This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 06 September 2013, At: 08:36Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quality EngineeringPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lqen20

Al Gore's Initiative of Reinventing the Government: The RealStory of Total Quality Management in the Federal GovernmentHazem D. Maragah a & Rafael A. Corredoira ba Decision Sciences Department, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, 19104, U.S.A.b Department of General and Strategic Management, Fox School of Business and Management, TempleUniversity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19122, U.S.A.Published online: 15 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Hazem D. Maragah & Rafael A. Corredoira (2002) Al Gore's Initiative of Reinventing the Government: The Real Story ofTotal Quality Management in the Federal Government, Quality Engineering, 14:2, 279-291, DOI: 10.1081/QEN-100108685

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/QEN-100108685

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

KEY WORDS: Federal government; Malcolm Bal-drige Award; National performance review; President’sAward; Public sector; Reinventing government; Totalquality management.

INTRODUCTION

After World War II, the American economy reignedover the world markets. Both the European and Asianeconomies had been destroyed by the war, creating aworldwide supply shortage. In the absence of interna-tional competitors, world markets bought as much asAmerican industries could supply. In this environment,American companies focused on manufacturing output.“American means quality” was the proud slogan of in-dustry, yet quality and cost played second fiddle to satis-fying the market’s demand.

As time went by, Europe and Japan rebuilt theireconomies and worldwide competition increased. Japan

rebuilt its economy following the principles taught bytwo American experts in quality, Deming and Juran,achieving a quality revolution. The concepts of con-tinuous improvement, empowerment, and participationfound fertile ground in the Japanese culture. Japanesescholars at the Institute of Quality joined in this effortfor quality, developing new tools and concepts such asdecision-making tools, quality circles, and just-in-time.

As Japanese products began eroding the domesticAmerican market in the 1970s, U.S. consumers begandemanding higher quality and lower prices, especially inautomobiles and electronics.

In the 1980s, American companies reacted and triedto boost quality and productivity by implementing thevery tools that had been successful in Japan. However,most of those attempts failed because they were im-plemented without the required organizational trans-formation. Finally, Total Quality Management (TQM)became the American response to the need to achievehigh quality and productivity. TQM is a philosophy, a

Quality Engineering, 14(2), 279–291 (2001–02)

Al Gore’s Initiative of Reinventingthe Government: The Real Story of Total Quality Management in theFederal Government

Hazem D. Maragah1,* and Rafael A. Corredoira2

1Decision Sciences Department, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191042Department of General and Strategic Management, Fox Schoolof Business and Management, Temple University, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 19122

279

Copyright © 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

*Corresponding author. E-mail: Maragah@drexel.edu

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:54 AM Page 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

280 Maragah and Corredoira

framework, in which many of the Japanese tools can beapplied and adjusted to American culture.

In 1982, President Reagan started a movement tosupport private sector pursuits for excellence in quality.Under his presidency, October was declared “QualityMonth” and he signed legislation mandating a nationalconference on productivity. The Malcolm BaldrigeAward was the culmination of this effort; a prize to cel-ebrate the excellence in quality of American companieswas initiated to raise excellence awareness by example.

Responding to consumer and industry demands, thefederal government was pressured to increase qualityand decrease costs of government services. At the sametime, industry lobbied for support to regain their world-class competitiveness.

Finally, in 1993, President Clinton continued the fed-eral quality effort when he launched the National Per-formance Review (NPR) and put it under the leadershipof Vice President Gore. The NPR attempted to trans-form government structures for efficiency, focusing onthe needs of its customers. Gore promised that gov-ernment would “do more and spend less” (1). Afterthe first 6 years, the NPR overcame obstacles, evolved,and promoted continuous improvement in the federalgovernment.

In 1993, a new book caught the attention of the busi-ness world: Reengineering the Corporation by Hammerand Champy. Its authors suggested that the incremen-tal improvement proposed by TQM could not reducethe gap between the top-quality companies and theirfollowers. They called for radical changes in corpora-tions instead; they claimed that companies had to totallyredesign their organization and procedures from theground up (2). Although many companies attemptedthis overhaul approach, the results were not as dramaticas expected. The rate of failure of reengineering pro-grams in the next 4 years was higher than 60%. The af-termath of this experience was the renaissance of TQMas the approach best suited to achieve the quality andproductivity required in today’s environment (3).

By the mid-1990s, most American companies saw animprovement in their suppliers’ quality as efforts to in-corporate TQM practices in their businesses continued,as studies by Epatko (4) show.

THE HISTORY OF TQM IN THEFEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The federal government has been facing pressureto enhance the quality of its services. Consumers de-mand higher quality from the federal government, often

viewed as an inefficient operation with low-quality serv-ices. In addition, the federal government is an importantpart of the economy, and since competition has becomeinternational, the private sector requires governmentsupport to compete against economies with lower costs.The burden of government has to be lower in order tosupport the private sector. This will be reflected in lowertaxes and lower service costs. Furthermore and becausethere is a natural preference at the individual level forlower taxes, the tax load had to be reduced. A large fis-cal deficit and a shrinking budget were the reasons whythe government needed to improve its efficiency.

The first experience with quality circles took place atseveral Department of Defense installations, includingthe Norfolk Naval Shipyard and the Cherry Point NavalAir Station, in the 1970s. In the early 1980s, NASA ini-tiated quality programs internally and with its suppliers(5). However, it was only in the 1980s, a time when inter-national pressures threatened the U.S. economy, that thegovernment recognized that quality was critical to thenation’s economic health.

In October 1982, as a result of a decline in Americanproductivity, President Reagan signed legislation man-dating a national conference on productivity. In 1983, theAmerican Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) rec-ommended that “a National Quality Award, similar tothe Deming Prize in Japan, should be awarded annuallyto those firms that successfully challenge and meet theaward requirements. These requirements and the exam-ination process should be similar to the Deming Prizesystem to be effective” (6). In 1985, NASA announcedan Excellence Award for Quality and Productivity. InFebruary 1986, a Presidential Executive Order aimedat increasing productivity in federal agencies began anorganized federal effort to pursue TQM in governmentagencies. Since then, the number of agencies adoptingsome form of TQM has increased from the original 19 toover 350.

On August 20, 1987, the renowned Malcolm BaldrigeNational Quality Award was signed into law. It wasthe largest commitment to quality that the U.S. govern-ment had ever made. The Baldrige Award, named afterthe Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige, whowas killed in an accident shortly before the Senate actedon the legislation, is administered by the Department ofCommerce and awarded to American corporations. Itspurposes are as follows:

1. To encourage companies to improve qualityto gain a competitive edge and stimulate theeconomy

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:54 AM Page 280

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Al Gore’s Initiative of Reinventing the Government 281

2. To recognize quality achievements and providean example to others

3. To establish guidelines and criteria to evaluatequality improvement efforts and to make themavailable to be used by government and industry

4. To provide specific guidance for American com-panies that wish to learn how to manage for highquality

The Baldrige Award winners demonstrated the effec-tiveness of TQM programs by attaining outstandingachievements within the span of a few years (7). Cus-tomer dissatisfaction and defect levels were reduced inthese companies by an order of magnitude, productivitywas doubled, and costs halved. More importantly, a cul-tural change took place in the organizations that encour-aged employees to make improvements.

In 1987, a group of state and local government em-ployees created an informal network to discuss and pro-mote the use of TQM principles in the public sector.During the next 5 years, the network grew to over 1300members nationwide, becoming the Public Sector Qual-ity Improvement Network, which soon included federalgovernment members and joined the American Societyfor Quality (ASQ). Despite the many federal efforts,overall results have been mixed, ranging from large pro-ductivity gains to a misuse of TQM programs (8).

The President’s Quality Award and the Quality Im-provement Prototype Award are the federal govern-ment’s equivalent to the Malcolm Baldrige NationalQuality Award. These awards were created during theReagan administration and administered by the Officeof Management and Budget. The criteria used by thePresident’s Award are the same as the Baldrige Award;however, the weights of each criterion differ. The Qual-ity Improvement Prototype Award Winners are federalorganizations that demonstrate an extraordinary com-mitment to quality improvement and customer satisfac-tion, serving as a model for the rest of the government.The Hammer Award was created by Vice PresidentGore to reward and recognize individuals and teamsthat achieve outstanding results in “reinventing the gov-ernment.” The award is a $6 hammer wrapped in rib-bon and mounted on an aluminum frame, symbolizingchange from the days when the government paid $600for a simple hammer. Several agencies have created theirown awards [i.e., the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Af-fairs gives the “Scissors Award” to employees who havecut red tape (9)].

In a 1991 survey designed by Zeitz (10), which mea-sured employee attitudes toward TQM in an Environ-

mental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office, heconcluded the following:

● Secretarial /clerical employees have a more favor-able attitude toward TQM than managers becausetheir work is enriched and they gain heightenedstatus.

● Employees performing the bulk of value-addingactivities find that these are least favorable be-cause the program takes resources to do “real”work.

● Lower and middle management have relativelypositive views of TQM because they do not fearlosing their jobs and receive the majority of mostof the training and authority.

● Most employees state that TQM is an excellentidea if implemented properly.

Since 1993, although the number of Federal QualityAwards remained fairly stable, the number of applica-tions for Federal Quality Awards dropped slightly in re-cent years (see Fig. 1). In addition, many publicationsabout the NPR were launched between 1993 and 1997,with few initiated since 1998. This suggests that TQM ef-forts in the federal government increased between 1993and 1997 and then dropped from 1998 to 2000, as the ad-ministration moved on to other priorities.

Despite decreased interest, TQM is still consideredan effective tool for federal agency management. Vaughn(11), analyzing TQM from the Department of Defenseperspective (a department deeply affected by budget andpersonnel reductions), concluded that TQM may pro-vide the needed guidance to support the rightsizing pro-cess in the government.

Figure 1. Federal Quality Awards.

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:54 AM Page 281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

282 Maragah and Corredoira

To make TQM effective in the federal arena, severalsteps and processes must be in place. Several authors(11–15) have concluded that successful implementationsin the federal government depend on the following:

● Top management’s leadership in quality● Inclusion of quality process in the strategic

planning● Participative management● Process measurement● Customer focus● Continuous improvement

Within federal agencies, TQM efforts are exposed toparticular threats:

● Employee fears about the consequences of in-novation, which can threaten powerful interestsand perceived lack of support and recognition re-ceived for quality efforts (16)

● Government’s culture of compliance, perpetuatedby rule-based accountability mechanisms (17)

● Difficulty in maintaining the integrity of long-range TQM efforts stemming from the limitedtenure of government’s top executives (averaging18 months), who focus on policy issues and politi-cal considerations (18)

In 1998 and 1999, federal government surveys re-vealed positive customer service outcomes related to theimplementation of the reinvention process (19). In thesetwo surveys, employees answered questions, which canbe related to TQM dimensions, in a five-point-scalequestionnaire (see Fig. 2). Differences between the re-sponses for both years fall within the margin of error ofthe surveys. Although the results show improved cus-tomer satisfaction, poorer performance is revealed inother dimensions.

There is empirical evidence showing that TQM im-plementation can be measured by employees’ responsesto surveys. Zeitz et al. (20) tested a questionnaire tomeasure cultural and TQM dimensions concordant withthe TQM literature. Although the questionnaire usedby the federal government is not the one developed byZeitz et al., there is some indication that TQM dimen-sions have not improved over 1999, and results suggestthat TQM implementation is still in the early stages inseveral dimensions.

SUCCESSFUL TQM IMPLEMENTATIONSIN GOVERNMENT

In the most successful federal TQM programs, an un-tenable situation triggered the program’s introduction.

The U.S. Postal Service case may be considered a proto-type of the NPR. In 1992, Runyon took over as postmas-ter general and implemented a plan to operate the PostalService as a corporation rather than as a governmentagency. He immediately began reducing managementlayers and costs (downsizing and reengineering), intro-ducing a more customer-oriented approach. In 1994,the Baldrige concepts were established, and by 1998, thePostal Service was top-ranked among federal agencies.The Service broke its 3-year postage rate increase cyclewith a surplus exceeding $1 billion in three consecutiveyears. Today, customer satisfaction and continuous im-provement remain top priorities, with employee partici-pation found throughout the organization (21).

Another positive implementation of TQM is the In-ternal Revenue Service (IRS) case, one of the oldestagencies in the federal government. The IRS programbegan in 1986 in response to the demands of the agency’scustomers. From 1986 to 1992, top-level management’scontinuous commitment to TQM was clear. The initia-tives included training in quality practices, policy state-ments related to quality, expanded training efforts, andproviding quality service. The focus on customer needsled to improvements in telephone customer services(22). In 1992, when the IRS sent out erroneous tax re-funds in excess of $175 million, top management againexpressed its commitment to TQM by modernizing itstechnology and empowering employees to serve tax-payers better (23). A study by Mani (22) showed thatafter TQM implementation, customer satisfaction im-proved but there was no significant change in productiv-ity. However, savings and improvements in customersatisfaction were documented, as a result of projects de-veloped by quality improvement process teams. Accord-ing to several agency officials, “TQM in the IRS had alargely local orientation, implemented piecemeal at thediscretion of the various district and service center di-rectors” (24).

REINVENTING GOVERNMENT: THENATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

One of the most long-term and successful TQM ef-forts was implemented under the Clinton administra-tion’s Reinventing Government program. On March 3,1993, President Clinton announced a 6-month review ofthe federal government and asked Vice President Goreto lead the effort. In April 1993, at the inauguration cere-mony of the National Performance Review (NPR), heannounced to the NPR staff that “our long-term goalis to change the very culture of the Federal Govern-

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:54 AM Page 282

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Al Gore’s Initiative of Reinventing the Government 283

Figure 2. Employee’s responses to the NPR Employee Surveys 1998 and 1999. [Questions are assigned to TQM and cultural di-mension identified in Zeitz et al. (20).]

ment” (25). Vice President Gore was personally in-volved in every aspect of the NPR. He integrated a taskforce of about 250 federal employees—supplementedby teams in each agency—from various areas of the gov-ernment. Over the next 6 months, this team developedrecommendations to improve government efficiency andefficacy (26).

The teams examined federal agencies as well as cross-cutting systems, such as budgeting, procurement, andpersonnel. They gathered information from federal em-ployees at every major agency and division and accumu-lated insights from 30,000 citizens across America (27).Finally, after 6 months, the National Performance Re-view issued its 168-page report.

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 283

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

284 Maragah and Corredoira

In the NPR report, Gore abandoned the “bureau-cratic paradigm” and embraced the “entrepreneurialparadigm,” which Osborne and Gaebler popularized intheir book Reinventing Government: How the Entrepre-neurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector FromSchoolhouse to State House, City Hall to Pentagon (25).Although TQM was not a primary reference point, thesecond chapter of the report, “Putting Customers First,”is a guideline to quality management (3). The report isclearly grounded in TQM and incorporates many keytechniques and ideas (28).

Gore based the report on four principles that are keyto creating an effective, entrepreneurial government.These are to put customers first, empower employees,cut red tape, and get back to basics (29). Another reportby the NPR, titled “From Red Tape to Results: Creatinga Government That Works Better and Costs Less,” andits accompanying reports, containing over 2000 pagesand more than 1200 recommendations, were presentedto President Clinton on September 7, 1993.

The following six steps to achieve the NPR goals weredelineated in the report’s summary (29):

1. Streamline the Budget Process2. Decentralize Personnel Policy3. Streamline Procurement4. Reorient the Inspectors General Via a Broad-

ened Focus5. Eliminate Regulatory Overkill6. Empower State and Local Governments

The recommendations included in the NPR and accom-panying reports range from the extraordinarily expan-sive to the very limited in scope and implications. Goreclaimed that if the Congress passed all the recommen-dations without changes, the federal government wouldsave $108 billion over 5 years, as an entrepreneurial gov-ernment. The plan’s fiscal goal was also to reduce full-time federal jobs by 252,000 employees by 1998.

The NPR report was met with support as soon as itwas made public. It offered a revolutionary approach tochange what were once considered immutable facts that“federal size could not be reduced” and “federal bu-reaucrats were stuck and existing behavior could not bechanged.” With its broad goals, the plan generated greatenthusiasm for change (30). The public immediately ap-proved of the reform plan, as it addressed problems ofmajor concern such as excessive red tape, inefficiency,and high costs of the government, promising to create a“work better/cost less” government along with savingsthat would be reflected in taxpayers’ finances.

On the other hand, it also raised concern, if not criti-

cism, directed to the change-making procedures. Criticsquestioned the effect of the NPR on the administrativesystem. For example, Moe (25) argued that the reportwas a major attack on the administrative managementparadigm and a departure from the previous adminis-trative paradigm, which emphasized the need for demo-cratic accountability to the presidency and through theexecutive branch to Congress. The purpose of this sys-tem was to avoid discretionary favoritism in public agen-cies. Rainey (31) and Romzek and Dubnick (32) pointedout that the NPR involves the challenge of finding waysfor proper accountability to both the executive and legis-lative branches while increasing empowerment and cus-tomer responsiveness to government employees.

Another issue of concern was the transference ofmodels from the private to the public environment. In-graham and Romzek (33) argued that evidence support-ing the transference of models from the private to thepublic sector is tenuous. Experience in the private sectormay have its relevance to public management or its re-form; however, the issue of transferability has to be con-sidered very carefully. Transferring TQM to the publicsector requires step-by-step consideration rather thantransplantation as a whole, they argue.

The different elements of the NPR and how they fittogether also caused some concern about the NPR’s vi-ability. Critics questioned the inclusion of the mutuallyincompatible downsizing and reengineering within theplan. Others questioned whether political appointees,with an average of just 18 months in their positions, couldimplement the long-term strategic planning requiredby TQM.

IMPLEMENTATION OF NPR

Implementation efforts rather than planning have of-ten been a weakness of government initiatives such asNPR (34,35). This time, President Clinton and Vice Pres-ident Gore were committed to doing it differently. Pres-ident Clinton requested the initial report in 6 months tocreate “a government that works better on less moneyand is more responsive” (36). In September 1993, Gorepresented the report and President Clinton insisted thatthis reform effort would succeed:

Here is the most important reason why thisreport is different from earlier ones on govern-ment reform. When Herbert Hoover finished theHoover Commission, he went back to Stanford.When Peter Grace finished the Grace Commis-

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 284

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Al Gore’s Initiative of Reinventing the Government 285

sion, he went back to New York City. But whenthe Vice President finished his report, he had togo back to his office—20 feet from mine—and goback to working to turn the recommendations intoreality. (37)

Since then, academicians and Congress have been debat-ing about NPR’s recommendations while federal agen-cies have been actively implementing them (26).

Initially, Gore called for the creation of ReinventionLaboratories, a place where new practices, processes,and procedures are tried (38– 40). Over 300 such labswere launched throughout the federal government. Gorebegan giving out his Hammer Awards to teams that suc-cessfully implemented the “best business practices” andused them as examples for teaching others. The plan alsoproposed that the first five major agencies for reorgani-zation were the Departments of Transportation, Energy,Housing and Urban Development, the General ServicesAdministration, and the Office of Personnel and Man-agement (41).

As any good model of continuous improvement, theoriginal NPR was continuously updated. Kettl (30) ob-served: “In its first year, the NPR has proven one of themost lively management reforms in American history.”In the NPR’s 1995 annual report, Gore wrote, “Rein-venting the Federal Government isn’t an event. . . [it is]becoming a way of life for employees in agencies and thecustomer across the nation. . . It’s never ‘finished’”(1).By following the TQM principle of continuous improve-ment, teamwork, and empowerment, the NPR has beencontinuously updated, modified, and increased over theyears. Agencies were asked to present new recommen-dations, which were periodically added to the NPR.Among the recommendations in the original report, 254affected major agencies and 130 pertained to govern-mentwide management systems.

In December 1994, President Clinton asked VicePresident Gore to conduct a second review to identifyadditional saving opportunities, and more than 180 newrecommendations were given (1). The NPR initiativewas expanded to reinvent agency regulatory systems, toreduce red tape, and to make the process more openand results-oriented (26). By 1996, responding to thenew environment of reduced agency budgets, Gore in-cluded six new initiatives in the NPR to help the agencyadapt to the budget requirements (42).

The implementation effort included periodic reportsto support the NPR initiative, an effort that empoweredthe agencies, recognized achievements, and encouragedteamwork. To disseminate effective practices, several

benchmarking study reports were released, includingcustomer-driven strategic planning (43), downsizing(44), performance measurement (45), and a resourceguide to manage government for results (46). The an-nual report included information about progress in dif-ferent areas and implementation successes (1). Severalbooks by Gore detailed results from reinvention labora-tories as well as employee initiatives that reduced redtape, improved customer satisfaction, and lowered costs(9,47). In 1997, the Blair House Papers (48) were pre-sented to the Cabinet, providing a more concise meth-odology for pursuing the NPR objectives.

SUCCESS STORIES IN THE NPR

The NPR successfully achieved a significant numberof its goals, according to various authors on the subject.In 1994, Kettl (30) reported the following: “In its firstyear . . . [the NPR] has helped reorient the federal bu-reaucracy toward a far more effective attack on prob-lems that it must learn to solve. Public support has beenoverwhelming.”

Various reports tracking the progress of the NPRshow that many goals were achieved or surpassed. Ac-cording to Kamensky (26), in the first 4 years, the NPRachieved the major goal of making the government workbetter while costing less.

In 1995, customer satisfaction with many federal gov-ernment agencies had improved. For example, the SocialSecurity Administration’s telephone customer servicewas outstanding, ranking No. 1 above corporate Amer-ica’s top role models. As for cutting red tape and need-less verbiage, 55% of federal regulation pages wereeliminated or simplified. Gore noted that from the 1993NPR recommendation savings ($108 billion), $58 billionwere achieved, $50 billion were anticipated, and the fig-ures were increased by $10 billion in bonus saving fromadditional reinvention efforts (1).

In 1996, Gore (9) reported a number of NPR achieve-ments, including the following:

1. The workforce had been reduced by nearly240,000 by eliminating redundant jobs.

2. Superfluous layers of management were elimi-nated (nearly 54,000 supervisors).

3. The government was serving people better,changing the way it treats businesses and workswith communities.

By 1997, Gore reported that the federal workforcewas 309,000 below 1993 figures. The NPR’s reduction of

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

286 Maragah and Corredoira

red tape and bureaucracy led to $132 billions in sav-ings and a more result-guided government (47). DespiteGore’s detailed report on federal savings resulting fromthe NPR initiative, there is no agreement about the fig-ures. In 1993, the General Accounting Office and theCongressional Budget Office estimated the savings inmillions, not in billions, as reported by the Office ofManagement and Budget (49,50).

REINVENTION LABORATORIESAND EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT

The NPR’s laboratories showed positive effects. In1998, the NPR effort included 300 reinvention laborato-ries, with more than 120 of them in the Department ofDefense (DoD). A survey by Gosnell et al. (16) in theDoD’s reinvention laboratories showed that 40% of thelabs had made significant changes and 20% had madesome changes.

Employee teams’ initiatives also initiated successfulimprovement efforts. Instead of spending millions in thedevelopment of a new modem for space missions, NASAadapted a $300 commercial modem, spending only a fewhundred thousand dollars. The DoD, where 230 pages oftravel regulations were reduced to 17 pages to save $400million in administration costs per year, empowered em-ployees and offices to find ways to save taxpayers’ money.Moreover, the use of credit cards for small purchases—an idea originated in 1985 by five Department ofCommerce employees—has been expanded, saving over$700 million and speeding delivery of needed tools toworkers (47).

COMPARISON OF TQM PRINCIPLESAND AL GORE’S INITIATIVE

Goals set under the Gore initiative were financial innature, with no focus on continuous improvement, op-erating efficiencies, and service delivery. The federaleffort lacked specific low-level metrics against which in-dividual agency performance could be measured.

One of the basic TQM principles is that quality im-provement leads to cost reduction. For this reason,consumers can purchase higher-quality goods at lowerprices, increasing volume sales and market share, whichleads to a larger demand of labor force. One of the firstactions required by Gore’s initiative was to cut back thenumber of federal employees. This downsizing is incon-

sistent with traditional TQM. Despite the apparent par-adox, this is a logical result of applying the concepts ofTQM in the federal government, as discussed later.

We also see differences between practices in the treat-ment of business results and in human resource manage-ment. The Baldrige Award criteria emphasize measuringand assessing business results and benchmarking against“Best in Class.” Unlike TQM and Baldrige Award phi-losophies, the NPR initiative does not strive for businessexcellence or the elimination of fear of reprisal, but for$108 billion savings and the cutting of 252,000 employ-ees, according to Gore’s report.

Table 1 provides a summary comparison of thecore principles of the Malcolm Baldrige Frameworkfor Excellence, traditional TQM, and Gore’s 1993 NPRinitiative.

DISCUSSION

The Need for a New Framework

A new framework to evaluate TQM in the federalgovernment is essential because its size and multiple ac-tivities make it a unique organization. TQM implemen-tation in the federal government is a task unmatchedby any other effort of its kind. In 1996, the number ofexecutive-branch employees was more than 1.9 millionand the fiscal deficit alone was around $150 billion (1).The U.S. Postal Service, only one of the many organiza-tions in the federal government, had a $50 billion budgetand would rank No. 8 in the Fortune 500 (21). The fiscaldeficit was three times the budget of a No. 8 Fortune 500company!

Total quality management was actually created forapplication in small manufacturing businesses only. Itwas later expanded to application in larger firms. Today,TQM is facing a new challenge as the new administrationbegins: its application in the largest enterprise ever, theU.S. federal government.

We suggest that two levels be used in the assessment:

1. Macro-government: federal government level.Top management are President, Vice President,and Secretary of State.

2. Micro-government: federal government Depart-ments and Offices level. Top management are thehighest managers in the department or office.

In this framework, macro-government works on a po-litical level, where guidelines and goals are defined forthe micro-government level as a whole. In Table 2, a

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 286

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Al Gore’s Initiative of Reinventing the Government 287

Table 1

Comparison of Quality Principles and Initiatives

Malcolm Baldrige Malcolm Baldrige TraditionalAward Criteria Framework for Excellence TQM Principles Gore’s NPR Initiative

Note: Core principles of TQM contradicted or missed are indicated in bold.

Senior ExecutiveLeadership

Informationand Analysis

Strategic Qual-ity Planning

Human Re-source Devel-opment andManagement

Management of ProcessQuality

Quality andOperationalResults

● Leadership drives effort● Goal setting by upper management● Leadership integrates quality and cus-

tomer focus into day-to-day activities● Organization shares effort with com-

munity and other organizations

● Scope, validity, use, and management ofdata and information for quality efforts

● Sound criteria for selection of supportdata

● Data, information, and analysis mustsupport a responsive approach to goalsand customer satisfaction

● Competitive benchmarking● SPC techniques● Planning process is defined by how it

will be implemented and how resourceswill be committed

● Short- and long-term plans to achievequality

● Measures to determine if suppliers canmeet quality requirements

● Develop workforce● Full participation by all● Empowerment, teamwork, and

innovation● Quality education, and training● Interactive performance evaluations● Focus on process, not people● Examines systematic processes● Customer needs converted into product

and process● Continuous improvement of processes● Quality of support services must be

assured, assessed, and improved● Quality levels are compared with

competitors● Improvement of product service fea-

tures, operations, and processes● Benchmark against best in class, not

just competition

● Effort driven by President andVice President

● Long-range monetary goalsonly

● Efforts shared via Internet● Specific goals are not commu-

nicated to lowest levels● Use of information technology

is discussed in Blair HousePapers, but more for trackingcosts rather than support data

● Benchmarking with privatesector and with state and localgovernments

● Strategic implementation planexists, but is not precise andstep-by-step

● Vague concept of using “re-invention savings to fund newideas”

● No quantitative measuresother than savings

● Reduction of staff as a goal● Teamwork encouraged in each

department (in Blair HousePapers)

● Emphasis on improvingproductivity

● No direct comparison withother national governments

● Definite call for improvementin product, services, and oper-ational processes

● Benchmark against other fed-eral agencies

● Leadership must createclear quality values andreinforce quality in allactivities

● Commitment to estab-lish and sustain qualityinitiatives

● Measurement as a basisfor improvement usingdata

● SPC techniques

● Long-range planningrequired

● Long-term commitmentto employees

● Teamwork● Eliminate fear of reprisal● Focus on process, not

people

● Continuous improvementto enhance value to cus-tomer, reduce errors anddefects, improve respon-siveness and cycle time,improve productivity

● Emphasis on customerdelight

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

288 Maragah and Corredoira

Table 2

TQM Hierarchical Classification of Management

TQM Macro-government Micro-government

Top management President and Vice President Highest level in the office or departmentMiddle management Secretary of State and political appointees Middle level in office or departmentSupervisory management Micro-government Supervisory level in the office or department

classical TQM hierarchical classification is compared tothe classification in the macro-government and micro-government levels.

The framework gives some degree of discretion whenapplying TQM. We reject the assumption that TQMhas universal application and can be applied withoutany modification in the federal government. At least, atsome levels in the military, its use must remain very re-stricted. In our model, discretion is given at the micro-government level, where each unit is empowered tomake decisions about the TQM implementation. In ad-dition, the creation of a cascade of micro-governmentlevels is possible, giving the opportunity to accommo-date the large number of organizational layers to par-ticular TQM projects.

Therefore, this TQM framework for the federal gov-ernment allows two levels, where TQM can be applied indifferent ways and scopes, and, initially, the highest levelhas the burden of the leadership in each initiative. Futureresearch should identify and give answers to the coexis-tence of TQM practice with other managerial practices,as well as to the implications for implementation and is-sues of accountability in this multilevel framework.

The Need for Revising the Traditional TQM

We believe that TQM needs to be adapted to be ap-plied at the federal government level. As discussed ear-lier, some traditional TQM assumptions do not hold atthis level. We suggest that future research should iden-tify and evaluate the impact of dropping assumptions atthis level. One of the most invalid assumptions is thatquality improvement drives an increase in sales volumes.The federal government operates, in most cases, as amonopoly with price-inelastic products and services; de-mand is fixed and does not change. For example, in-creases in tax collection productivity will not drive anincrease in tax forms filed; people will not be willing tofile more tax forms because it is less expensive.

However, efficiency in tax collection has a positive ef-fect on the overall economy. Although jobs may be lost

in the federal government due to TQM programs, thosesavings would increase the competitiveness of the privatesector, generating more jobs in the private sector. For thisreason, TQM should recognize the need for layoffs dueto the quality improvements in the federal governmentand that the country’s welfare would increase thanks tothose savings.

NPR Impementation at the Macro-government Level

The success of any program depends on the imple-mentation as much as on its design. The NPR imple-mentation at the macro-government level is of particularimportance because it is there where the burden of ad-vancing the program rests. The implementation processapplied may be the reason why the NPR has prevailedover the years, when other government improvementprograms failed. Elements from the three basic imple-mentation processes for TQM are found in the NPR. Forexample, Deming’s four-stage cycle Plan, Do, Study, Ac-tion and go back to Plan was followed clearly during thefirst years. In 1993, the NPR staffs’ work led by Gore andthe NPR report itself might fall under the Plan stage.The reinvention laboratories are part of the Do stage. In1994, NPR adjustments might be part of the Study stage,and the implementation of the recommendations is partof the Action stage. This cycle was successfully repeatedcontinuously since 1993.

In a similar manner, elements from Juran’s improve-ment program can be identified in the implementation,which has followed approximately the six-step sequenceof the program. The same happens with Crosby’s pro-gram. (See Table 3.)

Another characteristic that the NPR, at the macro-government level, had in common with TQM was itscustomer focus. The customers are public supportersof the President and Vice President. Among others, thevoters and Congress are defined loosely as the custom-ers, as both make possible their permanence in office—the voters by their vote and the Congress by passing laws

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 288

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Al Gore’s Initiative of Reinventing the Government 289

Table 3

NPR, Juran’s, and Crosby’s Implementation Programs

NPR

Juran’s Six-Step Program1. Proof of the need President recognizes the need2. Project identification NPR staff’s work3. Organization for breakthrough Reinvention laboratories4. Diagnosis journey Reinvention laboratories, NPR staff5. Remedial journey Implementation of recommendations and successful experiences6. Holding the gains Establish new standards and procedures

Crosby’s 14-Step Programa

1. Management commitment President and Vice President commitment2. Quality improvement team NPR staff3. Quality measurement Financial and staff reduction goals and measures selected instead of quality ones4. Cost of quality Cost of not implementing the reforms calculated5. Quality awareness Share information about the cost of not implementing the reforms6. Corrective actions Employees encouraged to find areas for improvement9. Zero-defects day Launch of the NPR initiative, September 7, 1993

10. Goal setting Secretaries required to set goals measurable and achievable12. Recognition Federal Award, Hammer Award14. Do it over again Annual reports, reviews, and improvements to the NPR

Note: Crosby’s program (1996) is designed to implement a quality program, whereas NPR implements a reform program.aIncludes steps with a parallel in the NPR implementation.

to support their initiatives. In keeping with this anal-ogy, Kettl (30) identified different NPR facets. One ofthese targeted the voters (administration “customers”)and concentrated on what they wanted: NPR’s savingsand personnel reduction. Another administration “cus-tomer” is Congress, Kamensky (26) pointed out howthe NPR was adjusted according to changes in congres-sional interests (in 1993, recommendations able to suc-ceed; in 1994, what the government should be doing first;in 1996, a balanced budget).

CONCLUSIONS

Total quality management efforts have been presentin the federal government since the Reagan era and haveachieved varying degrees of success. The latest initiative—NPR—provided an opportunity for TQM to thrive.Our proposed framework has the capacity to accommo-date TQM initiatives limited in depth and scope, givingsome degree of discretion to management. This frame-work seems to be adequate for representing the NPRmodel.

In the NPR, TQM coexists with downsizing and re-engineering. Initially, downsizing contradicts the prin-

ciples of traditional TQM. However, with the fed-eral government’s fixed demand of services, rightsizingshould be considered as an integral part of a properlyadjusted TQM. Although reengineering calls for radicalinstead of incremental changes, its use in the NPR ini-tiative furnishes fast savings, which are important ingaining broad public support. As a result, and despitethe apparent contradiction implied by this combination,the NPR is a singular TQM initiative and very appropri-ate for application in the federal government.

Notwithstanding the favorable environment createdby the NPR for TQM, several issues still need to be ad-dressed. Grounds for further research are accountabilityissues in the executive branch, the role of the Congress,and how to deal with cultural inertia.

The future of TQM depends heavily on commitmentat top levels of federal management, and the NPR cre-ates a favorable environment for TQM. The change inthe Presidential Office offers an ongoing uncertaintyabout whether the NPR and, consequently, the TQM ef-forts will continue or not.

In 1997, Bailey (president of the ASQ) pointed outthat the public-sector quality effort was at a critical turn-ing point, as it parallels the private sector’s experiencesand the need for a solid framework. He expressed his op-

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 289

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

290 Maragah and Corredoira

timism about the quality effort and encouraged sustain-ing and nourishing it (51).

In summation, TQM’s application in the federal gov-ernment is promising, but its future is still uncertain.

REFERENCES

1. Gore, A. Common Sense Government: Works Better andCost Less, 3rd Report of the National Performance Review;U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1995.

2. Hammer, M.; Champy, J. Reengineering the Corporation:A Manifesto for Business Revolution; HarperBusinessPublishers: New York, 1993.

3. Anon. End of the Road for TQM. Government Executive1997, 29 (7), 62– 64.

4. Epatko Murphy, E. The State of Quality in America. Pur-chasing 1996, 120 (1), 79–ss.

5. Hamson, N. The FQI Story: Today and Tomorrow. J. Qual.Partic. 1996, (July/August), 46 – 49.

6. Evans, J.R.; Lindsay, W.M. The Management and Controlof Quality, 2nd Ed; West Publishing: New York, 1993.

7. Juran, J.M. Strategies for World-Class Quality. Qual.Prog. 1991 (March), 81–85.

8. Burstein, C.; Sedlak, K. The Federal Quality and Produc-tivity Improvement Effort. Qual. Prog. 1988 (October),38– 41.

9. Gore, A. The Best Kept Secrets in Government; NationalPerformance Review, U.S. Government Printing Office:Washington, DC, 1996.

10. Zeitz, G. Employee Attitudes Toward Total Quality Man-agement in an EPA Regional Office. Admin. Soc. 1996, 28(1), 120 –143.

11. Vaughn, J.M. Rightsizing or Dumbsizing—TQM CanProvide a Compass. Armed Forces Comptroller 1998, 43(4), 17–19.

12. Anon. From Quality Circles to TQM. Government Exec-utive 1997, 29 (7), 60 – 62.

13. Anon. Transformation of Quality Efforts. GovernmentExecutive 1997, 29 (7), 66 – 68.

14. Sheridan, J.H. Lockheed Martin Utility Services. Ind.Week 1997, 246 (19), 56 – 60.

15. Ingraham, P.W. Conclusion: Transforming Management,Managing Transformation. In Transforming Government:Lessons from the Reinvention Laboratories; Ingraham,P.W., Thompson, J.R., Sanders, R.P., Eds.; Jossey–BassPublishers: San Francisco; 1997.

16. Gosnell, J.; Green, M.; Jones, R.; Thompson, F. Lessonfrom Reinvention Labs in the Department of Defense.Armed Forces Comptroller 1998, 43 (4), 5–10.

17. Sanders, R.P. Heroes of the Revolution: Characteristicsand Strategies of Reinvention Leaders. In TransformingGovernment: Lessons from the Reinvention Laboratories;Ingraham, P.W., Thompson, J.R., Sanders, R.P., Eds.;Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1997.

18. Mizaur, D.G. Is quality in Government Possible? Look-ing Ahead 1992 (October).

19. National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Cus-tomer Satisfaction Survey 1999. http://www.employeesur-vey.gov/13cat.htm (accessed Apr. 2000).

20. Zeitz, G.; Johannesson, R.; Ritchie, J.E. An EmployeeSurvey Measuring Total Quality Management Practicesand Culture: Development and Validation. Group Org.Manag. 1997, 22 (4), 414 – 444.

21. Yoder, E. Time for a Change. Government Executive1998, 30 (5), 53–56.

22. Mani, B.G. Old Wine in New Bottles Taste Better: ACase Study of TQM Implementation in the IRS. PublicAdmin. Rev. 1995, 55 (2), 147–ss.

23. Chen, A.Y.S.; Sawyers, R.B. TQM at the IRS. J. Account.1994, 178 (1), 77–ss.

24. Thompson, J.R.; Sanders, R.P. Reinventing Public Agen-cies: Bottom-Up Versus Top-Down Strategies. In Trans-forming Government: Lessons from the ReinventionLaboratories; Ingraham, P.W.; Thompson, J.R.; Sanders,R.P., Eds.; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1997.

25. Moe, R.C. The “Reinventing Government” Exercise:Misinterpreting the Problem, Misjudging the Conse-quences. Public Admin. Rev. 1994, 54 (2), 111–122.

26. Kamensky, J.M. The Best-Kept Secret in Government:How the NPR Translated Theory into Practice. In Trans-forming Government: Lessons from the Reinvention Lab-oratories; Ingraham, P.W., Thompson, J.R., Sanders, R.P.,Eds.; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1997.

27. Kamensky, J.M. Role of the “Reinventing Government”;Movement in Federal Management Reform. Public Ad-min. Rev. 1996, 56 (3), 247–255.

28. Thompson, J.R. Ferment on the Front Lines: DevisingNew Modes of Organizing. In Transforming Government:Lessons from the Reinvention Laboratories; Ingraham,P.W., Thompson, J.R., Sanders, R.P., Eds.; Jossey-BassPublishers: San Francisco, 1997.

29. Gore, A. From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Gov-ernment That Works Better and Costs Less; National Per-formance Review, U.S. Government Printing Office:Washington, DC, 1993.

30. Kettl, D.F. Reinventing Government? Appraising the Na-tional Performance Review; The Brooking Institution:Washington, DC, 1994.

31. Rainey, H.G. Rethinking Public Personnel Administra-tion. In New Paradigms for Government: Issues for theChanging Public Service; Ingraham, P.W., Romzek, B.S.,Eds.; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1994.

32. Romzek, B.S.; Dubnick, M.J., Issues of Accountabilityin Flexible Personnel Systems. In New Paradigms forGovernment: Issues for the Changing Public Service; In-graham, P.W., Romzek, B.S. Eds.; Jossey-Bass Publishers:San Francisco, 1994.

33. Ingraham, P.W.; Romzek, B.S., Introduction: IssuesRaised by Current Reform Efforts. In New Paradigmsfor Government: Issues for the Changing Public Service;

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 290

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Al Gore’s Initiative of Reinventing the Government 291

Ingraham, P.W., Romzek, B.S., Eds.; Jossey-Bass Publish-ers: San Francisco, 1994.

34. U.S. General Accounting Office. Implementation: TheMissing Link in Planning Reorganizations, PublicationNo. GGD-81-57; U.S. Government Printing Office:Washington, DC, 1981.

35. Szanton, P. Federal Reorganization: What Have WeLearned?; Chatham House: Chatham, NJ, 1981.

36. Clinton, W.J. Remarks Announcing the Initiative toStreamline Government. Public Papers of the Presidents:William J. Clinton. Vol. 2; U.S. Government Printing Of-fice: Washington, DC, 1993; 352.

37. Clinton, W.J. Remarks on the National Performance Re-view and an Exchange with Reporters. Public Papers ofthe Presidents: William J. Clinton. Vol. 1; U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1994; 365.

38. Osborne, D.; Gaebler, T. Reinventing Government: Howthe Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sec-tor from Schoolhouse to Statehouse, City Hall to the Pen-tagon; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1992.

39. Thompson, F.; Jones, L.R. Reinventing the Pentagon: Howthe New Public Management Can Promote InstitutionalRenewal; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1994.

40. Jones, L.R.; Thompson, F. The Five Rs of the New PublicManagement. In International Perspectives on the NewPublic Management; Jones, L.R., Schedler, K., Eds.; JAIPress: Greenwich, CT, 1997.

41. Gleckman, H.; Garland, S.B.; Melcher, R.A.; Weber, J.Downsizing Government. Business Week January 23,1995: 34 – 41.

42. Gore, A. Reinvention’s Next Steps: Governing in a Bal-anced Budget World; National Performance Review, U.S.Government Printing: Washington, DC, 1996.

43. Gore, A. Serving the American Public: Best Practices inCustomer-Driven Strategic Planning. Federal Benchmark-ing Consortium Study Report. National Performance Re-view; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC,1997.

44. Gore, A. Serving the American Public: Best Practices inDownsizing. Benchmarking Study Report; National Per-formance Review, U.S. Government Printing Office:Washington, DC, 1997.

45. Gore, A. Serving the American Public: Best Practices inPerformance Measurement. Benchmarking Study Report;National Performance Review, U.S. Government Print-ing Office: Washington, DC, 1997.

46. Gore, A. Reaching Public Goals: Managing Governmentfor Results. Resource Guide; National Performance Re-view, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC,1996.

47. Gore, A. Businesslike Government: Lessons Learnedfrom America’s Best Companies; National PerformanceReview, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington,DC, 1997.

48. Clinton, W.J.; Gore, A. Blair House Papers; NationalPerformance Review, U.S. Government Printing Office:Washington, DC, 1997.

49. Clinton’s Administrative Cost Cuts May Hurt More ThanThey Help, GAO Finds. Washington Post October 9, 1993;A-9.

50. Budget Office Punches Holes in Reform Package Projec-tions: CBO Letter Says Gore Proposal Would Save Mil-lions, Not Billions. Washington Post November 18, 1993;A-21.

51. Struebing, L. ASQ Testifies on TQM in Government.Qual. Prog. 1997, 30 (9), 17.

About the Authors: Hazem Maragah is associate profes-sor in the Decision Science Department and advisor tothe MBA Quality Science Program at Drexel University.He earned a doctorate in statistics from the Universityof Southwestern Louisiana.

Rafael A. Corredoira is a Ph.D. student in businessadministration at Temple University. He earned a mas-ter’s in business administration from Drexel University.

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 291

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

11-M1984 11/21/2001 10:55 AM Page 292

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

08:

36 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013