The Role of Quality Tools in Improving Satisfaction with Government
20 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 3/© 2002, ASQ
The Role of Quality Tools
in Improving Satisfaction
with Government
S. THOMAS FOSTER JR., BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
LARRY W. HOWARD, MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY
PATRICK SHANNON, BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
© 2002, ASQ
This article presents the results of a study in a city
in the western United States. The authors found that
city employees believed that quality knowledge was
necessary for improving quality. Results show that
departmental leadership was positively associated
with teamwork, process improvement, and employee
satisfaction. Quality knowledge, if followed up with
application, can be effective in improving processes.
Leadership is necessary to the development of quality
tools knowledge. Therefore, both leadership and team-
work are important contextual variables for quality
improvement in the public sector.
Key words: leadership, organizational context, quality
management, quality tools, teamwork
INTRODUCTION
Much has been written about infrastructural and envi-
onmental variables in quality improvement in busi-
ness (Adam 1994; Saraph, Benson, and Schroede
1989; Flynn, Schroeder, and Sakakibara XXXXXXXXXXMost of
this research has focused on antecedents to outcomes
such as market share, return on investment, custome
satisfaction, and self-reported measures of quality
improvement. Interestingly, there is much disagree-
ment among these research models regarding the vari-
ables leading to positive quality outcomes. This has led
some authors to adopt the contingency-based view that
organizational quality improvement can occur in a
variety of ways—depending upon organizational con-
text (Mallick, Ritzman, and Safizadeh 1999).
While there is an established quality management
literature in business, there is relatively little relating to
quality improvement in government. Much of the exist-
ing literature is anecdotal (Foster and Viano XXXXXXXXXXAs
a result, there is little understanding of the variables
leading to quality improvement in government.
There are significant differences in environmental
variables of business vs. government. A primary differ-
ence is the lack of profit in government. W. Edwards
Deming XXXXXXXXXXoften alluded to the profit issue as a dif-
ferentiator resulting in necessarily different choices in
quality improvement methods between government and
usiness. For example, infrastructural, labor-related
practices differ in government. Employees have more jo
security in government than in business. To compensate
for this, government wages often lag the private sector.
Government entities often have a difficult time
Foster article 6/18/02 10:01 AM Page 20
The Role of Quality Tools in Improving Satisfaction with Government
identifying the customer. In business, the customer often
ends up owning the product. Some authors have posited
that the customer is the “one who pays the bills” (Evans
and Lindsay XXXXXXXXXXHowever, who is the customer in gov-
ernment? Is it the taxpayer, the elected leader (for exam-
ple, executive
anch), the legislature (they allocate
esources), or the individuals who directly access govern-
ment services (such as the licensee to a motor-vehicle
division)? In fact, government entities may have a num-
er of customers who cannot be defined with the simple
internal and external designations.
Although there is limited research in government
quality management, the need for more research is
great. There are a number of reasons for this. First,
demands are increasing for government services, while
udgets are stagnant or decreasing. Therefore, process
simplification is needed to respond to increasing
demands. Second, there is increasing competitive pres-
sure on government service providers as pressure
mounts to privatize government services. Third, leaders
in government have moved to improve and reinvent
government. Finally, government employees are inter-
nally motivated to provide service that is on par with
the private sector.
It is not clear, however, that quality practices can be
transfe
ed from the private sector to the public sector.
While basic quality tools are used commonly in indus-
try, research has not demonstrated the efficacy of these
tools in improving government service. In fact, Deming
cautioned against applying modern quality manage-
ment approaches to government (Deming 1986).
This article presents results from a study per-
formed in a city government. The city in question
had been implementing teams and quality improve-
ment tools over a number of years. Quality tools,
while ubiquitous in the practitioner literature, have
eceived little attention in research. The primary
esearch question is, “Were the applications of quali-
ty tools effective in improving quality-related out-
comes in this city government.” As a result of this
study and analysis, the authors propose a model of
quality tool usage in government. The primary con-
tribution of this article is to examine the role of qual-
ity tools in effective implementation of quality
improvement in a government setting.
Model and Hypotheses
Development
Figure 1 shows a model of quality improvement that
motivated this research. The structure of the model and
the included variables are based upon the literature,
including works by Saraph, Benson, and Schroede
(1989), Adam (1994), the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award Criteria for Performance Excellence
(2000), Sematech Quality Maturity Grid (1998), and
other sources. These variables are categorized as context
variables, enabler variables, and outcome variables.
Context variables refer to organizational context (Benson,
Saraph, and Schroeder XXXXXXXXXXOrganizational context is
the organization’s state of being at the time quality
improvement occurs. Organizational context includes
external and internal factors su
ounding the production
system. Internal context variables include leadership and
company organization, such as the extent teamwork and
collaborative decision-making is used for improvement.
Enabler variables make organizational change possi-
le and are necessary for effective improvement. These
are critical factors that affect quality outcomes. Fo
example, knowledge is a fundamental enabler that all
employees need to do their jobs. Specifically, knowledge
of quality tools is required before these tools can be
applied. The extent that quality tools are then used to
make improvement affects quality outcomes. This could
include understanding and using statistical process con-
trol, basic tools, automation, and supplier involvement
in improvement (Benson, Saraph, and Schroeder 1991).
www.asq.org 21
Teamwork
Contextual Enablers Outcomes
Leadership
Q-tools
application
Q-tools
knowledge
Process
improvement
Employee
satisfaction
Custome
satisfaction
H1a
H2
H4
H1d
H1c
H3
H5
H6a H6bH1
Figure 1 A priori quality improvement model.
©
20
02
, A
SQ
Foster article 6/18/02 10:01 AM Page 21
The Role of Quality Tools in Improving Satisfaction with Government
Outcome variables represent the desired outcomes
of quality tools application. Outcomes often mentioned
in the literature include process improvement, employ-
ee satisfaction, and customer satisfaction. The follow-
ing paragraphs address the relationships between con-
text variables, enabler variables, and outcome variables
as described in the quality improvement model shown
in Figure 1.
Contextual Variables
Leadership. Leadership is generally regarded as
essential for quality improvement. Leadership provides
the foundation for improvement, as leaders hold both
the positional and monetary authority to oversee
improvement. In a case study of the Office of
Administrative Services, Department of the Interior,
Keck XXXXXXXXXXfound leadership to be necessary for suc-
cessfully completing process improvement projects.
Scully XXXXXXXXXXstated that leadership is needed to initiate
the process of change in government. Rago (1996)
developed a deductive leadership model of government
improvement with leadership enacting purpose, coordi-
nation, communication, and empowerment.
Leadership promotes the implementation of teamwork
y providing required resources and assets, and by sym-
olically communicating top-level commitment to
quality tools application. Leadership is considered in
the literature to be an antecedent to process improve-
ment (Deming XXXXXXXXXXAlso, positive leadership is asso-
ciated with employee satisfaction (Howard and Foste
1999). By inference, perceptions of leadership commit-
ment to quality should also influence the satisfaction of
those affected by satisfied employees and improved
processes—customers.
Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive relationship
etween leadership and teamwork.
Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive relationship
etween leadership and process improvement.
Hypothesis 1c: There is a positive relationship
etween leadership and employee satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1d: There is a positive relationship
etween leadership and customer satisfaction.
Teamwork. The second contextual variable is
teamwork. As with the manufacturing and services sec-
tors of the private sector, teams have been widely adopted
in government. There are several reasons for this. One of
the main reasons is complexity in the workplace
(Wenger and Snyder XXXXXXXXXXGiven the large volumes of
data available to managers, unilateral decision-making
is less effective. Also, businesses are transforming from
“command and control” to collaboration. Collaboration
is needed as complexity drives workers from performing
manual work to knowledge work or work that involves
the development and transmission of knowledge and
information. Knowledge work implies a greater amount
of ambiguity, searching, researching, and on-the-jo
learning. As a result, organizations are using teams
more frequently in their normal operations and in thei
problem-solving and process improvement efforts. Fo
the authors’ purposes, a team is defined as a finite num-
er of individuals who are united in a common purpose.
Selander and Cross XXXXXXXXXXview the team component as
essential for business process redesign.
Enabler Variables
Quality tools knowledge. The first enabler variable is
quality tools knowledge. Before quality tools are applied,
training is often provided so employees learn what quality
tools are available and how to use them. The quality tools
efe
ed to in this research include the basic seven tools of
quality (that is, flowcharts, control charts, histograms,
scatter plots, Ishikawa diagrams, run charts, Pareto
charts, and checksheets) and selected advanced tools
(affinity diagrams, surveys). Ceridwen XXXXXXXXXXidentified
flowcharting, Ishikawa diagrams, control charts, and
scatter diagrams as the most useful tools for quality
improvement. Foster and Viano XXXXXXXXXXdemonstrated how
asic quality tools were used in the Internal Revenue
Service to improve service quality. As teams begin to work
on process improvement, they have more opportunity to
apply quality management tools and to use teamwork to
solve problems. The more the team works together, knowl-
edge of how and when to apply the quality tools is rein-
forced. Working in teams increases the value of sharing
quality knowledge. It is expected that as people work in
teams, they are more likely to be facilitated by other team
22 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 3/© 2002, ASQ
Foster article 6/18/02 10:01 AM Page 22
The Role of Quality Tools in Improving Satisfaction with Government
members in learning about quality tools. Also, some of the
quality tools, such as
ainstorming, are specifically
designed to be used in team settings, so the more people
work in teams, the more likely it is they are going to
ecome familiar with these types of quality tools.
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship
etween teamwork and quality tools knowledge.
Quality tools application. Quality tools applica-
tion refers to the continued use of quality tools after the
training is completed