Benchmarking Article - 1994

Continuous Journey April/May 1994 3

PUBLISHING STAFFEditors:

Steve SchefflerVicki J. Powers

Publications Intern:Pam Griffin

Contributing Editors:Donald M. Berwick, M.D.,

Anne Feltus, Michael J. London,Carla O’Dell, Ph.D., Kevin Prihod,

DeAnne Rosenberg, CSP

Production Manager:Eric Heisserer

Advertising Representative:Wendy Waghalter

Copy Editor:Debra Lipman

BUSINESS STAFFChairman:

C. Jackson Grayson, Jr.

President:Harvey K. Brelin

DIRECTORSFinance & Accounting:

Michael Shea

Information Services:Alan Powell

Education & Training:John Henson

International BenchmarkingClearinghouse:Carla O’Dell

c o n t e n t s

About the Cover…

CONTINUOUS JOURNEY: The Magazine for

Continuous Improvement (USPS 010-959) (ISSN 1065-3406) is publishedbimonthly by the American Productivity & Qual-ity Center, 123 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300,Houston, Texas 77024-7797, (713) 681-4020.Editorial offices: (713) 685-4641 or 685-4642.A one year subscription is $75 (nonmember) and$50 (member). For subscription and member-ship information, call: 1-800-776-9676. Membersmay use the contents within Continuous Journeyfor their own purposes provided they give thesource. Nonmembers must receive permission,by phone or in writing, before reprinting anythingfrom this magazine. Individual copies are $9(members), $15 (nonmembers). Second-classpostage paid at 401 Franklin St. P.O., Houston,TX 77202-9651. POSTMASTER: Send addresschanges to Continuous Journey, 123 North PostOak Lane, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77024-7797.

For reprints, contact Reprint Services/ ContinuousJourney, 315 Fifth Avenue, St. Paul, MN 35111.Phone: (612) 633-0578.

People are reading about it, learning about it, and talking about

it—but few people are actually doing it. Benchmarking, the search

for best practices that leads to superior performance, has captivated

audiences with its potential for improvement. So, why is

benchmarking still sitting on the sidelines in many organizations? It

will take more successes and results to convince the masses to jump

off the bench and get involved.

feature section: GETTING BENCHMARKING OFF THE BENCH

articles:

departments:

8

1017182428

Benchwarming: Despite its Potential, Benchmarking Sits on the Bench in Many Organizationsby Steve Scheffler

Exploding the Myths of Benchmarkingby Anne Feltus

The Land of NIH

by Kevin Prihod

Go, See, Doa benchmarking case study by Vicki J. Powers

Out-of-the-Box Benchmarkingby Carla O’Dell, Ph.D.

Q&A with Robert CampXerox Corporation

323538

56

444547

Betting Pay on Customer Satisfactionby Michael J. London

The Making of a Facilitatorby DeAnne Rosenberg, CSP

Kevin Speaks: The Voice of a Customerby Donald M. Berwick, M.D.

From The Top

Worth Mentioning

Book Look

Center News and Calendar

Top of the Charts

VOLUME 2, NUMBER 4© April/May 1994ISSN 1065-3406

C O N T I N U O U S

JOURNEY

cove

r pho

to:

Tha

ine

Man

ske


FROM THE TOPCompanies Either “Learn With Purpose” or Make Excuses

I N S I G H T S

This issue of Continuous Journey is devoted toone of our favorite pastimes here at the Cen-ter—debunking the myths and pushing downthe fences we all erect to keep us from makinguncomfortable changes.

The myths this time are about benchmark-ing. From “it’s too expensive,” to “we are toodifferent,” you’ll read the personal experiences of activebenchmarkers that counter the conventional wisdom.

The Johnson & Johnson Medical case study (“Go, See,Do”) shatters another myth that both purists and procrastina-tors perpetuate: that there is one “right” way to benchmark,and anything less is shoddy work. Purists would hold that reallearning only comes from a full-scale, cost-of-thousands pro-duction. We find, as did Johnson & Johnson, that the under-lying principle of benchmarking is “learning for a purpose.”The methods people employ to learn enough to act can rangefrom reading articles and reports that already exist, to detailedscreening surveys and site visits. The difference betweeneffective and ineffective benchmarking lies in the followingprinciples, not primarily in the methods:

1. Clarity of purpose—what is the question you are trying toanswer or the problem you are trying to solve?

2. What would you do with the information if you had it?

3. Are you willing to contribute to the learning of others whohelp you? This includes the principles of preparation,ethics, and exchange.

4. Are you willing to discover more about your own optionsand situation? As a physician who is leading one of hisclinic’s benchmarking teams said recently, “You never reallyknow yourself until you look at someone else.”

We at the Center have the opportunity tolook at ourselves through the eyes of anotherexperienced benchmarker. I am delighted toannounce that Al Pozos, the voice behindMyth 3 (page 13), and former manager ofbenchmarking for Pacific Bell, will join theAPQC as manager of benchmarking services.

Al brings with him the experience of more than 100 bench-marking studies he facilitated at Pacific Bell, as well as hisexperience as vice-chairman of the TelecommunicationBenchmarking Consortium. Al will be working with ourmembers, benchmarking consortia, and clients to help drivebenchmarking to new levels of excellence and contribution toorganization improvement and learning. Please welcome Alto our team.

Carla O’DellDirector, International Benchmarking Clearinghouse

6 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey

worthmentioningESI-Q system introduced ● positive performers award ● a new performance study ● what’s hot: ethics & costs

QUALITY. SERVICE. WHATEVER IT TAKES. It alladds up to customer-focused marketing, the basis for thenew Positive Performer Awards geared toward small- andmedium-sized businesses that always do what’s right fortheir customers. MCI Communications Corporation andInc. Magazine have partnered to recognize companies thatnot only compete, but also excel, by using customer respon-

siveness as a key businesspractice. “Put the customerfirst and you’ll never finishlast,” said Timothy F. Price,president of MCI BusinessMarkets. “Today’s successfulbusinesses aren’t looking over

their shoulders at the competition, they’re looking overthe customers’ shoulder asking, ‘How can we help?’”

The Positive Performer Awards are the first businessawards to concentrate solely on customer responsivenessand are open to growing companies with annual revenuesnot less than $500,000 and not more than $100 million.

The Awards showcase businesses demonstrating supe-riority in identifying and meeting customer needs andmeasuring results. Categories include manufacturing, ser-vice, retail, and non-profit.

Entries are evaluated by a panel of experts includingbusiness owners, CEOs, consultants, and the editor ofInc. Deadline for entry is May 15, 1994. Ten finalists ineach category will be announced in June, and one will beselected to receive special recognition as “America’s Best.”Companies interested in being considered for the MCI/Inc.Positive Performer Awards should call (800) 999-9971 toreceive a nomination kit.

MCIand Inc. recognize customer responsiveness

put the customer first and you’ll never

finish last.—timothy f. price

REWARDS

WITHOUTTHE

Companies striving for the quality culture realize that nothing can sabo-tage their efforts faster than employees who don’t practice safe work habits.According to the National Safety Council, last year work-related acci-dents cost U.S. businesses $115.9 billion.

To help employers address the growing issues of safety and quality, LondonHouse, one of the country’s leading developers and publishers of human resourceassessment systems for business, recently introduced the Employee Safety Inven-tory-Quality (ESI-Q). ESI-Q is a multiple-choice assessment system that usesseveral scales to measure an individual’s quality conscientiousness and safety atti-tudes, which together promote optimal performance on the job.

The quality scale measures overall quality orientation by what degree an indi-vidual takes responsibility for offering quality products and services, is committedto detecting and avoiding work errors, and strives to improve product or serviceofferings. The scales assessing safety attitudes reveal an individual’s reaction to con-trolling one’s own safety, tendencies to engage in risky or dangerous behavior,and the likelihood that the person will follow company safety rules.

Validation research confirmed that individuals who scored higher on thequality and safety scales practiced safer work habits, suffered fewer on-the-jobaccidents, and demonstrated fewer mistakes.

For more information on the ESI-Q, contact London House at (800) 221-8378.

A GLIMPSE INTO CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT


worthmentioning

PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT

Trends, Satisfaction, and Results

No matter where people are on the organizational chart, man-ager or employee, they see room for significant improvementin performance management practices, according to a study by

Development Dimensions International and the Society for HumanResource Management.

Performance Management: What’s Hot–What’s Not, A NationalStudy of Current and Future Practices, examines current trends inperformance management practices, people’s satisfaction with theirorganizations’ current systems, and the bridges and barriers to effectiveperformance management.

According to survey respondents, managers and nonmanagersalike are faced with a variety of performance management frustrations.But, study results also indicate these barriers are not insurmountable.Respondents rated the current use of various performancemanagement practices and predicted future trends leading to moreeffective performance management.

“It is clear from the survey that not only do managers need toprovide more frequent and timely feedback and coaching, they needthe training to develop both the technical and interpersonal skills todo so,” said Robert W. Rogers, DDI’s chief operating officer. “And thesame holds true for associates who need training to learn their role inthe performance review process and how they can become involved atthe outset in discussing performance objectives and tracking theirown performance.”

To order copies of Performance Management: What’s Hot–What’sNot, call DDI’s Marketing Information Center at (800) 933-4463.

Companies are increasing their formal ethics policies and reduc-ing internal control costs, say members of the Cost Manage-ment Group of the Institute of Management Accountants

(IMA).Fifty-seven percent of the respondents interviewed by the IMA’s

Cost Management Group say there’s a formal ethics policy in place intheir companies. This is up from 41 percent a year ago. And 53percent believe a strong, comprehensive ethics policy reduces theoverall costs of internal control.

“This would indicate an informal ‘pay-back’ on this policy invest-ment in a quality cost of prevention context,” says Jonathan Schiff,consulting director to IMA’s Cost Management Group.

According to the Cost Management Group, more employeesare becoming aware of their company’s ethics policies, and companiesare providing mechanisms through which employees can voice theirconcerns about ethics directly to top management. “An ombudsmanis one mechanism, and some companies also have gone so far as to setup ‘toll-free’ ethics telephone hotlines or helplines,” says Schiff.

The Institute has issued “Standards of Ethical Conduct for Man-agement Accountants” included in “Statements of ManagementAccounting 1C.” IMA members with questions about ethical mattersmay call the Institute’s hotline. Management accountants, bothmembers and nonmembers, may also obtain copies of SMA 1C bycalling the hotline at (800) 6ETHICS.

■INCREASE

REDUCE COSTS

compiled by Pam Griffin


DESPITE ITS

POTENTIAL,

BENCHMARKING

SITS ON THE

As a fan, it’s never easy seeing your team’s star player outof the action, pacing the sidelines, waiting for a chanceto get in the game. If you’re on the team, it’s even more difficult, knowing that all of your resources aren’t being

put to use.And so, benchmarking—arguably one of the most benefi-

cial tools for improving business processes—continues to siton too many company sidelines. Sure, many managers tout itspotential. A few even let benchmarking into the game—butwith much too limited playing time. Why?

by Steve Scheffler


Getting Benchmarking off the Bench

The answers don’t come easy. Eversince Xerox became the trailblazer of themovement in the late ’70s and early’80s, management experts have claimedthat benchmarking has the potential toinvigorate and transform the most stag-nant of organizations.

Benchmarking BonanzaSoon after the Xerox benchmarking

efforts were chronicled, organizationstook note. Larger companies createdbenchmarking departments. Someeven named senior-level executives to“benchmarking” posts. Smaller entitieshired consultants, or whomever theycould find, to teach benchmarking toolsand techniques.

Interest was high enough to causeformation of the International Bench-marking Clearinghouse, and member-ship has doubled every year, to almost300 members.

From 1990-93, the MalcolmBaldrige National Quality Award refo-cused its categories, requiring evidenceof organizational benchmarking inorder to receive the coveted prize.

Media coverage ensued. Severalmagazines (including this one) devotedlarge chunks of space to the topic ofbenchmarking. Television commercialsadded the term to their lexicon: certaincars became the “benchmarks” of theirclass.

Benchmarking seemed easy. Theconcept was so simple: look to othersto improve. Unfortunately, bench-marking requires more than that.Much more.

Growing PainsManagers are starting to ask for

benchmarking to prove itself. Skepticswant results before they lower theirguard. More than that, they wantassurance that it isn’t cost prohibitive—that a study doesn’t take three years tocomplete.

Which brings us to the current sta-tus of benchmarking in the U.S. Basedon formal and informal research, hereare the latest observations:

• Companies that are leading-edge inbenchmarking can be found, but onlyin small numbers.

• Benchmarking awareness levels arehigh, but few know more than thebasics when it comes to engaging in astudy.

• Many organizations are hesitant tolaunch a benchmarking study for anynumber of reasons, including cost andtime—both valuable resources in trou-bled economic times.

• Senior management still thinks bench-marking is only competitive analysis.The learning curve for them, therefore,is steep.

Too Many “Myth-Perceptions”It is often said that perception,

regardless of validity, is reality. If peopleperceive benchmarking in a certain way,then it is that way. After more than twoyears of operating the InternationalBenchmarking Clearinghouse, the Center has seen this phenomenon all too often. Here are a number of“myth-perceptions”:• Benchmarking costs a lot.• Benchmarking takes too long.• Only the mega-corporations can do

benchmarking.• Senior management will never

support benchmarking.• Benchmarking is illegal—and unethical.• There’s no way companies in my indus-

try will share information.• It’s impossible to find analogous processes

outside of my industry to benchmark. Robert Camp, the benchmarking

pioneer from Xerox, believes that mostof the negative perceptions and mythssurrounding benchmarking are simplyuntrue. There are, he says, too manymisnomers flying around about bench-marking. He urges companies to workhard to dispel the myths. If they can getaround them, quantum leap improve-ments are possible.

Good News“In 32 years in business, I’ve seen

all manner of productivity processes,”Camp told the Management Review in

1993. “For some reason, (benchmark-ing) seems to have some permanence.”

Good news—straight from the pio-neer’s mouth. Also, companies continueto invest resources in benchmarking. Alandmark 1992 Center survey showedthat more than 75 percent of U.S. For-tune 500 companies will increase theiramount of benchmarking activity. Afollow-up survey, which will be con-ducted later this year in both the UnitedStates and Europe, is expected to echothose results—and come up with evenmore interesting data on benchmarking.

Another positive note is the factthat many serious benchmarking orga-nizations have found that some of themost successful studies are with cus-tomers and suppliers—many of whichare smaller, more localized entities.These interactions have helped tospread benchmarking knowledge to adiverse base. They are also helping todebunk the aforementioned myths andperceptions.

Another plus for benchmarking isthat its followers do not claim, likeother improvement “fads,” that bench-marking is a panacea for corporatemediocrity. Most agree that bench-marking is a tool that can be used toachieve improvement. Like any otherquality improvement tool, says Camp,it has a time and place for usage. And,just like the other tools, if it isn’t part ofthe overall corporate strategy, only lim-ited success will ensue.

The Clock’s Ticking...Several years ago, Center chairman

C. Jackson Grayson, Jr., and CarlaO’Dell, Ph.D., wrote a book thatchronicled the growing productivityand quality crisis the U.S. faces. Itstitle, American Business: A Two MinuteWarning, still applies. And, as the clockcontinues to tick, one importantplayer—benchmarking—sits on thesideline too often. It is up to corporateAmerica to decide whether its starplayer will see the playing time itundoubtedly has earned.


Do you find yourself in a defense mode when explainingthe benefits of benchmarking to your organization?

Worse, are you having trouble justifying the process ofbenchmarking to YOURSELF?!

As critics of benchmarking surface, or as your own doubtscreep in, it is important to answer with substantial, fact-based answers.

Here, then, are five of the more popular arguments/mythsthat surround benchmarking. Continuous Journey lookedto the experts—those in benchmarking’s trenches—toanswer them.

EM

XPLODING

THE

by Anne FeltusFeltus/McFarlane Communications



Quality can be critical when you’reproducing diagnostic imagingdevices for the health care indus-

try. That’s why, after exploring continu-ous improvement initiatives for severalyears, Medrad introduced its own qual-ity effort in the spring of 1990.

In the last four years, Medrad’semployee quality teams have traveledaround the country visiting MalcolmBaldrige National Quality Award-win-ning organizations and other qualitychampions in a variety of fields.Through these excursions, they havegained firsthand insight and informa-tion about these leaders’ best practices insuch diverse areas as employee empow-erment, employee evaluation processes,cash flow management, customer orderentry, and information systems.

“We’ve stolen ideas shamelessly andhave adapted many of their practices toour own operations,” Robert Graham,vice president, corporate quality process,for the Pittsburgh-based company,points out. “And in some instances, wehave been comforted by the knowledgethat our processes are on target or areeven more advanced than theirs.”

Similar successes can be found inalmost every company that’s involved inbenchmarking. Yet, the myth prevailsthat the process is prohibitively expen-sive, which can keep some prospectiveparticipants from trying this qualityapproach for themselves.

Indeed, benchmarking comes at aprice, Graham is quick to admit. “Typi-cally,” he says, “there are expensesrelated to travel as well as indirect costsassociated with employee time devotedto trips and team meetings.” Still, theprocess is not as expensive as some peo-ple believe. “With careful planning,” heexplains, “benchmarking costs can bekept to a minimum.”

One way to control costs is totackle benchmarking one step at a time.“Some people think benchmarking isan extremely difficult and complexprocess, but that’s not necessarily thecase,” Graham contends. “You canbenchmark without making it a bigordeal. You don’t have to examine allprocesses at once. You can keep costsdown by doing benchmarking indegrees and by defining very narrowareas to explore.”

To minimize costly travel andmeeting time, he continues, you mustwork efficiently and communicateeffectively. “First, you have to do yourhomework,” he explains. “Before youvisit other companies, you must knowspecifically what your own problemsare. You must clearly define what youintend to accomplish and what youneed to look for during your trip. Thenyou must make that informationknown to the people you are planningto visit. And, since benchmarking is atwo-way street, you also must under-stand what the other companies wantfrom you and what you are willing toshare with them.

“Some people say there is a costassociated with giving away more infor-mation about their total qualityprocesses to other companies than theyfeel comfortable providing,” he adds.“But you can reveal informationjudiciously. You don’t have to give awaythe heart and soul of your company.And sharing data and processes willhelp us as a country become more com-petitive in the global marketplace.”

Benchmarking can be done with-out breaking your company’s budget,Graham concludes. “And rememberthis: The knowledge you gain is wellworth the investment you make.”

Robert GrahamVice President,

Corporate QualityProcess

MEDRAD

Benchmarking is too expensive.



While some managers remainskeptical about the benefitsbenchmarking can bring to

their companies, Turk Enustun believesmost senior executives have a more pos-itive point of view. After more than adecade of experience in this qualityprocess, he is convinced that bench-marking represents a natural extensionof management’s traditional role.

“Managers are by nature competi-tive, and anyone who is competitive islooking at what other companies aredoing,” the director of corporate bench-marking for Eastman Kodak inRochester, New York, maintains.“Therefore, most managers are bench-markers at heart. They understand theneed to compare other companies’ per-formances with their own, and they’revery adept at doing competitive analy-ses because that’s what is expected ofthem by Wall Street and by securitiesanalysts all the time.”

After making these comparisons,he adds, it’s only natural for managersto begin asking some critical questions:How do other companies achieve theirgood results? What can we learn fromthem? Can we implement some of theirgood ideas? Will this lead us to be asgood as they are? “If a company’s annualsales are up 2 percent and its competi-tors’ sales are up 10 percent, the man-agers want to know why,” he explains.

“Part of managements’ role,” hesays, “is to enable their companies toemulate leaders. They can put theresources in place their organizationsneed to effect change, and benchmark-ing is one tool that can be used toaccomplish this goal. “Managementunderstands and supports benchmark-ing,” Enustun says, “because it’s thecomponent that leads to the resultsmanagement wants.”

He cites an example: “Early in 1990,our manufacturing division began gath-ering benchmarking data internally onthe performance measures of variousproducts. When we compared six orseven different products made at sevensites around the world, we found big dif-ferences in such categories as quality,cost, and inventory level.

“The information was a real eye-opener for the division’s general manag-er, who became a firm believer inbenchmarking,” he concludes. “Herecognized that if each unit could be asgood as the best one in each of thesecategories, we could add millions ofdollars to the company’s bottom line.”

Management doesn’t understand/sup-

Turk Enustun

Director of CorporateBenchmarking

EASTMAN KODAK



Benchmarking has played a role inPacific Bell’s progress for threeyears. “We have benchmarked on a

tremendous variety of topics rangingfrom affirmative action to auditing tobusiness planning to cable damage pre-vention,” says Al Pozos, benchmarkingmanager for the company’s corporatequality center in San Ramon, California.

Pacific Bell doesn’t always elect tobenchmark with companies whose prac-tices are considered superior. You don’thave to benchmark with the best compa-nies to get the results you want, Pozospoints out. In fact, there are some solidbenefits to working with organizationsthat aren’t quite the cream of the crop.

Among the reasons? Companieswith the best practices often are over-whelmed with requests to benchmarkand have to turn some prospective part-ners down. “Furthermore, there often isa tremendous gap between your owncompany’s practices and those that rep-resent the absolute best,” Pozosbelieves. “It would take a quantum leapto reach their level, which can be quitediscouraging. Sometimes it’s better tomake incremental changes.”

Benchmarking with the best com-panies also can be daunting when you’retackling extremely complex projectsthat involve a number of variables andthat require gathering large volumes ofdata. Pozos presents this analogy: “You

go to a gym and all you want to do iswork on your biceps. But if the trainersays you should work on your thighs,stomach, and neck as well, it can beoverwhelming. It can discourage youfrom doing what you set out to do.”

There’s an inference that youobtain inferior information when youbenchmark with companies that are lessthan the best. But as Pozos points out,that’s not necessarily the case.

“It’s just that companies that qual-ify as the leaders have applied theirpractices over longer periods and withmore consistency,” he explains. “It’s amatter of fine tuning.”

In fact, benchmarking with compa-nies that are less than the best hasbrought positive results for Pacific Bell.“In measures of customer satisfaction,for example, we’ve worked with compa-nies that are not necessarily the absolutebest in this area,” Pozos says. “Yet, wegathered enough useful information toenable us to reduce our expenditures by$9 million. And, when we benchmarkedwith other companies to determinehow they handle employee suggestions,we were able to obtain data that savedus about $12 million.”

Pozos puts it this way: “You canlearn from an Olympic athlete. But youalso can learn from the local tennis pro.”

Al PozosBenchmarking

Manager

PACIFIC BELL

You can benchmark only with the best.



Brian Andes received an inquiryrecently from a benchmarker whowas looking for ways to protect a

telephone company’s undergroundcable network. But Andes is the directorof business process improvement atTenneco Inc., whose products and ser-vices bear little resemblance to thoseoffered by the phone company. So, whydid the caller pick him as a benchmark-ing partner?

To Andes, the analogy was obvious.“We don’t have underground cables,but we do have underground pipe-lines,” he points out. “The object of ourprocesses may not be the same, but ourapproaches to resolving problems maybe similar.”

Andes dispels the myth that tobenchmark effectively, you must teamup with companies in your own indus-try whose processes are analogous toyours. “It’s a matter of mind set,” hemaintains. “It’s a matter of understand-ing that even companies or industriesthat are different can have similar coreprocesses or common characteristics.”

He cites an example. “Tenneco hassix operating companies that sell toeach other, and we wanted to learnmore about other companies’ processesfor billing between companies,” heexplains. “But when we began gather-ing information on intercompany bill-ing, it’s such an esoteric practice thatvery little information has been pub-lished on it.”

So, the Tenneco team broadened itssearch. It identified companies that do

billing and then isolated those whohave excelled at it.

“Next, we narrowed our focus,”Andes recalls. “We asked if any of theseorganizations had several companiesthat did business with each other.” Thisapproach led to a successful bench-marking effort.

Andes offers another example. “Wewere benchmarking on innovation,” herecalls. “Very few companies have dis-crete innovation processes, but in thecourse of calling people, we found com-panies that have introduced initiativesto encourage innovation, and wefocused on these.”

Identifying compatible benchmark-ing partners requires asking questionsand recognizing benchmarking oppor-tunities when they arise, Andes explains.“One benefit to belonging to the Center’s International BenchmarkingClearinghouse is networking,” he notes.“And, whenever I call someone with aspecific purpose in mind, I also reviewmy list of current benchmarking pro-jects and ask about anything I have aninkling they may be doing.”

That’s how the call about thephone company’s underground cablenetwork came about. “I was researchingthe innovation process,” Andes pointsout. “The phone company is in aregulated industry, just as we are, and Iwanted to know how innovation isapproached in a regulated environ-ment. We started talking about otherissues, and my phone company contactsaw the connection.”

Partners don’t exist outside m y indus-

Brian AndesDirector of Business

Process Improvement

TENNECO INC.



It’s no surprise that quality proponentsclaim benchmarking is only for bigcompanies. They’re the ones with the

human and financial resources it takesto do benchmarking on a grand scaleand with the structure in place to facili-tate other companies’ benchmarkingrequests.

But, as Ken Dooley can tell you,benchmarking can benefit smallercompanies, too. Dooley is the qualitymanager for Syntron Inc., which makesmarine electronics for the seismic andexploratory drilling industries. Hiscompany has about 300 employeessituated around the world. And despiteits diminutive size, it’s actively involvedin benchmarking.

Syntron traditionally has teamedup with companies its own size. “It’seasier to learn to do benchmarkingwhen you’re dealing with a companythe same size as yours,” he points out.“But more importantly, we work withsmall companies because the processeswe’re benchmarking are more likely tobe beneficial for both of us.

“The reason is that companies ofdifferent sizes approach processes indifferent ways. What’s best in class for abig company might not be best in classfor a smaller one. For example, a smallcompany that is benchmarking theprocess of receiving goods might dis-cover that what works well for a bigcompany might not work for it at all.”

Dooley admits the myth that bench-marking is only for big companies hasdiscouraged some small organizations

from participating in benchmarkingactivities. “I wanted to benchmark theISO certification process for internation-al standards,” he recalls. “But when I ap-proached companies of similar size inour area, they saw little value at first incomparing processes. They consideredwhat they were doing to be unique,because they had consolidated processeswithin their organization that wouldhave been conducted separately in biggercompanies. But after we talked abouttheir processes and how they document-ed and audited and prepared forcertification, they changed their minds.

“There are elements of almost anyprocess that are similar no matter whatsize the company is,” Dooley main-tains. “In fact, big companies can bene-fit from benchmarking with smallerones when they’re planning to consoli-date their operations.

“Benchmarking is a learningprocess, and the success of your effortsdepends heavily on how well you get toknow the processes you’re studying,” heconcludes. “The more companies youtalk to—regardless of their size—thebetter.”

Ken DooleyQuality Manager

SYNTRON, INC.

Benchmarking is only for big companies.


he Land of NIHQuite a long time agofrom the legends, we knowof a kingdom of grandeur and glory.’Twas the kingdom of NIH*rising up from the sealike some land in a fairy book story.

NIH did seem to be blessedwith much more than the restof the kingdoms with which it competed,and its army—so powerful—proudly marched through the sorrowfulforeign lands which it soundly defeated.

All the people of NIH

lived magnificently,boasting homes that were stately as castles,and the textiles they’d weaveone could scarcely believe,spun with silk and with fine golden tassels.

All their farmers’ green fieldshad spectacular yieldsand their highways were strong and extensive.They had sewers built to lastand a merchant fleet, fast,and its healthcare superb (but expensive).

On the first of the yearwith his ministers near,the old King handed each one a letter.It said, “Last year was grand,but I fear we must planif we want future years to be better.”

Well, they stammered and coughed.Then, they openly scoffedand said, “Why should we change, Your Highness,when you know we can boast‘We’ve the best. We’ve the most.’and our lifestyle is clearly the finest?”

Although each one resisted,the old King still persisted.

“I know that our kingdom is first,but if I had my drutherswe would learn from the othersand discover the things we do worst.

“I suggest that you visitand find out what is itthat each other kingdom does well.Pick the best from each oneand enhance what we’ve doneso that NIH will forever excel.

“For it’s easy to boastand it’s easy to coaston your record instead of improving.But there’s one thing to face—to remain in first place,a kingdom has got to keep moving.”

But these changes they fearedso they sneered and they jeeredand discussed how these things he had saidwould disrupt their fine lives,so they pulled out their knivesand the wise King of NIH soon lay dead.

Then they quickly electedsomeone not well respected.King Goodenuf mounted the throne.He said, “No cause for alarm.We’re not in any harm.Let’s leave what has been good enough alone.

“Let’s dispel all this sadness.The old King’s plan was madness.To approach other kingdoms is folly.They have nothing to teach usand their armies can’t reach us.Let’s enjoy what we’ve got and be jolly.”

So that ended the quarrels.They sat back on their laurelsand made certain no change was adopted.They did not seem to mindwhen production declined.But NIH’s dominance soon was co-opted.

For while NIH stayed the sametheir competitors gainedby working cooperatively.Through the knowledge they sharedand techniques they compared,they surpassed all the wonders of NIH.

Soon NIH’s grandeur had fadedand their failure was aidedby their pride, which would not let them seethat there was no salvationin their isolationand their future was never to be.

Now all that remainsare some legends and namesfrom a kingdom that once was called great,but whose subjects stopped yearningto excel through new learningand accepted an inglorious fate.

a benchmarking poemby Kevin Prihod

*NIH = Not Invented Here

c

bl


Henry David Thoreau representedthe essence of simplicity in hislanguage and lifestyle: “Our lifeis frittered away by detail. Sim-

plicity, simplicity, simplicity!” A Texas-based surgical apparel company supportsthis same philosophy in its approach tobenchmarking.

Not everyone agrees with the sim-plicity of benchmarking, but El Paso-based Johnson & Johnson Medical Inc.(JJMI), a division of Johnson & John-son, purposely developed its bench-marking structure around simplicity. Itrecognized that “best-in-class” learningschange, too, so it’s sensible to keep theprocess as simple as possible. JJMI’sphilosophy to benchmarking is defi-nitely refreshing. At a time when manyorganizations spend large amounts ofmoney, time, and resources to bench-mark other best-in-class companies,JJMI has created its own successfulmethod with short-term results.

“We chose not to be complex withbenchmarking,” said Michael Lewis,director of JJMI’s El Paso/Juarez opera-tions. “We chose to keep it simple for

this belief: that we didn’t have a longtime to change. We believe that what-ever we develop is going to change too,so why put all that effort into it, know-ing it will change soon after.”

A Change for the BetterIn 1989, two Johnson & Johnson

professional product organizationsmerged to create JJMI—Surgikos, withmanufacturing plants located in Juarez,Mexico; El Paso, Texas; and Arlington,Texas, and Johnson & Johnson PatientCare, located in Sherman, Texas, andNew Brunswick, New Jersey. Whilemergers are not uncommon among the150 companies in the Johnson & John-son family, they still require some initialadjustment uniting different manage-ment and manufacturing plants. As aresult of this unity, JJMI cuts and pro-duces disposable surgical apparel andpacks. Associates at the Artcraft facilityin El Paso cut the raw materials andtransport them daily to the three plantsin Mexico for production. Once com-plete, these surgical products are sentback to El Paso for sterilization.

After the merger in 1989, the for-mer vice president of operations atJohnson & Johnson Patient Careempowered employees with the abilityto do whatever was necessary toimprove. Employees were faced with afreedom never seen before. Lewis, pre-viously with Surgikos, jumped at theopportunity to make some changes,accepting the position of director ofMexico operations.

“I personally had a belief that wehad to change,” Lewis said. “Andbecause I had that belief, and I had itvery, very strongly, then we began toevaluate what we had to change.”

Lewis described JJMI’s situation in1989 as “pretty bad.” The organizationwas in a growth mode and unable tofulfill customers’ orders.

“We weren’t making our financialcommitments,” Lewis said. “We weren’tmaking our production commitments.I believe that was the reality that hit usin the face to make us believe we had tochange.”

Go,Se

CASE DESCRIPTION:Subject: Johnson & Johnson Medical Inc.

Contact:Michael Lewisdirector, border operations

Jack MorrisonArtcraft plant manager

Richard BrownTQM manager

Johnson & Johnson Medical Inc.7850 Artcraft RoadEl Paso, TX 79912

Product/Service:A border operation in El Paso, Texas, andJuarez, Mexico, producing surgical gowns,surgical packs, drapes, scrubs, and gloves

Focus:Benchmarking, total quality management

Number of Associates Involved: 3,400

With these

three words,

benchmarking

is made simple

at Johnson & Johnson

Medical Inc.

by Vicki J. Powers



Lewis believes the common threadrunning through the organization waspeople had a willingness to change. Theorganization started looking at thewhole gamut of its business—from hir-ing practices to pay systems to measure-ment—and determined what it neededto do to improve.

A New Direction Lewis recognized during the orga-

nization’s quality educational processthat regardless of the quality “guru,” thecommon themes among them focusedon the customer, people, and education.He also noticed that every company hestudied seemed to have a strategic plan.Albeit, the plan may be sitting on anexecutive’s shelf collecting dust, but thecompanies he studied had a plan. Lewisdid not want a stagnant plan for JJMI,so he asked himself, “How do I take thisstrategic plan or mission and deploy itin two countries and two languages?”The answer: focus on a few very basicthings. Again, simplicity played out asthe answer for JJMI.

The organization created four critical success factors for JJMI with amission of “superior responsiveness tocustomer requirements.” The businessis run based on these critical success factors:• Customer-driven Quality• Fast and Flexible Processes• Lowest Cost• Total Associate Involvement

Step by Step: Inching Closer toBenchmarking

One of the first things JJMI did toimprove the organization was to flowchartits business. Employees began lookingclosely at elements of work that weregoing into their activities. They brokeup into teams, by plant, and startedeliminating the non-value-added tasks.

“We asked ourselves, ‘Is this goingto provide value to our customers or addvalue to our product?’” Lewis said. “Wehad to change the process to eliminatethe non-value-added activities. Andthat is a continuing process. I’m notsure you ever finish that, because thebusiness changes, products change…”

The organization also moved intobenchmarking, which many associatesdescribe as part of the Johnson & John-son culture. In the opinion of JackMorrison, Artcraft plant manager, JJMIhas embraced the philosophy of notreinventing the wheel, but looking atothers and “lifting” ideas from them.Morrison said associates understandwhat benchmarking is by seeing theresults from it. “It hasbecome self-perpetuatingnow,” he said.

Lewis believesstrongly in JJMI’smethod for benchmark-ing, as well, but he admitsits benchmarking is dif-ferent. And he’s evenasked himself, “Are wemissing the boat?”

“But then I look atwhat we’ve done, and Isee the results and thesuccesses,” Lewis contin-ued. “We’re not trying tobe a perfect 4.0 onbenchmarking. We may not be 100 percentperfection, but we’resomewhere in the 90s ongetting things done.”

In the past three years, the organi-zation has benchmarked 35 companies,such as Honda for its just-in-time deliv-eries by suppliers, Milliken for qualityof design and manufacturing, and Federal Express for its on-time deliveryand customer satisfaction. Teams areresponsible for finding a solution totheir projects, and for many teams, thatinvolves benchmarking. Managementhas made it available by offering theresources and money in the budget, aswell as a supportive hand to help.

“Benchmarking isn’t a solution inor of itself, but one tool in a tool kit toexcellent, world-class status,” saidRichard Brown, TQM manager. “Wedon’t see benchmarking as a panacea.We didn’t see a lightning bolt and all ofa sudden start benchmarking.”

One of the common misconcep-tions about benchmarking is that it’s as simple as copying the success ofanother company directly into yourown organization. Lewis has commu-nicated to JJMI associates that they cango study a Federal Express- and Mil-liken-like organization and discovertheir best-in-class features, but theycan’t necessarily take their processesand put them in JJMI. They are notgoing to fit.

ARTCRAFT LANDMARKS(from January 1989 to December 1992)

Customer rejects .........reduced by 85 percentLeadtime .........reduced by 83 percent

Customs cycle time .........reduced by 72 percentManufacturing waste .........reduced by 69 percent

Team participation .........increased by 350 percentManufacturing costs .........reduced by 34 percent

Inventory .........reduced by 60 percentSupervisory personnel .........reduced by 50 percent

Sterilizer utilization .........increased from 56 percent to 98 percent (for a $4 million cost savings)

ISO 9002 certification .........first Johnson & Johnson domestic company and first in industry

JJMI receives its fabric on 2500-pound rollsbefore one cut can be made. Elvira Barragan,machine operator lay-up, monitors the processto ensure the rolls flow at maximum efficiency.



“So, our attitude and strategy is togo out and see what the concepts are—and take it to the next level and under-stand what those concepts mean andthe ideas behind them,” Lewis said.

“Go, See, and Do”Lewis described JJMI’s benchmark-

ing mindset as “Go, See, and Do.”According to Lewis, “go” only takestime and money…to “see,” individualssee only what they want to believe. But

“do?” That is the difficult part ofbenchmarking. People say they “do”things, but more often than not, it’s justlip service. Lewis tries to instill in asso-ciates that they need to change andcome back with take-aways—improve-ment opportunities. He asks them tomake a list of 10 things they learnedfrom benchmarking. From this list, heprefers the organization implement onestrong change to make a legacy to theorganization, rather than trying toaccomplish all 10 items.

“We have to come back from bench-marking with a take-away,” Lewis said.

“It wasn’t okay to go and see, and notcome back and ‘do’ something—some-thing you learned. Or, your take-awaywas you don’t want to do that.”

JJMI’s benchmarking structurerevolves around a seven-step process(see Figure 1) the organization adaptedfrom many sources. This process isintroduced to employees, along withthe basics of benchmarking, as onecomponent in their “Quality Journey”training.

One of JJMI’s benchmarkingefforts involved Milliken, which excelsin two areas: measurement and associ-ate recognition. Lewis, who attendedthis benchmarking trip, wanted toimplement something he learned fromMilliken when he returned. Millikensponsors sharing rallies, where “the bestof the best” teams make presentationsand glory in recognition from peers andmanagement.

“We came back and realized wecould do the same thing, because wealready had teams set up,” Lewis said.“And we’ve done it three times so far. It’s

overwhelming what that has done for usin the organization, because people wantto contribute. We don’t have a three-ringbinder and 100 pages on the Millikenrecognition program. My belief is if wehad done that, it would have takenlonger to have our first sharing rally. We realized success very quickly.”

“Distinciones,” the Spanish wordfor distinctions, is JJMI’s version of Milliken’s recognition sharing rally.Every two years, the four plants on the

border shut down for one day to recog-nize employees with awards and a din-ner. Only three teams per plant canpresent their successes to the audience,though 15 have already applied for thenext sharing rally from the Artcraftfacility. On the off years, JJMI recog-nizes employees on a plantwide basis.

“‘Distinciones’ is a chance for teamsto showcase their talents and results,”Morrison said. “People want to be rec-ognized, and they deserve it. Everyonewants to feel they earned their pay.”

Lewis also visited Federal Express(as part of Federal Express’ requiredtours as a Malcolm Baldrige NationalQuality Award winner). Lewis recog-nized two take-aways from this visit aswell—Federal Express is sensitive to thecustomer and has incredible educationand training programs. While manymay not call this visit “benchmarking,”Lewis does. In his mind, FederalExpress is a winner, so they are consid-ered a benchmark.

When Lewis attended this tour in1992, the tour started at night when thebulk of its work is performed. Five

Jack Morrison, plant manager of the Artcraft Facility in El Paso, Texas, stresses the importance of the Border Quality Improvement Team (BQIT). This management-level team, from both sides

of the Rio Grande, guides JJMI’s quality and benchmarking effort.

Seven Step Process1. Decide what to benchmark.

2. Analyze which variables should be measured.

3. Identify best-in-class.

4. Measure own performance.

5. Measure performance of the benchmark andcreate a gap analysis.

6. Develop plan to close the gap.

7. Implement plan and monitor results.

Figure 1



thousand Federal Express employeescome in at night to process one millionpackages in four to five hours. Theplanes take off, and the employeesdepart. What struck Lewis as hewatched this process is “organizationsmust have happy customers.”

“That was a real eye-opener forme—customer satisfaction is veryimportant,” Lewis said. “Because ifFederal Express settled for only 99 per-cent on-time delivery, that would

account for maybe 5,000 packages thatdidn’t get sent on time to people whohad to have their packages. So, westarted trying to understand what cus-tomer satisfaction is to us and how weneed to do that. And we’re still tryingto learn.”

One method JJMI uses to ensureit’s reaching customer requirements isto conduct plant tours with nurses,JJMI’s major customers, several times ayear. The majority of the 20-25 nursesper group are the decision-makers attheir facilities. Nurses tour the JJMIplants in El Paso and Juarez, and inreturn, give JJMI feedback on products,environmental initiatives, and otherappropriate measures. JJMI dependson this feedback and often makesadjustments as a result of customer con-cerns. Doctors and their operating pro-cedures drive what JJMI produces. The

organization develops packs and changesproduct lines to meet the needs of doc-tors, based on feedback from the nurses.

The visit to Federal Express alsotaught JJMI associates about trainingby showing them the capabilities thatFederal Express has to train their associ-ates. Lewis said they took concepts theylearned from Federal Express, as well asothers they had studied, and tried todetermine where JJMI’s niche was andhow it fit its personality. At that point,

the organization developed its programsand processes for education. One is the“Quality Journey” training all associateslearn, as well as other courses that JJMIdeveloped for employees.

The Heart of the MatterWhat is it that keeps JJMI focused

on quality and benchmarking? Accord-ing to Lewis, it’s one essential ingredi-ent…the backbone and vital organ…theBorder Quality Improvement Team(BQIT).

This management-level team is theleadership for the JJMI operation onboth sides of the Rio Grande. In 1989,this team, composed of managementand union leaders in El Paso and Juarez,formed with the belief that each weekmanagement needs to ensure that it isstill following the same road map. Afixed weekly agenda with published pri-

orities allows members to follow thestrategic plan and focus on quality,costs, and benchmarking. These areimportant items for discussion, becauseJJMI believes they are all intertwined.

“Our quality initiatives are all drivenby the BQIT—training, benchmarking,etc.,” Brown said. “The key is that groupof leaders meeting every week andagreeing on what their focus will be.”

Most important, this leadershipteam serves as a cross-functional teamthat sends a message to the rest of theorganization—leadership by example.Lewis said the evolution of the BQITwill require some tweaking, but hebelieves it’s entrenched in the culturenow.

“The BQIT has been the commonthread to bring the associates togetherwho provide the leadership—in a veryfocused, concentrated way to makeresults happen,” Lewis said. “Not to gettogether and talk or feel good aboutwhat we’re doing—but to continue tomake change continue to happen. Afterour benchmarking studies, we’ll comeback and sit as a BQIT and talk abouthow that concept would apply to us. Insome cases, it was an easy fit. In others,it wasn’t fitting at all.”

Change is in the AirAs a result of JJMI’s quality and

benchmarking efforts, nothing seems tostay the same for long—improvement isthe word of the day…every day. Andone of the big changes involves theJJMI associates.

“People feel more empowered to dowhat they feel is right and not be penal-ized for making a mistake,” Morrisonsaid. “Associates feel they can questionmanagement, and they definitely havemore pride.

“I love showing improvement! It’s amatter of goal setting and putting astructure in place to improve. Wehaven’t been faced with a situation thatwe couldn’t do what we wanted to do.”

Morrison’s words have examples toback them up. Two of JJMI’s mostimpressive recognitions occured its sec-ond time around—the organization didnot give up after one try.

Christina Carrizal, fanfold operator, and other JJMI associates learned the importance of measurement, such as Statistical Process Control, through their quality training.



Take, for example, the Premio Nacional de Calidad—Mex-ico’s version of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.When JJMI’s three Mexico plants, Surgikos S.A. de C.V., enteredthe first year, they did not win. They weren’t even finalists. But1993 was a different story… with a happy ending.

The Premio Nacional de Calidad is given to organizationsthat succeed as a result of their efforts in continuous improve-ment toward total quality. In 1993, 85 organizations registeredto apply for the award. From those, 12 were selected to prepareand send additional information. Eight of these companiesreceived final site visits, and Surgikos was one of three winners.The president of Mexico presented the award to JJMI associatesin November at the official presidential residence in Mexico City.

“It was pretty overpowering for me to go down to Mexicoand have their president present that award to us with morethan 1,000 people in the room,” Lewis said. “It’s an outsideindicator that says we’re getting this right. But we have to makesure we don’t get arrogant and think we have arrived, because wehaven’t. We still have a lot of work to do.”

Another recent accolade JJMI is pleased to tout involvedIndustry Week and its annual “Best Plants in the United States”recognition. JJMI’s El Paso facility was named one of the bestplants in 1993 in the magazine’s October 19 issue. El Pasoproudly follows the footsteps of Johnson & Johnson’s Sherman,Texas, plant, which received the honor in 1991.

For its celebration, nearly 200 associates and their familiesgathered on the grounds of the Artcraft facility in El Paso for thepresentation, reception, and plant tours. Bill Clarke, JJMI’spresident in Arlington, Texas, complimented associates on theirteamwork and “willingness to try new approaches to increaseproductivity while better satisfying customers.”

Turning the Tables: JJMI as a BenchmarkIn addition to benchmarking inside and outside its indus-

try, JJMI also has earned a reputation of its own as a best-in-class organization. Other companies in JJMI’s industry havebenchmarked several of its operations, including cutting roomoperations, customs/traffic operations, sterilizer operations, andmaterials management.

In customs, for example, the traffic-and-customs team hasreduced the number of inspections to cross the border from 130in 1991 to 10 inspections in 1993. Instead of taking 40 hoursfor one truck to travel across the border with inspections, it nowtakes two hours. These reductions are based on JJMI’s specialsecurity agreement with U.S. Customs signed in 1992 to reduceinspection by 90 percent.

By working with such a large volume—30 shipments perday—the reduction definitely affects JJMI’s bottom line. JJMIis the first organization to reach this level, so U.S. Customs rec-ommends organizations to JJMI if they need assistance.

“The normal inspection rate is 10 trailers out of 100, whichis rework and lots of scrap,” Morrison said. “Our inspectionrate is one trailer out of 100. You must have an ability to main-tain accuracy. It’s a matter of learning what the requirements arefrom Customs.”

Team Benchmarks Pay SystemIn early 1992, management at Johnson & Johnson MedicalInc. (JJMI) handpicked a team to solve the following generalmission: “to develop a pay system consistent with the continu-ous flow manufacturing process” for its associates working inMexico. This cross-functional team, dubbed MAPS (MexicoAssociate Pay System), went through the necessary steps tosolve this critical situation: data collection/analysis, produc-tion manager brainstorm, pay system benchmarking, designconceptualization, and implementation.

Beginning StagesAs manufacturing shifted to a continuous flow process,

JJMI recognized it needed a new incentive system to comple-ment this process. The team began by flowcharting the processand collecting extensive amounts of data on wage laws andregulations, current pay structures, and other pertinent infor-mation. Armed with this background data, the team was readyto learn from other organizations through benchmarking.

Looking to OthersThe MAPS team began benchmarking locally in El Paso

to stay within the garment industry. First, they looked internallyat one of JJMI’s own operations, the Critikon Cuff Operation,which manufactures blood pressure cuffs. They discovered howCritikon was paying associates, measuring productivity, andpaying out bonuses. The team also looked at H.D. Lee, whichis a similar operation in El Paso.

In May 1992, three members of the MAPS team attendeda three-day pay systems seminar where seven organizations pre-sented how they compensate their employees in a continuousflow process. These companies included Byte Systems, TannerCompany, H.D. Lee—Alabama, Sara Lee, Square D, LeaderSystems, and Mine Safety Appliance.

“Benchmarking was an integral part of the design of ourcompensation system,” Donna Welch, senior accountant andteam member, said. “There is a lot to be learned by others’mistakes—and their successes.

“Management leaves it up to its teams to make decisions onhow to do benchmarking,” she continued. “In cases wheresomething needs to be funded, the commitment is there.”

side notes

more ➤



A Simple Environment?The word simple usually doesn’t have a place in the

environments of corporate organizations. They typicallystrive for complex language, complex processes, and com-plex organizational structures. Why has the philosophy ofThoreau vanished from ’90s? In some respects, it hasn’t.Organizations like JJMI act as reminders that life, business,and yes, benchmarking don’t have to be complex.

“‘Hard’ may give you 100 percent and ‘simple’ maygive you 89 percent in benchmarking,” Lewis said. “But it’sgoing to change anyway, so why does it have to be 100 per-cent. We just do it simpler.”

Lessons Learned from Benchmarking• Benchmarking does not automatically mean “travel.” There

are other ways to learn from organizations (through phone interviews,etc.) without having to take a trip.

• Documentation is important. Although JJMI wants to keep itsbenchmarking efforts simple and not create a huge binder after everybenchmarking study, JJMI associates admit that a small amount ofdocumentation is necessary to capture take-aways from thebenchmarking visit and basic information for follow-up with organizationsat a later date.

• Diagonal slice teams allow for different observations duringsite visits. JJMI typically sends a manager, supervisor, two productionassociates, and a Quality Assurance technician on benchmarking studies.This diverse representation allows everyone to be involved and discovernew tidbits of information that all managers, for example, may notnotice.

• Organizations can get a lot of mileage from benchmarkinginternally with other affiliates/divisions/units. By the natureof being affiliates, organizations may not naturally share information.

• Find a champion to push you through the benchmarkingprocess. Organizations need an individual who is commited to thebenchmarking process—someone who continues to believe you mustchange, when others waiver.

Sometimes, as in the case of MAPS, a benchmarking studywill illustrate what companies should not do. In this example,MAPS benchmarked an organization that paid its teams on a salarybasis, not wage. JJMI recognized that this did not seem compatiblewith its Mexico wage force. “These young workers need somemotivation to put in the extra effort for a goal,” Welch said.

ImplementationBased on its learnings, the MAPS team decided to implement a

skills program rewarding individuals, in addition to team incen-tives. This became the human interest concept the team built in.Associates have the opportunity to learn multiple skills and earn upto 40 percent of minimum wage as a bonus, depending on howambitious they are.

“In this age group, everyone needs to be recognized for indi-viduality, and this system gives us the opportunity to train at differentlevels,” Welch said. “This is the most important part of it. That’ssomething we may not have recognized without benchmarking.It’s the piece we struggled with the most.”

The MAPS team decided to implement the new pay systemone production line at a time. The pay system has been in placeonly a few weeks, but success stories already exist. On the first day, theassociates were still new to the whole process and did not meet theirproduction goal. Yet, by day two, the manufacturing team had real-ized, individually, what each needed to do to ensure the productiongoal was met.

“It was great to watch them analyze and adjust their ways,”Welch said. “Moving around to help another associate—that wasunheard of before in the plant. Associates began to help others in theline. They met their production goal 20 minutes before their shiftwas over. They did high-fives to celebrate!”

FutureFor the long term, Welch said many of these ideas could be

used in the El Paso plant, as well. She admits it does require a size-able investment to get it running, but the long-term benefit isskilled, flexible, motivated associates.

Key Learnings from Benchmarking Pay Systems• Measure, measure, measure—Other companies placed a heavy

emphasis on “You only get what you measure. If you don’t mea-sure it, you won’t get it.”

• All associates need to be treated equal…which translates to bepaid equal.

• You need to work to meet a specific plan—Employees need toknow the goal and when they need to meet it. “If you meetthese requirements, this is the bonus.”

• Focus on safety and quality—Quality and sterility are primaryconcerns for JJMI, who want associates to be protected in a safeenvironment.

INDUST

RY

XYZ


WHY WOULD A LEADING MEDICAL CENTER

want to study Marriott’s hotel guest regis-tration process? Avis Rental Car’s staffingsystem? Why would an airline spend timecomparing notes with—of all things—anIndianapolis 500 pit crew?!

Sound crazy? No. These organizations are usingbenchmarking to break out of their industry paradigms toreach new, world-class levels of performance. The medicalcenter’s patients judged their hospital experience not onlyon the quality of care, but also on how much time, hassle,and paperwork was involved in the admissions process.So, the medical center asked, “Who does ‘admitting’ betterthan we do?”

The airline needed faster maintenance turnaroundthan anyone in the airline industry currently provided.Who better than a race car pit crew to shed a whole newway of looking at the process?

Leave the BoxThis is called “benchmarking outside-the-box”—

learning from processes in other industries to improveyour own. At the American Productivity & Quality Center’s International Benchmarking Clearinghouse, weconstantly see evidence of the power of out-of-the-boxbenchmarking.

For those who are used to thinking of benchmarkingas a secret process of comparing one’s performance to com-petitors, this shift in thinking requires new levels of open-ness and creativity. We define benchmarking as:

“the process of identifying, understanding, andadapting outstanding practices and processesfrom organizations anywhere in the world to helpyour organization improve its performance.”

Practices and processes range from customer service tohuman resources, from warehousing and distribution toleadership. Even industry-specific processes, such asclaims processing in insurance, are candidates for learningfrom any organization that processes “orders” rapidly,including mail order houses and banks.

Benchmarking is not only competitive analysis or“number crunching,” nor is it spying, espionage, or steal-ing. It is truly a process of organizational learning.

Comparing yourself with competitors is important, ofcourse. Your customers do. But if you only try to matchyour competitors, you will never leave them in the dust.Many organizations, from manufacturing to governmentagencies to telephone companies, join the Center’s Clear-inghouse so they can safely and easily network and learnfrom other industries. Our 280-plus members come fromevery possible industry and many nations.

by Carla O’Dell, Ph.D.American Productivity & Quality Center

Benchma

rkingOut-

of-the-Box



Why and when should you bench-mark outside your industry? Here aresix reasons:

To avoid reinventing exist-ing solutions. No onehas the luxury, time, ormoney anymore to rein-vent in a vacuum that

others have already discov-ered and tested.

To achieve breakthroughimprovement and accel-erate change. Bench-marking offers theopportunity for break-

through improvements—not 5 percent or 7 percent, but gains of30 to 50 percent, sometimes even 300or 500 percent! Firms that are alreadybehind are going to need such break-through gains to catch up, then contin-uous improvement to stay ahead.

Speed is critical, if for no other rea-son than to overcome the enormousinertia of the status quo. As Jack Welchat GE has said, “Incremental changedoesn’t work very well in the type oftransformation GE has gone through.If your change isn’t big enough, or revo-lutionary enough, the bureaucracy canbeat you.”

To drive and direct reengi-neering. It would befoolhardy to spend thetime, money, and organi-zational energy to reengi-

neer without looking out-side to see how others have approachedthe same objective.

We strongly urge our Clearing-house members and clients to bench-mark at least twice during any majorreengineering project we work with. Atthe beginning of a reengineeringprocess, smart managers use competi-tive analysis, customer information,operating performance, and bench-marking to identify those key processesto reengineer. Then, when the creativeportion of redesign begins, they bench-mark world-class examples to create thenew design.

To set stretch goals. Inertiaand past success leadsmany organizations toplan for the future in sim-ilar patterns. Without

some external stimulus andexample, the goals for improvement arelikely to be “the same as last year...plus 5percent.” That won’t cut it in thisworld. Xerox once thought it wasdoing well in one of its divisions withgains of 8 percent annually. Theybenchmarked and found it would take18 percent to merely catch up, andmuch more to stay ahead.

Benchmarking outside the industrycan legitimize stretch goals. Goals pickedout of thin air and from off-the-wallguesses rarely inspire anyone. Numbersfrom competitors analyzed in a blackbox are equally suspect—and ignored—by most managers. But stretch goalsbased on believable external evidence,not only of results but the process thatproduced those results, are believableand give people a model from which towork.

To overcome NIH (NotInvented Here). Bench-marking offers evidence,not theory, that ideasNIH can work. This

helps to convince skeptics,overcome resisters, and convert fencesitters—increasing the odds of makingnew and large changes. Benchmarkingtakes thinking outside normal channels(also known as ruts), to look at brandnew approaches that would never haveoccurred to them had they not steppedout of their well-worn thinking.

To anticipate and head offnew competitors. If goalsare set based on currentindustry standards, a vir-tual competitor may move

in and change the rules.Dell Computer rocked the personalcomputer industry when it successfullyadopted mail order as a sales and distri-bution channel. Mail order was not anew idea in other industries, but it fun-damentally transformed computer sales

and set off a wave of competition in thelast three years that is shaking one-timeleaders to their foundations.

You can’t beat competitors by fol-lowing them. Whole industries can getlocked into mediocrity, and few wouldget ahead by more than inches. Theywill remain a prisoner in their ownindustry.

In the past, one could identify eas-ily who competitors were and monitor

them. Today, industry lines are grow-ing fuzzy. Competitors come fromother industries, from other technolo-gies, and certainly from other nations.For example, the Swiss watchmakerswere overwhelmed by competitors thatweren’t even in the same business. TheSwiss didn’t even see them coming!

Ideas for Cross-IndustryBenchmarking

Many of our Clearinghouse mem-bers make cross-industry benchmarkingeasier, faster, and cheaper by joiningconsortium benchmarking studies andCommon Interest Groups.

In a consortium study, companieswho are interested in the same processcan join together to benchmark them-selves and with firms that have world-class “best practices.” The sponsor par-ticipants not only share the costs intime and money, but also learn atremendous amount from each other.The target companies are delighted todeal with only one group, rather than10 companies all wanting to bench-mark the same process.

One Clearinghouse consortiumstudy currently underway relates to“processes to translate customer informa-tion into product and service improve-ments.” The 10 participating companiesinclude two telephone companies, achemical firm, an insurance company,and a leading food manufacturer.

1

2

3

4

5

6

You can’t beatcompetitors by

following them.



Another consortium on new productdevelopment includes 19 member com-panies from a wide variety of industries.

Other recent hot processes thatClearinghouse members are benchmark-ing are internal communication systems,

strategic planning, customer satisfaction,new accounting and decision tools,human resource strategic planning, pur-chasing, self-managed work teams, inno-vative reward systems, etc.

What does it take to successfullybenchmark outside your industry?• Knowledge of your own process and

problems to see the underlying char-acteristics and spot analogies acrossother industries.

• Ability to look for common themeswithout having them spoon-fed

• Information about outstandingcompanies in other industries. Thisinformation needs to be organizedby process and not just industry.

• Language that is common to all.One of the barriers to sharing acrossindustries is finding a common lan-guage that describes processesregardless of industry. For example,the medical center had to equate itsadmissions process with hotel regis-tration in order to see the analogyand potential transfer. With ourmembers’ assistance, we have devel-oped a Process Classification Scheme

that identifies generic processes fromother industries and contexts.

Finally, true breakthroughs requirea different mindset. The Clearinghousehas a second definition of benchmark-ing that captures the psychology andwillingness to learn that is necessary tobenchmark outside your industry andmake breakthroughs:

Benchmarking is the practice ofbeing humble enough to admitthat someone else is better atsomething and wise enough tolearn how to match and evensurpass them at it.

Ad

One of the barriers to sharing acrossindustries is finding a common

language that describes processesregardless of industry.

As you see and hear about how companies are conductingbenchmarking today, what bothers you? What are companies doing wrong?

The fundamental problem I see with benchmarking todayis the [benchmarking] teams. I see them reacting to theshort-term expectations of senior executives. Therefore,

they are not doing the proper documentation of their processes.The best reflection of this is in the very poorly prepared question-naires I’ve seen. Some of the questions can be answered by simplylooking at a company’s annual report. Either the questions aremuch too elementary, or they are at such a broad level that theyserve no purpose.

As you probably know, I’m a proponent of focusing on workprocesses. This is the most effective way to get good results froma benchmarking study.

Is there a model for benchmarking that you personallyendorse? Are there “bad” models that you know of?

My belief is that it’s those models that focus on processesthat work the best. The Clearinghouse’s model, forinstance, works well. It’s when you go to the extremes—

either too detailed or too elementary—that the models breakdown. For example, I’ve seen models that are 34 steps in length.Somewhere in between—seven to 14 steps—is about right.

Texas Instruments seems to have done a remarkable jobsetting up a corporatewide structure for benchmarking.What are some of the best-in-class companies that have anorganized strategy?

I hate to answer this because I know I’ll miss some peo-ple. But, IBM, certainly TI, Du Pont, Kodak, and DECare the kinds of companies that are doing it right. The

difficulty is that no one is perfect.

&&


Q AWITH

Robert CampManager, Benchmarking Competency

Xerox Corporation

QA

QA

QA



What makes these organizations superior at benchmarking?

The key is that someone in these organizations hasbeen assigned to benchmarking—at least a person.And these people are just doing benchmarking, with

the support of senior management. I see that as a key successfactor: they must have the unconditional support of seniormanagement.

How does Xerox handle what must be an overwhelm-ing number of requests to benchmark?

We have to be selective. Unpreparedness is a bigproblem as far as incoming requests go. If I had a to-do list, I’d encourage everyone to write out questions

in advance (of a benchmarking interview). Just as important,they should write out their own answers to the same questionsthey’re asking the partner.

A good number of the benchmarking requests come tome. If not, they come into the other benchmarking profes-sionals with Xerox.

How is benchmarking budgeted for at Xerox?

It’s not budgeted as a line item. People reserve moneyfor travel, positions, etc. It’s done in a piecemealfashion, more or less. It’s not culled out as such.

One argument against benchmarking is that it is veryhard for smaller organizations to get started, muchless complete benchmarking studies. What advice doyou have?

That’s a question that gets asked a lot, and I think it’sa misnomer—really overblown. Xerox is made up ofa number of small entities—for instance, our ware-

house operations. People think, ‘Oh my gosh, how can Ibenchmark with such a huge company?’ When you get rightdown to it, most of the benchmarking is done at the func-tional levels. It becomes much more manageable when youlook at it this way.

The other part of this question gets at the resourcessmaller companies have to do benchmarking. If necessary,they can do benchmarking on a part-time basis. Scale itdown. The key is that one person, at least, is responsible forkeeping a constant watch for benchmarking opportunities.Or, the management team should always be on the watch.

Implementation of study findings has proven to be amajor issue among companies conducting benchmark-ing studies. Success stories, although they’re out there,are sometimes hard to come by. Why is this?

There is a lot of hesitation and reluctance to put thistype of information in the public domain. I just sawthat Fortune magazine is coming out with a “best

practices” section as a regular feature. I think that’s great.Companies are just starting to get comfortable with havingsome prominence displayed. It’s just a matter of getting usedto it. Many are leery of the press; too often, they’ve beenblind-sided by the media and they’re gun-shy. Not many pub-lications let them review the story before it goes into print.

But, if you take the proceedings from a conference, there’sless reluctance there. I think it’s the medium. Conferenceproceedings are almost seen as private publications, butthey’re really not. There’s a lot of good information thatcomes out of such publications.

When you hear the arguments concerning the cost andtime associated with benchmarking, what is yourresponse?

The first thing you have to ask yourself is, “What am Igoing to get for it (benchmarking)?” The substanceof the results obtained from benchmarking is proven.

In many cases the return is 10 times the investment, in somecases more. But, you have to be judicious. If it’s a significantbusiness issue, and it must be tackled, i.e., change is necessary,then benchmarking makes sense.

That still doesn’t relieve us of the need to find less expen-sive ways to do this. With today’s technology, benchmarkingcan be accomplished via satellite, teleconferencing, and evenelectronically. I challenge organizations to do it differently.

Getting other potential benchmarking partners toagree to participate (i.e., agree to be benchmarked) isanother challenge. What should organizations do toget not just cooperation, but enthusiastic cooperation?

This is the biggest myth of benchmarking. Others arewilling to cooperate—if you are prepared. No onewants to agree to benchmark broad issues like tech-

nology transfer. But, if you say, “I want to benchmark process‘X.’ I’ve documented it. Here are my questions. I have myown answers to the questions,” do you really think theywouldn’t want to participate?

Before someone initiates a benchmarking study, whatis the best way to weigh the costs of conducting thestudy against the potential savings from improvementsas a result of the study?

QA

QA

QAQA

QA

QA

QA

Q



One way, and probably the best way, is to go into thepublic domain, like some of the mini-case studies

that have appeared on benchmarking, and take those to man-agement and say, “Look, here’s this function that XYZ Corpo-ration improved.” Then ask yourself if there’s a chance yourcompany can benefit likewise. There are enough success sto-ries out there. If that doesn’t turn people on to benchmarking,what will?

Companies are moving en masse toward reengineer-ing—not just individual processes, but entire organi-zations. Where does benchmarking fit in the reengi-neering effort?

I think you have to turn to the definitions and let thedefinitions distinguish the efforts. Reengineering isthe radical redesign of work processes. Benchmark-

ing involves finding and implementing exemplar practices.Some companies take the reengineering approach—radicalredesign of processes. Others may want to take the continu-ous improvement, or TQM, approach. These are bothchoices. I see benchmarking as a necessity. It plays a vital rolein both approaches.

Fred Bowers (of Digital Equipment Corporation) hassaid that benchmarking will eventually disappear—that it will become a subliminal operation in organi-zations. Do you agree? Can benchmarking advanceto that level any time soon?

Let me say this: Benchmarking will become a busi-ness activity that is very well understood. It will take

its place with the other successful quality tools. I don’t think itwill become subliminal in my lifetime! I do believe thatbenchmarking is beginning to be recognized as a positive,proactive tool for improvement.

What about the use of the phrase “benchmarkingmovement”? Do you like that label? It’s used a lot,suggesting that many people think of benchmarking asa trend, rather than an established avenue forimprovement.

Benchmarking is really the essence of productivityand quality improvement. But, we have to remind

ourselves that it’s just one in a ‘suite’ of quality tools. Like anytool, it should be used when and where appropriate. In somecases, statistical process control or quality function deploy-ment might be the tool of choice—and necessity. But bench-marking is definitely an important tool.

The Center’s International Benchmarking Clearing-house recently celebrated its two-year anniversary.How have it and other benchmarking resourcesaffected the use and/or abuse of benchmarking?

I think it’s been very positive. People have to have aplace to go for help. There are tremendous network-ing opportunities available. The Clearinghouse, as

well as the other centers being formed, are all performing use-ful roles. The Clearinghouse is like any other organizationthat serves its customers, and to the extent it does that, it willcontinue to prosper. The competition that is out there is anindication of the worth of benchmarking.

A

QA

QA

QA

QA

Acomprehensive report that

examines the various ways

leading organizations are align-

ing human capital with business

strategies, and the role Human

Resource departments are playing in

creating and sustaining that align-

ment.This Special Report Includes:◆ Executive Summary of Major Findings

◆ Analysis of Screening Survey

◆ Company Profiles:• Why, when, and how alignment

was created• Who the players are• Description of alignment process• Alignment measures

HUMAN RESOURCES

Sponsored jointly by the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse and Allstate Insurance Company

ORDER INFORMATION

Supplies are limited. To ensure your copy ofthe Human Resources Alignment Study, call now:

(800) 776-9676(713) 685-4600

$125 Center/Clearinghouse Members$175 Non-Members


BETTING PAYON CUSTOMERSATISFACTION

Utility Experiences Performance ImprovementWhen It Ties Compensation to Stakeholder Satisfaction

C U S T O M E R S A T I S F A C T I O N

Most corporate executivestalk about the importanceof customer satisfaction.At one company, however,

the entire management team is bettingits pay on a unique program to continu-ally improve customer—and share-holder—satisfaction.

Roger Young, chief executive offi-cer of Bay State Gas Co., Westborough,Massachusetts, sparked the initiative aspart of an overall quality improvementeffort that is part of a program to steerthe entire company toward specificlong-term goals.

Dubbed “Vision 2000,” the newfocus is resulting in expanded use ofvariable pay to reward individuals forcorporate achievements—includingimprovement in customer satisfaction.

Getting Pay ‘In Line’The changes in compensation

began in 1991 when Young retainedCompo Consulting Group (CCG) todetermine if Bay State’s pay structurewas in concert with Vision 2000.

“Initially, we concentrated onreviewing senior executive compensa-tion to determine how much payshould be fixed and how much shouldbe variable,” said Paul Ford, Bay State’ssenior vice president for division opera-tions and human resources.

“As well, we wanted to determinewhether our performance measures forsetting variable pay were consistentwith what we were trying to accomplishunder Vision 2000,” he said.

The issue of customer satisfactioncame up when the company and CCGrealized that the Vision 2000 objectivewas not being rewarded under the com-pensation structure existing at that time.

“Vision 2000 sets Bay State Gas ona course to be New England’s leadinggas distribution utility in terms of cus-tomer satisfaction, relationships withregulators, quality of service, and,among similar factors, financial perfor-mance,” Ford explained.

In addition to customers, therefore,compensation for senior managementhad to provide performance incentivesfor achieving measurable goals of con-cern to the company’s two other exter-nal stakeholder groups: regulators andshareholders.

CCG and Bay State reviewed theconcerns of each stakeholder group andcreated a means to measure corporateperformance that would increase thatgroup’s “satisfaction” with Bay State Gas.

Lowering Rates = Increasing PayWorking with Bay State’s chief

financial officer, Thomas W. Sherman,for example, the CCG team identifiedregulators’ primary concern—loweringcustomers’ rates.

Variable compensation, however,couldn’t be pegged directly to customerrates because the actual price of gas toooften varies sharply as a result of factorstotally beyond the control of anyone atBay State.

The cost of providing gas service, aswell, can be severely influenced by

by Michael J. LondonMichael J. London & Associates


many external factors, ranging fromweather to interest rates.

As a result, Bay State used a mea-sure of customer gas cost in relation tothat of the seven other gas utilities inMassachusetts.

“We found that by comparing rev-enues per thousand cubic feet of gas,one could very quickly determinewhich regional utility is providing themost cost effective service,” said JackLederer, president and chief financialofficer of CCG. “That’s a primaryobjective of the regulators.”

CCG reviewed each group of stake-holders in the same way and recom-mended changes in variable pay—theannual incentive program for seniormanagement—to help increase the sat-isfaction of the stakeholders.

For shareholders, CCG created aperformance measurement that com-bines dividend growth with earningsgrowth. Bay State’s performance thencould be measured against the 35 or soother gas utilities in the nation—notjust the seven gas companies in Massa-chusetts.

The national list was selected fortwo primary reasons.

“Bay State competes nationally forcapital,” Lederer said. “In addition,investors frequently base their decisionsto buy or sell stock on a comparison of

company performance throughout theindustry.”

A Customer Satisfaction IndexFor the last group of external stake-

holders—customers—CCG created thecustomer satisfaction index.

“The index is based upon two keyinteractions with customers: billingand service,” explained Kim Corwin,Bay State’s director of corporate perfor-mance. “The index quantifies perfor-

mance in each of these interactionsfrom three different perspectives—reli-ability, responsiveness, and assuranceand empathy.”

For each component of the index,an internal and external measure wasdeveloped.

For the internal component on reli-ability in billing, for example, the indextracks billing inquiries per customer.The external measure was the percent-age of “yes” answers to two questions ona customer survey: “Was this your firstcontact on this matter?” and “Was yourquestion answered or problemresolved?”

Another measure of reliability andresponsiveness was the percentage ofphone calls answered in 30 seconds orless. To determine responsiveness toservice calls, the internal measure tracksthe percentage of heating service callswith a technician arriving in less thanfour hours. The external measure com-bines responses to customer surveyquestions on the scheduling and timelyarrival of service personnel.

“Actual performance levels are thentranslated into a point score,” Corwinsaid.

Measuring assurance and empathy,however, could only be done throughcustomer surveys.

After reviewing the program, theCompensation Committee of Bay State’sBoard of Directors voted that these newmeasures of stakeholder satisfactionwould account for 100 percent of the

CEO’s annual bonus. For other seniorexecutives, the satisfaction indices wouldaccount for 75 percent of the annualbonus. The remaining 25 percent wouldbe determined by measures of individualperformance (based upon achievementof specific, outcome-oriented tasksdetermined for each position).

“This significant weighting insuresthat executives pay attention to theneeds of customers, regulators, andshareholders, through their own activi-

ties, and their management of others,”Lederer explained.

Bay State Gas launched the programin May 1992, beginning with individu-als from CEO through director level.

“We were pleased with the resultsfor 1992,” said Kevin McCarthy, BayState’s director of human resources.“Targeted goals for the company weresubstantially exceeded in nearly everyarea—including substantial reductionsin operations and maintenance.

“About 30 people participated inthe new compensation program thatyear,” McCarthy continued. “Ten morewere added in 1993. We also set ourtargets higher, increasing the minimumcorporate achievement needed for anybonuses to be paid at all.”

The Compensation Committee votedthat stakeholder satisfaction

would account for 100 percent of the CEO’s annual bonus.

Paul Ford, senior vice president, division operations and human resources

BAY STATE GAS COMPANYKEICP Customer Satisfaction Index

• INCENTIVE EARNED •Number of

Points

<18

18

21

24

27

30

Payouts asPercent of Target

0%

50% (of 15%)

75% (of 15%)

100% (of 15%)

125% (of 15%)

150% (of 15%)

Threshold

Target

MaximumFigure 1.


Another 10 people will be added tothe program in 1994,” McCarthyadded. “That will bring the programfrom CEO level down through supervi-sor level in our operating divisions.”

“We would like to carry the programinto lower staff levels as well as throughthe operations side of the company,”Corwin said. “We’re in the process ofdeveloping performance measures forthe corporate staff personnel.”

In 1995, about 30 percent of BayState’s 600 union employees also will beparticipating in a program of variablecompensation designed to improvestakeholder satisfaction.

Half-Page Ad

In 1992, Bay State Gas Co. launched Vision 2000, a program that rewards individuals for corporateachievements through variable pay. This effort sets Bay State Gas to be New England’s leading gas

distribution utility, especially with customer satisfaction.

After a few years,the initialpromise of thecompany’s qual-

ity improvement teamstructure was not comingto fruition. The teams met, targetedproblems to be addressed, investigated,and found a variety of avenues to impactthe problem. Then, instead of makingthe decisions and implementing theirrecommendations, the teams reportedtheir findings and recommendations tomanagement. This gave managementthe initiative to decide to implement (ornot implement, as the case may be) therecommendations.

After a series of interviews with var-ious team members, team leaders, andmanagers at all levels, it became obviousthat the team members were afraid theymight select a course of action thatcould prove unpopular with manage-ment. That could jeopardize their indi-vidual jobs.

How did the teams know certainavenues of action might be unpopularwith management? Had they asked?

Apparently no one had actually asked,but somehow they all knew how man-agement felt about various ideas.Management had made it quite clear,without actually making definitivestatements, which courses of actionwere not recommended.

Redefining ManagementResponsibilities

The team process in a total qualityenvironment requires a redefinition ofmanagement responsibilities. Highcontrol suppresses the development ofcompetence, commitment, and prob-lem-solving initiative. It increases fearand reduces risk-taking and creativity atthe first level of the organization—where the real work of the enterpriseoccurs. It destroys the desired perfor-

mance that is key to thesuccess of the total qualityenvironment. In talkingwith the managers in ourexample, it became obvi-ous that there was no new

role for them to play that was enticingenough to allow them to give over theirpower to the teams.

W. Edwards Deming was quick toremind us that behavior is simply afunction of the system. A manager whorefuses to relinquish his control is there-fore only responding to a system thatcontinues to encourage managementcontrol rather than team control. Inour example, something had to be donefor the managers. The organization hadto create a new role for them that waspowerful enough to encourage the nec-essary changes in behavior.

Following the path of slow transi-tion from a traditional managerial hier-archical environment into a more par-ticipative, team-oriented environment,it had seemed quite natural to have themanagers in the various departmentsassume the role of team leader. Now it


THE MAKING OF A

FACILITATOR

T E A M S & T E A M S K I L L S

by DeAnne Rosenberg, CSP


was becoming evident that if the teamswere ever going to become “empow-ered,” something about the make-up ofthe team leadership had to be changed.

One Possible SolutionSince a key role on any team is the

facilitator, it was decided to begin there.The human resource managerapproached every employee in the orga-nization through departmental andmanagement meetings. He explainedthat each of the quality teams weregoing to get a specially trained personto be its facilitator. He asked employeesto send him nominations of people whohad the interpersonal skills to assumethat role. Anyone could be nominated

no matter what their job title or lengthof time with the company.

As might be expected, many of theemployees nominated the same people—47 individuals out of 1,800 total employ-ees were named. The human resourcemanager then interviewed each of thenominees individually to determinewho would like to become a facilitator.He explained the tasks of the facilitator(see Figure 1). He told them:

• It would add about six to 10 extrahours to their weekly schedule;

• They would be attending a specialworkshop on the skills of facilitation;

• The team they would be working withwould not be in their department;

• They might not know any of thepeople on their team prior to theirassignment;

• There would not be extra payinvolved for the assumption of thisresponsibility.

Of the 47 nominees, only 23 saidthey would be interested. Of the 23who were interested, six were individualcontributors, seven were from the man-agement ranks, and 10 were employeeswith no leadership experience.

Pairing Facilitator to TeamEach team was given the list of 23

facilitators and asked to select three ofthe names. Teams could not select theirown manager as a facilitator. Moreover,teams could not select anyone fromtheir department or members of thedepartments from which their memberswere drawn (if they were processteams). The three selected names werethen put into a hat. The first namedrawn was the team’s first choice, thesecond name drawn was its secondchoice, etc. Wherever possible, eachteam was given its first choice.

Training of the FacilitatorsThe skills of facilitation focus on

participating without taking over, guid-ing without directing, and encouragingaction without suggesting what thoseactions should be. It is the facilitatorwho must keep individual team mem-bers from taking over the team. It isalso the facilitator who must keep theteam focused on constant, continualimprovement, and thus encourage theteam to set goals for its own growth.

The critical event for any team isthe meeting, whether it be daily, weekly,semi-monthly, or some other mutually-agreed-upon schedule. If it is of poorquality, the team will be unable toachieve its goals. The facilitator mustpush the team to plan its meetings andthen assist the team in maintaining anorderly meeting process. Part of pro-ductive meeting strategies is to recog-nize behaviors that are destructive tothe team’s effectiveness and to coachmembers into behaviors that areempowering to further the team’s cohe-siveness. Assisting the team to resolveits various conflicts without outsideintervention enhances the team’s sense

TEAM FACILITATOR ASSESSMENT

Helps Initiate ActionAssists in defining team problems.Redirects the team when it gets side-tracked.

Seeking and ClarifyingInformationAsks members to share relevant factsor opinions.Asks for the rationale behind opinions.

Giving InformationShares opinion and reasons for it whenasked.Shares concerns regarding the team’sprocess and/or content.

Clarifying and ElaboratingAsks for clarification of ideas to insureteam has heard them accurately.Helps team members communicate theirthoughts and ideas more effectively.

SummarizingAssists the progress of team discussionsby summarizing ideas and action plans.Checks for consensus on decisions.

HarmonizingEncourages every member to voice hisconcerns.Empathizes with members when theybecome upset.

Manages the Team’sProcessInvites silent members to share theiropinions.Keeps the team focused on its missionand goals.

Encourages the TeamPraises members from their contri-butions.Shows visible approval when memberstake on extra responsibilities for theteam.

Champions CompromiseEncourages members to explore theirdifferences and identify all areas ofagreement.Pushes members to resolve theirconflicts.

Good Role ModelIs open to feedback from team membersabout their effectiveness as teamfacilitator.Regularly asks team to evaluate theirrole as facilitator and make suggestionsfor change.

Assists In MeetingManagementEncourages the team to start and endtheir meetings on time.Reminds the team that every meetingmust start with an agenda.

* Adapted from “Team Process Inventory,” in Managing Quality Through Teams, by LawrenceMiller and Jennifer Howard, 1991. The Miller Consulting Group.

Figure 1


of competence. The more a facilitatorknows about group dynamics and teamempowerment, the better he will beable to guide the team through themine fields of seemingly innocent deci-sions that, in the long run, will increasethe team’s chances of failure.

The special workshop for the facili-tators was an intensive two days whereeach participant had the opportunity toboth lead and facilitate a team activity.In this way, each experienced the differ-ence between leading a team and facili-tating a team.

After each group activity, the teamwas asked to evaluate the facilitator (seeFigure 2). In this way, the facilitationskills of the group visibly improvedwith every activity.

As a result of the workshop, thefacilitators cultivated their own plan ofaction to use with their own individualteams. The plan of action included:

• developing a “contract” that clearlystates what they will and will not do;

• developing a code of conduct or behaviorby which the team can “govern” itself;

• meeting monthly as a support group tohone their facilitator skills and sharemutual concerns and problems.

The ResultsThree months later, the teams were

functioning as they had been designedto function. What made the differencewas formally removing the manage-ment person from the team leader role.Those facilitators who came from themanagement ranks have said that theirmanagement skills are better for havinghad the facilitator training. Now theyhave a gut-level understanding of whatmanagement’s new role should be in aquality environment.

Future Predictions: GreaterEmpowerment

If behavior is a function of the sys-tem, in order for this new management(facilitator) role to work, the system must

be changed. It must reinforce the factthat the team—not the manager—is toprovide the primary control functionover the work.

Since the manager’s function is toserve the team, the team then becomesthe manager’s primary customer. It is

the team, therefore, that shouldevaluate the leadership serviceprovided by the manager. Per-haps it is also the team thatshould write the manager’s jobdescription (expectations)describing how it wants that“leadership” service to look. The

next logical step would be to have themanager’s compensation package reflectthat assessment.

Perhaps all of this is too radical toput into operation all at once. How-ever, providing managers with the skillsof facilitation and assigning them towork outside their areas just might bethe best way to start the manager-into-facilitator process working.

About the AuthorDeAnne Rosenberg, CSP, is an inter-

nationally-known lecturer and trainingconsultant from Lexington, Massachu-setts. She specializes in management edu-cation and supervisory development.

Figure 2

GROUP FACILITATOR FEEDBACK SHEET

1. Whose participation was most helpful in theaccomplishment of the task?

2. What behavior was helpful?

3. Whose participation seemed to hinder theaccomplishment of the task? How?

4. What did the facilitator do?

5. What should the facilitator have done?

6. What facilitator behavior seemed to be a hindrance?

7. In what ways could the facilitator have enhanced theteam’s effectiveness in dealing with the task?

The team becomesthe manager’s

primary customer.

1994 could be the yearthat makes or breakshealth care reformfor the next decade.

For generations.CREATING A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THAT WORKS:

SOLUTIONS & SUCCESSES

July 7–9, 1994The George R. Brown Convention Center

and Hyatt Regency DowntownHouston, Texas

Sponsored by the American Productivity & Quality Center and the Texas Business Group on Health

This two-day conference, with a special plenary session on Saturday, July 9, features plenary sessions, a national health leader,and more than 40 workshops each day.

This landmark conference will:• Provide solutions, success stories, and examples of changes through case studies• Examine proposed health care reform proposals• Discuss how proposals affect individuals and groups, and how they can affect the proposals

The Southwest region audience (Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas) will include a variety of individualsinterested in health care. Examples include: hospitals, insurance firms, physicians, nurses, academic medical centers, lawyers,professional associations, medical suppliers, coalitions, managed care and prevention/wellnes/fitness.

For more information, call (713) 685-4600 or (800) 776-9676.

“A warning: Don’t wait. Too many are waiting to see what develops in Washington, D.C., paralyzed like a deer caught in the headlights. That would be a fatal mistake.”

—C. Jackson Grayson, Jr.chairman and CEO, American Productivity & Quality Center


KEVIN SPEAKS

The Voice of a Customer

E D I T O R I A L / O P I N I O N

HEALTH CARE HAS COME A LONG WAY. A mere fiveyears ago, the language of quality improvement inwhich we are now conversing with comfort, if not

the ideas themselves, would have met with blank stares inmost quarters of American health care. It is not that wedid not then believe that improvement was needed; it wassimply that we had no plan—at least, no plan in which webelieved.

Now, we know the outlines of what a plan should look like. Weknow that it has to be driven by a constant purpose: to be in thefuture far better than what we are today. We know that there areprinciples we must use—focusing on need, involving all the peoplewe work with and for in structures that allow them to be involved,thinking statistically, understanding variation, relying on intrinsicmotivators, valuing interdependencies, and understanding the sys-tem as a whole. We believe that these principles are worth master-ing, and that if they are used properly in daily work, they will yieldresults in cost and in quality that otherwise would be out of reach.

Why Improve?Every now and then, as I feel my confidence and commitment

to quality improvement tested, I ask, “Why improve?” What is thepurpose that is so compelling as to cause us to undertake willinglythe dislocation of our systems, our priorities, our beliefs, and I actu-ally think, of our personalities? What would cause us to incur thediscomfort of what Tom Nolan calls second-order change?

by Donald M. Berwick, M.D.Institute For Healthcare Improvement

Reprinted with permission from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement newsletter, Quality Connection, Winter 1993.


Half-Page Ad

One source of energy is an expres-sion that I first heard from Peter Senge—it’s actually a quote from the Talmud inHebrew literature: “There is no solu-tion. Let us seek it together lovingly.”

In quality management, we thinkin terms of the journey and not the des-

tination. If we really can believe thatthere is no solution, we can free our-selves to seek it.

For me, the most durable source ofenergy for the difficult task that we areundertaking comes from the people weserve—from the patients. It is fitting,therefore that this summation shouldbe given by a patient.

Enter KevinLast year I had the opportunity to

teach on a hospital teaching service,which I do annually, and I want to tellyou about a patient. The patient isKevin. He is real, and he’s 15 years old.

As a newborn, Kevin had a catastrophicproblem: a portion of his small intes-tine—the part of the bowel that absorbsnutrition from food—lost its bloodsupply, and as a result had to beremoved. Kevin now suffers from whatis called in pediatrics “short gut syn-

drome.” He has too little bowel to sus-tain his own growth and his own health.And so, for 15 years, Kevin has been fedin part by a special intravenous tube, acatheter that stays in his veins, throughwhich special fluids are put in to givehim calories. Nine times in 15 yearsthat intravenous tube has gottenblocked or infected—it’s very hard tomaintain access to the blood supply in apatient for this purpose—and when itbecomes blocked or infected, the tubemust be replaced surgically.

When I met Kevin, he was in thehospital for the tenth time to replacethe tube. At the time, no one—not

Kevin, not I, not his surgeon—yetknew if a suitable vein could be foundfor a new tube. The stakes were veryhigh, and Kevin knew it.

When my medical students askedme, “Can you help us understand thelife of a child with chronic illness?” mysearch for the answer led to Kevin, theexpert. I asked him to write down on asheet of paper the answer to two ques-tions: When things go great, what is itlike for you—what is great for you?And when we fail, how do we fail?Kevin wrote, “Care is best when youtell me what’s going on right away,when I get the same answer from every-one, and when you don’t scare me.”“Care is worst,” he wrote, “when theykeep you waiting and when they don’tlisten to what you say (even when some-times you know better), and when theydo everything twice instead of once.”Funny, I couldn’t find a copy of Deming in his room.

In the storm of the health care cri-sis—the variations on pay or play, theCanadian option, managed competi-tion, rationing, protocols, incentivecompensation, and even in the debatesabout TQM—it is frighteningly easy toforget why we chose this work in the

“Every now and then, as I feel mycommitment to quality improvement

tested, I ask, ‘Why improve?’”


first place. It is so easy to becometrapped in a sterile thesis: that our truedeep purpose is to gain and preservemarket share in a vacant terrain of oth-ers whose purpose is precisely the same.

The work is not there in the firstplace. In the first place, there is Kevin.He says, “Tell me what you know rightaway.” He says, “Answer me, comfortme, don’t make me wait.” He says,“Don’t waste my time, don’t frightenme.” He doesn’t say, because he’s tooscared to say it, “Help me live.” Hedoesn’t say, because he’s too scared tosay it, “Do the best you can for me sothat I survive with a risky condition.”We are not there to survive; we are thereto help Kevin survive.

We have a very serious problem ifwe mean that. The more we considerKevin’s temperate, respectful, and com-pletely understandable requests, theharder they seem to satisfy. In fact,when I showed the medical students thepiece of paper that Kevin wrote, theysaid, “He’s unrealistic.” “Doesn’t heknow he’ll have to wait?” “Does hethink he’s special?” To his request thatwe give him answers consistently, theresidents replied that medicine was toomuch of an art and, at any rate, thatwould require meetings among them-

selves, with consultants and nurses, andthere was no time.

Kevin’s requests are reasonable,their satisfaction is our purpose, and yetthey are daunting. I asked Kevin forscores. “How are we doing,” I said, “ona scale of zero to 100?” (Fifteen-year-olds love this.) He said, “You’re a 35.”

It is, I propose, our duty to helphim, and we cannot do so withoutchanging ourselves. There is a direct

line between meeting his needs, on theone hand, and the methods throughwhich we manage ourselves, on theother. TQM, CQI, systems thinking,improvement—taken in the context ofthe needs of a frightened 15-year-oldboy, these are not buzzwords. They areanswers to the question, “How can wehelp him better?” Kevin doesn’t put itthis way, although he certainly is smartenough to have done so had I given himthe chance: Be a system—I require it ofyou—and once you are a system, makethe system better—because I need you to.

Why does the request of a 15-year-old boy lead us to such remote cornersof self-reflection as systems thinking,process control, variation, processimprovement? It is because fundamen-tally his requests are not requests of theparts of us; they are requests of thewhole of us. It is inconceivable that anycollection of fragments can reliably givethis boy what he has every right toexpect from us. Who can make it true

that Kevin is not kept waiting? Whocan make it true that he is treated con-sistently over time and place? Who canmake it true that he is reassured, whenand how he needs to be? Who canmake it true that Kevin, in our collectivecustody, in our collective hands, issafe—as safe as he possibly can be? Howcan we give Kevin the sense that whathe needs will be there for him, that weare all there for him, all together?Whose job should that be—the doc-tors’, the nurses’, the pharmacies’, theschools’, the laboratories’, the payers’,

“Shall I go to Kevin and tell him ourability to meet his requests depends

on the vote of Congress?”

The first annual Texas Quality Award recipients—TexasEastman Division and the office of the Texas Comp-troller of Public Accounts—were presented on March17, 1994 at the Texas State Capital in Austin.

The Texas Quality Award, administered by Austin-based, not-for-profit Quality Texas, was created when ateam of representatives from business, education, andthe State joined together to formulate a state awardbased on the fundamentals of total quality manage-ment. The Center was actively involved in the start-up phase of the award and, in 1993, served as its admin-istrator, accepting the first year’s applications. Currently,the Center serves with Texas Instruments as FoundingSponsors of the award.

Texas Eastman Division of Longview, Texas, employsapproximately 2,800 people and was honored for itsexemplary dedication to employees and communityinterests. It was also recognized for the strong commit-ment of its executives to the principles of quality man-

agement. The company, a producer of chemicals andplastics, has been located in Texas since 1950 and dis-tributes its products to customers worldwide.

The office of the Texas Comptroller of PublicAccounts is Texas’ chief financial office, which managesthe state’s accounts and administers taxes. It was praisedby award examiners for the strong leadership of JohnSharp, state comptroller, as well as for its devotion tohigh standards of performance and strong quality ini-tiatives. The Texas Comptroller’s office was establishedin 1835, and currently has 43 offices statewide servingmore than two million taxpayers.

Texas Governor Ann Richards will honor the inau-gural recipients at a formal presentation at the Gover-nor’s mansion on April 26, 1994.

Applications for the 1995 Texas Quality Award areavailable by calling (512) 267-2134, or writing to:Quality Texas, 17312 Whippoorwill Trail, Lago Vista,Texas 78645.

Texas Quality Announces 1994 Award Recipients


the computer people’s, his parents’, hischurch’s?

Peter Senge describes the fallaciesthat come from thinking and acting infragments. His MIT colleague FredKofman has recently proposed the term“recovering the memory of the whole”as the nature of the challenge.

If we wish to serve Kevin well, wemust do it together as well. We mustthink in process terms and improve theprocesses of work, or we will let himdown. We must be whole, or we will fail.

What is true for Kevin as an indi-vidual is even more true for communi-ties as a whole. The waste in healthcare—its excesses, the gaps in its cover-age, the errors in its services—will notyield to conventional approaches. Itdoes not matter how much the financ-ing game is changed. I do not believethat under pay or play, global budgets,managed competition or any othersalad there will be any issue for those ofus who make care other than this:Either we will make that care better,safer, and less costly; or we will just getby. Shall I go to Kevin and tell him thatour ability to meet his requests dependson the vote of the Congress?

They need us to change. The 35million Americans who lack health

insurance need us to change. The oneout of four inner city mothers who lackadequate prenatal care need us tochange. The victims of adverse events,which occur in one out of every 10 hos-pitalizations. The black citizens ofAmerica whose infant mortality ratesare twice those of whites, whose rates ofviolent deaths are three times those ofwhites. The victims of thoroughly pre-ventable deaths from lung cancer,strokes, heart attacks, and prematurebirth. The elderly whose bed sores canbe avoided. The children whose learn-ing disabilities can be avoided. Theteenagers whose pregnancies can beavoided. The communities whoseresources we continue to drain by dou-ble-digit rates of increase in cost with-out any credible defense in the form ofscientific proof of effectiveness. Theyneed us to change, as much or morethan Kevin does. They need us to be inthe future what we are not today.

When Ed Deming urged us to con-stancy of purpose, or Joseph Juraninstructs us to schedule our improve-ments, or Tom Nolan inquires aboutwhat we wish to accomplish or what isour aim, or Peter Senge reminds us ofour inescapable systemness, they aredoing far more than asking us if we are

satisfied with our bottom line. They arenot just calling on us to consider ourown adaptive capacities so that we maysurvive. They are giving us the oppor-tunity to reconnect with our reasons forbeing there in the first place. TQM isworth little, or nothing, except in thecontext of fulfilling the aims of ourorganizations, and, through our organi-zations, the aims of our lives.

Kevin summed up best when Italked to him a bit more about his sim-ple requests. The one that intrigued methe most was, “Do you think you couldask me the same question once ormaybe twice, but not over and overagain as if you had no memory at all?”“It worries me,” he said, “when differ-ent people here repeat the same ques-tion.” “Don’t you ever talk to eachother?” “Don’t you ever meet?” “Don’tyou understand that if you don’t talk toeach other, you might forget me?” He issaying, “Don’t forget me.”

It’s our choice whether we will or not.

About the AuthorDr. Donald M. Berwick, is President

and CEO of the Institute for HealthcareImprovement in Boston, Massachusetts.

Half-Page Ad


Handbook for Productivity Measurement andImprovement by William F. Christopher, ed. andCarl G. Thor, ed.

The Handbook for Productivity Measure-ment and Improvement contains approximately100 essays by many authorities on the subjectsof productivity measurement and improve-ment. Many of the essays discuss not onlytheories, but also practical applications. Allof the essays are short and jammed-packedwith charts, graphs, and information. Eachsection begins with very basic generalized infor-mation and becomes more specific and detailed.

I was amazed by the wealth of information contained in thishandbook and learned a great deal by reading the entire book. This isnot the type of book one should read from cover to cover. Instead, itshould be used as a reference book. This book should be on the shelfof anyone who is involved with quality and productivity, as well as everyCEO and president of any type of company.

Teams At Work: 7 Keys to Success by Suzanne WillisZoglio

Are all of your teams considered to behigh-performance teams? If your answeris “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know,” then TeamsAt Work is for you. This book is designed asa workbook and guide for team leaders andmembers to help them excel.

The author believes there are seven keysfor successful teams: Commitment, Con-tribution, Communication, Cooperation,Conflict Management, Change Manage-ment, and Connections. Each chapter focuses on one of the seven keysand includes simple assessments, tips, activities, and chapter sum-maries to improve your teams.Suzanne Willis Zoglio hasdone an excellent job of writ-ing a book that is extremelyuser-friendly. There is plentyof room to write your own

notes in the margins, and she highlights all of the Improvement Tipsin each chapter.

Teams At Work provides simple, practical how-to’s that anyoneinvolved in or thinking about teams should read. I was impressedwith this book and decided to also request 50 Activities for Teams AtWork, which was listed as available support material. Armed withthese tools, anyone can create high performance work teams.Average reading time: 1 hour, 30 minutesALT Graduates: 22 minutes

Human Resources Management and the TotalQuality Imperative by Carla Carter

Is your human resources departmenthelping or hurting your quality movement?Human Resources Management and the TotalQuality Imperative by Carla Carter will helpyou decide. The information provided anew perspective on implementing total qual-ity. Topics include employee involvementand recognition, training and developing,communications, and measuring andimproving the HR function. This bookshows how important it is for HR to be a driving force in the questfor total quality. Carla Carter points out the need to educate every-one in human resources not only about quality, but also his role in thequality process.

Human Resources Management and the Total Quality Imperativeshould be read by both HR and quality people to help bridge the gap thatcurrently exists. It provides not only why we need to bridge this gap, butalso how to go about it. This book is fairly easy reading and has severalchecklists and charts to help keep your total quality efforts on track.Average reading time: 2 hours, 45 minutesALT Graduates: 43 minutes

● a quick review of newly-released books focusing on quality ●

Donna Caligiuri is the author and instructor of Accelerated LearningTechniques (ALT), a comprehensive workshop designed to improve learningskills. Students learn to improve reading speed, comprehension, and retentionof new material. ALT offers public and corporate workshops throughout theUnited States. For more information on workshops, call 1-800-856-6074.

book look by Donna Caligiuri


BENCHMARKING’S BEST: ANOPPORTUNITY TO LEARN,SHARELearn about new trends in benchmarking,tried and true methods, what works, whatdoesn’t, and what other orga-nizations are doing with theirbenchmarking efforts.“Benchmarking’s Best,” theThird Annual BenchmarkingConference is a symposiumof speakers, meetings, work-shops, and training, whichprovides beginner and expe-rienced benchmarkers theopportunity to learn and share.

Sponsored by the American Productivity& Quality Center, the conference/training is being held June 6-10, 1994 in Itasca(Chicago), Illinois. The five-day eventincludes a two-day conference featuringrenowned benchmarking speakers who willmake presentations about a variety of bench-marking-related topics. John Mitcham,keynote speaker and president of AT&T Para-dyne, will discuss “How Benchmarking HasWorked Successfully for AT&T Paradyne.”

The conference will culminate with anawards ceremony and presentations by recip-ients of the second annual BenchmarkingAwards. Three awards recognize achieve-ments in benchmarking: BenchmarkingResearch Award, Benchmarking Study Award,and Award for Excellence in Benchmarking.The purpose of the first two awards is to pro-mote excellence through benchmarking byrecognizing the benchmarking contributionsof individuals and teams. The third award,

the Award for Excellence in Benchmarking,encourages the development and maturity offormalized benchmarking activities at an orga-nizationwide level. It complements the Mal-colm Baldrige National Quality Award byfocusing on the approach and deployment of

the benchmarking process,as well as the results frombenchmarking studies.Guidelines for the Award forExcellence in Benchmarkingcan be used by organizationsas a self-assessment tool.

“By applying, everyapplicant benefits becausethey have to thoroughly eval-

uate their benchmarking practices, whichcontributes to improved processes,” saidGenie Wilson, manager ofthe awards program. “Addi-tionally, recipients benefitthrough prestigious recogni-tion for their achievements.”

Other highlights includea two-day forum for Com-mon Interest Groups (CIG).CIG sessions are specializedlearning opportunities generally reserved formembers, but open to the public during theconference. Topics include Corporate Performance Measures, Information Tech-nology, Customer Satisfaction, HumanResources, Strategic Planning, and New Prod-uct Development. Benchmarking trainingbegins with Basics of Benchmarking, running concurrently with second-day CIGsessions, and resumes on the final day withOrganizing & Managing Benchmarking.

“The greatest benefit of the week is theopportunity to select from a wide menu ofresources and information to meet specificneeds,” said Carla O’Dell, director of theCenter’s International Benchmarking Clear-inghouse. “Participants are exposed to bestpractices in benchmarking, tools that can beused immediately to improve benchmarking,and compelling success stories.”

For more information call (800) 776-9676or (713) 685-4600.

SPEAKING TO A CENTERSPECIALIST IS NOW AS EASYAS (PRESSING) 1,2,3A new automated telephone attendant is mak-ing the Center more accessible while helping

customers save time andmoney.

In March, the Center con-verted to an automated atten-dant, which greets callers withan extensive directory. Vari-ous services are listed undereach directory heading, so thecustomers’ calls are routeddirectly to the person that can

best serve their need.Callers may select from the Center

employee directory, business development,training/conferences, accounting, operator,or directory of services. The directory of ser-vices include: product services, member net-working, information services, and bench-marking services. Each of these departmentsare divided further into specialized areas. Anoperator or an employee extension can bereached at any time.

● what’s happening at the American Productivity & Quality Center ●

centernews


centercalendar E V E N T S

april1994HR: Managing Diversity 12-13

Kickoff Meeting: Benchmarking Study 15Customer Call Centers

Communication Consortia Workshop 25-27

Visitors’ Day 26APQC, Houston, TX

may1994Visitors’ Day 24

APQC, Houston, TX

june1994Common Interest Groups (CIGs) 6

Corporate Performance MeasuresCustomer Satisfaction Management

Information Technology

BENCHMARKING’S BEST 6-103rd Annual Benchmarking Conference

Itasca (Chicago), IL

Common Interest Groups (CIGs) 9Strategic Planning

New Product DevelopmentHuman Resources

Visitors’ Day 28APQC, Houston, TX

T R A I N I N G

april1994Team Member course 4-6

Team Leader/Facilitator course 7-8

Project Management course 13-15INFOMART, Dallas, TX

Internal Consulting Skills course 14-15

Implementing TQM course 18-20

Benchmarking Training (3 different courses) 18-22Itasca (Chicago), IL

may1994Benchmarking Training (3 different courses) 2-6

St. Louis, MO

Benchmarking Training (3 different courses) 9-13

Gain Sharing course 17-18INFOMART, Dallas, TX

Statistical Process Control course 17-19

Implementing TQM course 25-27

june1994Benchmarking Training (3 different courses) 6-10

INFOMART, Dallas, TX

Coaching & Mentoring Skills course 8-10

Basics of Benchmarking course 9-10Itasca (Chicago), IL

Organizing & Managing Benchmarking 10Itasca (Chicago), IL

Project Management course 14-16

Internal Consulting Skills course 15-16

All events and courses are held at the American Productivity & Quality Center in Houston, Texas, unless otherwise noted. For more information on any of these events, please call (800) 776-9676.

Documents

Benchmarking Article - 1994