities are intended to achieve are key
    elements of all three Results Act products. The information in
    these documents can be crucial in identifying performance gaps,
    targeting improvement opportunities, and tracking progress. 6.
    How can agencies successfully integrate total quality management
    and the Results Act to address some of the more long- standing
    management problems? No serious effort to fundamentally improve
    the performance of federal agencies can succeed without addressing
    long-standing management challenges and program risks.  The
    Results Act and quality management, with their shared focus on
    using sound performance data to make decisions, can provide an
    integrated approach to improving both the overall results agencies
    seek to achieve and the processes that contribute to those
    results.  Measurable goals for resolving mission-critical
    management problems are important to ensuring that the agencies
    have the institutional capacity to achieve their more results-
    oriented programmatic goals.  Our assessment of the fiscal year
    2000 annual Page 5           GAO/GGD-99-181R Answers to Hearing
    Questions on Quality Management Enclosure Responses to
    Subcommittee Questions Following July 29, 1999, Quality Management
    Hearing performance plans showed that agencies are not
    consistently addressing management challenges and program risks in
    their plans. Agencies that did address the challenges and risks in
    their plans used a variety of approaches, including setting goals
    and performance measures that were linked to the management
    challenges and program risks.  These agencies also discussed the
    strategies and processes that are to be used to address the
    program risks.  Using the annual performance plans to identify
    strategies and processes for addressing management challenges and
    program risks is a clear illustration of how quality management's
    focus on processes can be used to complement the Results Act in
    addressing program risks.  For example, the Department of
    Transportation's (DOT) lack of controls over its financial
    activities impairs its ability to manage programs and exposes the
    department to potential waste, fraud, mismanagement, and abuse.
    DOT's performance plan identifies financial accounting as a
    management challenge and addresses key weaknesses that need to be
    resolved before DOT can obtain an unqualified audit opinion.
    Importantly, DOT's corporate management strategies include efforts
    to receive an unqualified audit opinion, enhance the efficiency of
    the accounting operation, and implement a pilot of the improved
    financial systems environment. 7.  How can Congress best use the
    information in agencies' strategic plans, performance plans, and
    performance reports to identify the degree to which agencies have
    quality management and related initiatives in place? In our recent
    report summarizing our reviews of agencies' fiscal year 2000
    annual performance plans, we noted that we have long advocated
    that congressional committees of jurisdiction hold augmented
    oversight hearings on each of the major agencies.4  Information on
    missions, goals, strategies, resources, and results could provide
    a consistent starting point for each of these hearings.  Such
    hearings also would further underscore for agencies the importance
    that Congress places on creating high- performing executive
    organizations.  Performance planning under the Results Act should
    allow for more informed decisions about such issues as *  whether
    the agency is pursuing the right goals and making progress toward
    achieving them; *  whether the federal government is effectively
    coordinating its responses to pressing national needs; 4
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215, July 20, 1999. Page 6
    GAO/GGD-99-181R Answers to Hearing Questions on Quality Management
    Enclosure Responses to Subcommittee Questions Following July 29,
    1999, Quality Management Hearing *  whether the federal government
    is achieving an expected level of performance for the budgetary
    and other resource commitments that have been made; *  the degree
    to which the agency has the best mix of programs, initiatives, and
    other strategies to achieve results; *  the progress the agency is
    making in addressing mission-critical management challenges and
    program risks; *  the efforts under way to ensure that the
    agency's human capital strategies are linked to strategic and
    programmatic planning and accountability mechanisms; and *  the
    status of the agency's efforts to use information technology to
    achieve results. 8.  One of the keys to the success of Ohio's
    Quality Services through Partnership initiative was employee
    involvement.  How does the Results Act provide for employee
    involvement? The Results Act does not have a specific requirement
    for employee involvement, other than to identify the development
    of strategic and annual performance plans and performance reports
    as inherently governmental functions that must only be done by
    federal employees. Nevertheless, the involvement of managers and
    employees throughout the organization is important because if
    agencies are to implement and sustain major management reforms, a
    cultural transformation must occur at agencies that requires them
    to more effectively manage, develop, and involve their most
    important assettheir human capital.  This cultural transformation
    requires employees to understand the importance of, and the
    connection between, their individual performance and achieving
    overall agency goals.  Employees who are unsure about the
    direction their agency is taking will not be able to effectively
    focus on achieving those goals. When we surveyed federal managers
    at the GS-13 level and above in late 1996 and early 1997, over
    half of the managers said that they had no involvement in many of
    the activities related to their agency's implementation of the
    Results Act.  However, members of the Senior Executive Service
    (SES) reported higher levels of involvement in key Results Act-
    related activities.  For example, 72 percent of the SES managers
    reported that they had been involved in establishing long-term
    strategic goals for their agency.  On the other hand, only 35
    percent of non- SES managers reported being involved in
    establishing strategic goals.  At the request of the Subcommittee,
    we are conducting the survey again to see whether the level of
    involvement has increased over the last 3 years. Page 7
    GAO/GGD-99-181R Answers to Hearing Questions on Quality Management
    Page 8    GAO/GGD-99-181R Answers to Hearing Questions on Quality
    Management Page 9    GAO/GGD-99-181R Answers to Hearing Questions
    on Quality Management Page 10    GAO/GGD-99-181R Answers to
    Hearing Questions on Quality Management Ordering Information The
    first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional
    copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following
    address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
    Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard
    credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
    be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Order by
    mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC
    20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts.
    NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also
    be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202)
    512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of
    newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies
    of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call
    (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will
    provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information
    on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send e-mail message
    with "info" in the body to: [email protected] or visit GAO's World
    Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov United States General
    Accounting Office           Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
    Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty
    for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested (410500)

*** End of document. ***