This article discusses why benchmarking, despite its potential, often sits on the sidelines in many organizations. While interest in benchmarking grew after early adopters like Xerox saw success with it in the 1970s-1980s, many companies remain hesitant to engage in benchmarking due to perceived barriers like high costs, long time commitments, and an inability to find comparable processes outside their industry. The article argues that many of these perceived barriers are "myth-perceptions" not backed by reality. It maintains that dispelling these myths could allow companies to realize the "quantum leap improvements" benchmarking makes possible.

1. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 3
PUBLISHING STAFF
Editors:
Steve Scheffler
Vicki 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 STAFF
Chairman:
C. Jackson Grayson, Jr.
President:
Harvey K. Brelin
DIRECTORS
Finance & Accounting:
Michael Shea
Information Services:
Alan Powell
Education & Training:
John Henson
International Benchmarking
Clearinghouse:
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 published
bimonthly 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. Members
may use the contents within Continuous Journey
for their own purposes provided they give the
source. Nonmembers must receive permission,
by phone or in writing, before reprinting anything
from this magazine. Individual copies are $9
(members), $15 (nonmembers). Second-class
postage paid at 401 Franklin St. P.O., Houston,
TX 77202-9651. POSTMASTER: Send address
changes to Continuous Journey, 123 North Post
Oak Lane, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77024-7797.
For reprints, contact Reprint Services/ Continuous
Journey, 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
10
17
18
24
28
Benchwarming: Despite its Potential, Benchmarking
Sits on the Bench in Many Organizations
by Steve Scheffler
Exploding the Myths of Benchmarking
by Anne Feltus
The Land of NIH
by Kevin Prihod
Go, See, Do
a benchmarking case study by Vicki J. Powers
Out-of-the-Box Benchmarking
by Carla O’Dell, Ph.D.
Q&A with Robert Camp
Xerox Corporation
32
35
38
5
6
44
45
47
Betting Pay on Customer Satisfaction
by Michael J. London
The Making of a Facilitator
by DeAnne Rosenberg, CSP
Kevin Speaks: The Voice of a Customer
by 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 1994
ISSN 1065-3406
C O N T I N U O U S
JOURNEY
coverphoto:ThaineManske

2. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 5
FROM THE TOP
Companies Either “Learn With Purpose” or Make Excuses
I N S I G H T S
This issue of Continuous Journey is devoted to
one of our favorite pastimes here at the Cen-
ter—debunking the myths and pushing down
the fences we all erect to keep us from making
uncomfortable changes.
The myths this time are about benchmark-
ing. From “it’s too expensive,” to “we are too
different,” you’ll read the personal experiences of active
benchmarkers 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 real
learning 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 range
from reading articles and reports that already exist, to detailed
screening surveys and site visits. The difference between
effective and ineffective benchmarking lies in the following
principles, not primarily in the methods:
1. Clarity of purpose—what is the question you are trying to
answer 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 who
help you? This includes the principles of preparation,
ethics, and exchange.
4. Are you willing to discover more about your own options
and situation? As a physician who is leading one of his
clinic’s benchmarking teams said recently, “You never really
know yourself until you look at someone else.”
We at the Center have the opportunity to
look at ourselves through the eyes of another
experienced benchmarker. I am delighted to
announce that Al Pozos, the voice behind
Myth 3 (page 13), and former manager of
benchmarking for Pacific Bell, will join the
APQC 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 his
experience as vice-chairman of the Telecommunication
Benchmarking Consortium. Al will be working with our
members, benchmarking consortia, and clients to help drive
benchmarking to new levels of excellence and contribution to
organization improvement and learning. Please welcome Al
to our team.
Carla O’Dell
Director, International Benchmarking Clearinghouse

3. 6 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
worthmentioning
ESI-Q system introduced qpositive performers award q a new performance study q what’s hot: ethics & costs
QUALITY. SERVICE. WHATEVER IT TAKES. It all
adds up to customer-focused marketing, the basis for the
new Positive Performer Awards geared toward small- and
medium-sized businesses that always do what’s right for
their customers. MCI Communications Corporation and
Inc. Magazine have partnered to recognize companies that
not only compete, but also excel, by using customer respon-
siveness as a key business
practice. “Put the customer
first and you’ll never finish
last,” said Timothy F. Price,
president of MCI Business
Markets. “Today’s successful
businesses aren’t looking over
their shoulders at the competition, they’re looking over
the customers’ shoulder asking, ‘How can we help?’”
The Positive Performer Awards are the first business
awards to concentrate solely on customer responsiveness
and are open to growing companies with annual revenues
not less than $500,000 and not more than $100 million.
The Awards showcase businesses demonstrating supe-
riority in identifying and meeting customer needs and
measuring results. Categories include manufacturing, ser-
vice, retail, and non-profit.
Entries are evaluated by a panel of experts including
business owners, CEOs, consultants, and the editor of
Inc. Deadline for entry is May 15, 1994. Ten finalists in
each category will be announced in June, and one will be
selected 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 to
receive a nomination kit.
MCI andInc.recognizecustomerresponsiveness
put the customer
first and you’ll never
finish last.
—timothy f. price
R E W A
RDSWITHOUT
THE
C
ompanies 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, London
House, one of the country’s leading developers and publishers of human resource
assessment systems for business, recently introduced the Employee Safety Inven-
tory-Quality (ESI-Q). ESI-Q is a multiple-choice assessment system that uses
several 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 committed
to detecting and avoiding work errors, and strives to improve product or service
offerings. 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 the
quality and safety scales practiced safer work habits, suffered fewer on-the-job
accidents, and demonstrated fewer mistakes.
For more information on the ESI-Q, contact
London House at (800) 221-8378.
A GLIMPSE INTO CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

4. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 7
worthmentioning
PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
Trends, Satisfaction, and Results
N
o matter where people are on the organizational chart, man-
ager or employee, they see room for significant improvement
in performance management practices, according to a study by
Development Dimensions International and the Society for Human
Resource Management.
Performance Management: What’s Hot–What’s Not, A National
Study of Current and Future Practices, examines current trends in
performance management practices, people’s satisfaction with their
organizations’ current systems, and the bridges and barriers to effective
performance management.
According to survey respondents, managers and nonmanagers
alike 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 performance
management practices and predicted future trends leading to more
effective performance management.
“It is clear from the survey that not only do managers need to
provide more frequent and timely feedback and coaching, they need
the training to develop both the technical and interpersonal skills to
do so,” said Robert W. Rogers, DDI’s chief operating officer. “And the
same holds true for associates who need training to learn their role in
the performance review process and how they can become involved at
the outset in discussing performance objectives and tracking their
own performance.”
To order copies of Performance Management: What’s Hot–What’s
Not, call DDI’s Marketing Information Center at (800) 933-4463.
C
ompanies 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 in
their companies. This is up from 41 percent a year ago. And 53
percent believe a strong, comprehensive ethics policy reduces the
overall 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 employees
are becoming aware of their company’s ethics policies, and companies
are providing mechanisms through which employees can voice their
concerns about ethics directly to top management. “An ombudsman
is one mechanism, and some companies also have gone so far as to set
up ‘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 Management
Accounting 1C.” IMA members with questions about ethical matters
may call the Institute’s hotline. Management accountants, both
members and nonmembers, may also obtain copies of SMA 1C by
calling the hotline at (800) 6ETHICS.
sINCREASE
REDUCE COSTS
compiled by Pam Griffin

5. 8 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
DESPITE ITS
POTENTIAL,
BENCHMARKING
SITS ON THE
A
s a fan, it’s never easy seeing your team’s star player out
of the action, pacing the sidelines, waiting for a chance
to 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 sit
on too many company sidelines. Sure, many managers tout its
potential. A few even let benchmarking into the game—but
with much too limited playing time. Why?
by Steve Scheffler

6. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 9
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
The answers don’t come easy. Ever
since Xerox became the trailblazer of the
movement in the late ’70s and early
’80s, management experts have claimed
that benchmarking has the potential to
invigorate and transform the most stag-
nant of organizations.
Benchmarking Bonanza
Soon after the Xerox benchmarking
efforts were chronicled, organizations
took note. Larger companies created
benchmarking departments. Some
even named senior-level executives to
“benchmarking” posts. Smaller entities
hired consultants, or whomever they
could find, to teach benchmarking tools
and techniques.
Interest was high enough to cause
formation of the International Bench-
marking Clearinghouse, and member-
ship has doubled every year, to almost
300 members.
From 1990-93, the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award refo-
cused its categories, requiring evidence
of organizational benchmarking in
order to receive the coveted prize.
Media coverage ensued. Several
magazines (including this one) devoted
large chunks of space to the topic of
benchmarking. Television commercials
added the term to their lexicon: certain
cars became the “benchmarks” of their
class.
Benchmarking seemed easy. The
concept was so simple: look to others
to improve. Unfortunately, bench-
marking requires more than that.
Much more.
Growing Pains
Managers are starting to ask for
benchmarking to prove itself. Skeptics
want results before they lower their
guard. More than that, they want
assurance that it isn’t cost prohibitive—
that a study doesn’t take three years to
complete.
Which brings us to the current sta-
tus of benchmarking in the U.S. Based
on formal and informal research, here
are the latest observations:
• Companies that are leading-edge in
benchmarking can be found, but only
in small numbers.
• Benchmarking awareness levels are
high, but few know more than the
basics when it comes to engaging in a
study.
• Many organizations are hesitant to
launch a benchmarking study for any
number of reasons, including cost and
time—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 people
perceive benchmarking in a certain way,
then it is that way. After more than two
years of operating the International
Benchmarking 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 most
of the negative perceptions and myths
surrounding benchmarking are simply
untrue. There are, he says, too many
misnomers flying around about bench-
marking. He urges companies to work
hard to dispel the myths. If they can get
around 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 continue
to invest resources in benchmarking. A
landmark 1992 Center survey showed
that more than 75 percent of U.S. For-
tune 500 companies will increase their
amount of benchmarking activity. A
follow-up survey, which will be con-
ducted later this year in both the United
States and Europe, is expected to echo
those results—and come up with even
more interesting data on benchmarking.
Another positive note is the fact
that many serious benchmarking orga-
nizations have found that some of the
most successful studies are with cus-
tomers and suppliers—many of which
are smaller, more localized entities.
These interactions have helped to
spread benchmarking knowledge to a
diverse base. They are also helping to
debunk the aforementioned myths and
perceptions.
Another plus for benchmarking is
that its followers do not claim, like
other improvement “fads,” that bench-
marking is a panacea for corporate
mediocrity. Most agree that bench-
marking is a tool that can be used to
achieve improvement. Like any other
quality improvement tool, says Camp,
it has a time and place for usage. And,
just like the other tools, if it isn’t part of
the overall corporate strategy, only lim-
ited success will ensue.
The Clock’s Ticking...
Several years ago, Center chairman
C. Jackson Grayson, Jr., and Carla
O’Dell, Ph.D., wrote a book that
chronicled the growing productivity
and quality crisis the U.S. faces. Its
title, American Business: A Two Minute
Warning, still applies. And, as the clock
continues to tick, one important
player—benchmarking—sits on the
sideline too often. It is up to corporate
America to decide whether its star
player will see the playing time it
undoubtedly has earned.

7. 10 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
Do you find yourself in a defense mode when explaining
the benefits of benchmarking to your organization?
Worse, are you having trouble justifying the process of
benchmarking to YOURSELF?!
As critics of benchmarking surface, or as your own doubts
creep in, it is important to answer with substantial, fact-
based answers.
Here, then, are five of the more popular arguments/myths
that surround benchmarking. Continuous Journey looked
to the experts—those in benchmarking’s trenches—to
answer them.
E
M
XPLODING
THE
by Anne Feltus
Feltus/McFarlane Communications

8. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 11
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
Q
uality can be critical when you’re
producing diagnostic imaging
devices for the health care indus-
try. That’s why, after exploring continu-
ous improvement initiatives for several
years, Medrad introduced its own qual-
ity effort in the spring of 1990.
In the last four years, Medrad’s
employee quality teams have traveled
around the country visiting Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award-win-
ning organizations and other quality
champions in a variety of fields.
Through these excursions, they have
gained firsthand insight and informa-
tion about these leaders’ best practices in
such diverse areas as employee empow-
erment, employee evaluation processes,
cash flow management, customer order
entry, and information systems.
“We’ve stolen ideas shamelessly and
have adapted many of their practices to
our own operations,” Robert Graham,
vice president, corporate quality process,
for the Pittsburgh-based company,
points out. “And in some instances, we
have been comforted by the knowledge
that our processes are on target or are
even more advanced than theirs.”
Similar successes can be found in
almost every company that’s involved in
benchmarking. Yet, the myth prevails
that the process is prohibitively expen-
sive, which can keep some prospective
participants from trying this quality
approach for themselves.
Indeed, benchmarking comes at a
price, Graham is quick to admit. “Typi-
cally,” he says, “there are expenses
related to travel as well as indirect costs
associated with employee time devoted
to trips and team meetings.” Still, the
process is not as expensive as some peo-
ple believe. “With careful planning,” he
explains, “benchmarking costs can be
kept to a minimum.”
One way to control costs is to
tackle benchmarking one step at a time.
“Some people think benchmarking is
an extremely difficult and complex
process, but that’s not necessarily the
case,” Graham contends. “You can
benchmark without making it a big
ordeal. You don’t have to examine all
processes at once. You can keep costs
down by doing benchmarking in
degrees and by defining very narrow
areas to explore.”
To minimize costly travel and
meeting time, he continues, you must
work efficiently and communicate
effectively. “First, you have to do your
homework,” he explains. “Before you
visit other companies, you must know
specifically what your own problems
are. You must clearly define what you
intend to accomplish and what you
need to look for during your trip. Then
you must make that information
known to the people you are planning
to visit. And, since benchmarking is a
two-way street, you also must under-
stand what the other companies want
from you and what you are willing to
share with them.
“Some people say there is a cost
associated with giving away more infor-
mation about their total quality
processes to other companies than they
feel comfortable providing,” he adds.
“But you can reveal information
judiciously. You don’t have to give away
the heart and soul of your company.
And sharing data and processes will
help 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 remember
this: The knowledge you gain is well
worth the investment you make.”
Robert
Graham
Vice President,
Corporate Quality
Process
MEDRAD
Benchmarking is too expensive.

9. 12 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
W
hile some managers remain
skeptical about the benefits
benchmarking can bring to
their companies, Turk Enustun believes
most senior executives have a more pos-
itive point of view. After more than a
decade of experience in this quality
process, he is convinced that bench-
marking represents a natural extension
of management’s traditional role.
“Managers are by nature competi-
tive, and anyone who is competitive is
looking at what other companies are
doing,” the director of corporate bench-
marking for Eastman Kodak in
Rochester, New York, maintains.
“Therefore, most managers are bench-
markers at heart. They understand the
need to compare other companies’ per-
formances with their own, and they’re
very adept at doing competitive analy-
ses because that’s what is expected of
them by Wall Street and by securities
analysts all the time.”
After making these comparisons,
he adds, it’s only natural for managers
to begin asking some critical questions:
How do other companies achieve their
good results? What can we learn from
them? Can we implement some of their
good ideas? Will this lead us to be as
good as they are? “If a company’s annual
sales 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,” he
says, “is to enable their companies to
emulate leaders. They can put the
resources in place their organizations
need to effect change, and benchmark-
ing is one tool that can be used to
accomplish this goal. “Management
understands and supports benchmark-
ing,” Enustun says, “because it’s the
component that leads to the results
management wants.”
He cites an example: “Early in 1990,
our manufacturing division began gath-
ering benchmarking data internally on
the performance measures of various
products. When we compared six or
seven different products made at seven
sites 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 in
benchmarking,” he concludes. “He
recognized that if each unit could be as
good as the best one in each of these
categories, we could add millions of
dollars to the company’s bottom line.”
Management doesn’t understand/sup-
Turk
Enustun
Director of Corporate
Benchmarking
EASTMAN KODAK

10. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 13
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
B
enchmarking has played a role in
Pacific Bell’s progress for three
years. “We have benchmarked on a
tremendous variety of topics ranging
from affirmative action to auditing to
business planning to cable damage pre-
vention,” says Al Pozos, benchmarking
manager for the company’s corporate
quality center in San Ramon, California.
Pacific Bell doesn’t always elect to
benchmark with companies whose prac-
tices are considered superior. You don’t
have to benchmark with the best compa-
nies to get the results you want, Pozos
points out. In fact, there are some solid
benefits to working with organizations
that aren’t quite the cream of the crop.
Among the reasons? Companies
with the best practices often are over-
whelmed with requests to benchmark
and have to turn some prospective part-
ners down. “Furthermore, there often is
a tremendous gap between your own
company’s practices and those that rep-
resent the absolute best,” Pozos
believes. “It would take a quantum leap
to reach their level, which can be quite
discouraging. Sometimes it’s better to
make incremental changes.”
Benchmarking with the best com-
panies also can be daunting when you’re
tackling extremely complex projects
that involve a number of variables and
that require gathering large volumes of
data. Pozos presents this analogy: “You
go to a gym and all you want to do is
work on your biceps. But if the trainer
says you should work on your thighs,
stomach, and neck as well, it can be
overwhelming. It can discourage you
from doing what you set out to do.”
There’s an inference that you
obtain inferior information when you
benchmark with companies that are less
than 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 their
practices over longer periods and with
more consistency,” he explains. “It’s a
matter of fine tuning.”
In fact, benchmarking with compa-
nies that are less than the best has
brought positive results for Pacific Bell.
“In measures of customer satisfaction,
for example, we’ve worked with compa-
nies that are not necessarily the absolute
best in this area,” Pozos says. “Yet, we
gathered enough useful information to
enable us to reduce our expenditures by
$9 million. And, when we benchmarked
with other companies to determine
how they handle employee suggestions,
we were able to obtain data that saved
us about $12 million.”
Pozos puts it this way: “You can
learn from an Olympic athlete. But you
also can learn from the local tennis pro.”
Al Pozos
Benchmarking
Manager
PACIFIC BELL
You can benchmark only with the best.

11. 14 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
B
rian Andes received an inquiry
recently from a benchmarker who
was looking for ways to protect a
telephone company’s underground
cable network. But Andes is the director
of business process improvement at
Tenneco Inc., whose products and ser-
vices bear little resemblance to those
offered by the phone company. So, why
did 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 our
processes may not be the same, but our
approaches to resolving problems may
be similar.”
Andes dispels the myth that to
benchmark effectively, you must team
up with companies in your own indus-
try whose processes are analogous to
yours. “It’s a matter of mind set,” he
maintains. “It’s a matter of understand-
ing that even companies or industries
that are different can have similar core
processes or common characteristics.”
He cites an example. “Tenneco has
six operating companies that sell to
each other, and we wanted to learn
more about other companies’ processes
for billing between companies,” he
explains. “But when we began gather-
ing information on intercompany bill-
ing, it’s such an esoteric practice that
very little information has been pub-
lished on it.”
So, the Tenneco team broadened its
search. It identified companies that do
billing and then isolated those who
have excelled at it.
“Next, we narrowed our focus,”
Andes recalls. “We asked if any of these
organizations had several companies
that did business with each other.” This
approach led to a successful bench-
marking effort.
Andes offers another example. “We
were benchmarking on innovation,” he
recalls. “Very few companies have dis-
crete innovation processes, but in the
course of calling people, we found com-
panies that have introduced initiatives
to encourage innovation, and we
focused on these.”
Identifying compatible benchmark-
ing partners requires asking questions
and recognizing benchmarking oppor-
tunities when they arise, Andes explains.
“One benefit to belonging to the
Center’s International Benchmarking
Clearinghouse is networking,” he notes.
“And, whenever I call someone with a
specific purpose in mind, I also review
my list of current benchmarking pro-
jects and ask about anything I have an
inkling they may be doing.”
That’s how the call about the
phone company’s underground cable
network came about. “I was researching
the innovation process,” Andes points
out. “The phone company is in a
regulated industry, just as we are, and I
wanted to know how innovation is
approached in a regulated environ-
ment. We started talking about other
issues, and my phone company contact
saw the connection.”
Partners don’t exist outside m y indus-
Brian Andes
Director of Business
Process Improvement
TENNECO INC.

12. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 15
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
I
t’s no surprise that quality proponents
claim benchmarking is only for big
companies. They’re the ones with the
human and financial resources it takes
to do benchmarking on a grand scale
and with the structure in place to facili-
tate other companies’ benchmarking
requests.
But, as Ken Dooley can tell you,
benchmarking can benefit smaller
companies, too. Dooley is the quality
manager for Syntron Inc., which makes
marine electronics for the seismic and
exploratory drilling industries. His
company has about 300 employees
situated around the world. And despite
its diminutive size, it’s actively involved
in benchmarking.
Syntron traditionally has teamed
up with companies its own size. “It’s
easier to learn to do benchmarking
when you’re dealing with a company
the same size as yours,” he points out.
“But more importantly, we work with
small companies because the processes
we’re benchmarking are more likely to
be beneficial for both of us.
“The reason is that companies of
different sizes approach processes in
different ways. What’s best in class for a
big company might not be best in class
for a smaller one. For example, a small
company that is benchmarking the
process of receiving goods might dis-
cover that what works well for a big
company might not work for it at all.”
Dooley admits the myth that bench-
marking is only for big companies has
discouraged some small organizations
from participating in benchmarking
activities. “I wanted to benchmark the
ISO certification process for internation-
al standards,” he recalls. “But when I ap-
proached companies of similar size in
our area, they saw little value at first in
comparing processes. They considered
what they were doing to be unique,
because they had consolidated processes
within their organization that would
have been conducted separately in bigger
companies. But after we talked about
their processes and how they document-
ed and audited and prepared for
certification, they changed their minds.
“There are elements of almost any
process that are similar no matter what
size the company is,” Dooley main-
tains. “In fact, big companies can bene-
fit from benchmarking with smaller
ones when they’re planning to consoli-
date their operations.
“Benchmarking is a learning
process, and the success of your efforts
depends heavily on how well you get to
know the processes you’re studying,” he
concludes. “The more companies you
talk to—regardless of their size—the
better.”
Ken Dooley
Quality Manager
SYNTRON, INC.
Benchmarking is only for big companies.

13. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 17
he Land of NIH
Quite a long time ago
from the legends, we know
of a kingdom of grandeur and glory.
’Twas the kingdom of NIH*
rising up from the sea
like some land in a fairy book story.
NIH did seem to be blessed
with much more than the rest
of the kingdoms with which it competed,
and its army—so powerful—
proudly marched through the sorrowful
foreign lands which it soundly defeated.
All the people of NIH
lived magnificently,
boasting homes that were stately as castles,
and the textiles they’d weave
one could scarcely believe,
spun with silk and with fine golden tassels.
All their farmers’ green fields
had spectacular yields
and their highways were strong and extensive.
They had sewers built to last
and a merchant fleet, fast,
and its healthcare superb (but expensive).
On the first of the year
with his ministers near,
the old King handed each one a letter.
It said, “Last year was grand,
but I fear we must plan
if we want future years to be better.”
Well, they stammered and coughed.
Then, they openly scoffed
and 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 druthers
we would learn from the others
and discover the things we do worst.
“I suggest that you visit
and find out what is it
that each other kingdom does well.
Pick the best from each one
and enhance what we’ve done
so that NIH will forever excel.
“For it’s easy to boast
and it’s easy to coast
on 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 feared
so they sneered and they jeered
and discussed how these things he had said
would disrupt their fine lives,
so they pulled out their knives
and the wise King of NIH soon lay dead.
Then they quickly elected
someone 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 us
and 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 laurels
and made certain no change was adopted.
They did not seem to mind
when production declined.
But NIH’s dominance soon was co-opted.
For while NIH stayed the same
their competitors gained
by working cooperatively.
Through the knowledge they shared
and techniques they compared,
they surpassed all the wonders of NIH.
Soon NIH’s grandeur had faded
and their failure was aided
by their pride, which would not let them see
that there was no salvation
in their isolation
and their future was never to be.
Now all that remains
are some legends and names
from a kingdom that once was called great,
but whose subjects stopped yearning
to excel through new learning
and accepted an inglorious fate.
a benchmarking poem
by Kevin Prihod
*NIH = Not Invented Here
c
b
l

14. 18 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
H
enry David Thoreau represented
the essence of simplicity in his
language and lifestyle: “Our life
is frittered away by detail. Sim-
plicity, simplicity, simplicity!” A Texas-
based surgical apparel company supports
this same philosophy in its approach to
benchmarking.
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. It
recognized that “best-in-class” learnings
change, too, so it’s sensible to keep the
process as simple as possible. JJMI’s
philosophy to benchmarking is defi-
nitely refreshing. At a time when many
organizations spend large amounts of
money, time, and resources to bench-
mark other best-in-class companies,
JJMI has created its own successful
method with short-term results.
“We chose not to be complex with
benchmarking,” 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 long
time 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 Better
In 1989, two Johnson & Johnson
professional product organizations
merged to create JJMI—Surgikos, with
manufacturing plants located in Juarez,
Mexico; El Paso, Texas; and Arlington,
Texas, and Johnson & Johnson Patient
Care, located in Sherman, Texas, and
New Brunswick, New Jersey. While
mergers are not uncommon among the
150 companies in the Johnson & John-
son family, they still require some initial
adjustment uniting different manage-
ment and manufacturing plants. As a
result of this unity, JJMI cuts and pro-
duces disposable surgical apparel and
packs. Associates at the Artcraft facility
in El Paso cut the raw materials and
transport them daily to the three plants
in Mexico for production. Once com-
plete, these surgical products are sent
back to El Paso for sterilization.
After the merger in 1989, the for-
mer vice president of operations at
Johnson & Johnson Patient Care
empowered employees with the ability
to do whatever was necessary to
improve. Employees were faced with a
freedom never seen before. Lewis, pre-
viously with Surgikos, jumped at the
opportunity to make some changes,
accepting the position of director of
Mexico operations.
“I personally had a belief that we
had to change,” Lewis said. “And
because I had that belief, and I had it
very, very strongly, then we began to
evaluate what we had to change.”
Lewis described JJMI’s situation in
1989 as “pretty bad.” The organization
was in a growth mode and unable to
fulfill customers’ orders.
“We weren’t making our financial
commitments,” Lewis said. “We weren’t
making our production commitments.
I believe that was the reality that hit us
in the face to make us believe we had to
change.”
Go,
Se
CASE DESCRIPTION:
Subject:
Johnson & Johnson Medical Inc.
Contact:
Michael Lewis
director, border operations
Jack Morrison
Artcraft plant manager
Richard Brown
TQM manager
Johnson & Johnson Medical Inc.
7850 Artcraft Road
El Paso, TX 79912
Product/Service:
A border operation in El Paso, Texas, and
Juarez, 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

15. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 19
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
Lewis believes the common thread
running through the organization was
people had a willingness to change. The
organization started looking at the
whole gamut of its business—from hir-
ing practices to pay systems to measure-
ment—and determined what it needed
to do to improve.
A New Direction
Lewis recognized during the orga-
nization’s quality educational process
that regardless of the quality “guru,” the
common themes among them focused
on the customer, people, and education.
He also noticed that every company he
studied seemed to have a strategic plan.
Albeit, the plan may be sitting on an
executive’s shelf collecting dust, but the
companies he studied had a plan. Lewis
did not want a stagnant plan for JJMI,
so he asked himself, “How do I take this
strategic plan or mission and deploy it
in two countries and two languages?”
The answer: focus on a few very basic
things. Again, simplicity played out as
the answer for JJMI.
The organization created four
critical success factors for JJMI with a
mission of “superior responsiveness to
customer requirements.” The business
is run based on these critical success
factors:
• Customer-driven Quality
• Fast and Flexible Processes
• Lowest Cost
• Total Associate Involvement
Step by Step: Inching Closer to
Benchmarking
One of the first things JJMI did to
improve the organization was to flowchart
its business. Employees began looking
closely at elements of work that were
going into their activities. They broke
up into teams, by plant, and started
eliminating the non-value-added tasks.
“We asked ourselves, ‘Is this going
to provide value to our customers or add
value to our product?’” Lewis said. “We
had to change the process to eliminate
the non-value-added activities. And
that is a continuing process. I’m not
sure you ever finish that, because the
business changes, products change…”
The organization also moved into
benchmarking, which many associates
describe as part of the Johnson & John-
son culture. In the opinion of Jack
Morrison, Artcraft plant manager, JJMI
has embraced the philosophy of not
reinventing the wheel, but looking at
others and “lifting” ideas from them.
Morrison said associates understand
what benchmarking is by seeing the
results from it. “It has
become self-perpetuating
now,” he said.
Lewis believes
strongly in JJMI’s
method for benchmark-
ing, as well, but he admits
its benchmarking is dif-
ferent. And he’s even
asked himself, “Are we
missing the boat?”
“But then I look at
what we’ve done, and I
see the results and the
successes,” Lewis contin-
ued. “We’re not trying to
be a perfect 4.0 on
benchmarking. We
may not be 100 percent
perfection, but we’re
somewhere in the 90s on
getting 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 quality
of design and manufacturing, and
Federal Express for its on-time delivery
and customer satisfaction. Teams are
responsible for finding a solution to
their projects, and for many teams, that
involves benchmarking. Management
has made it available by offering the
resources and money in the budget, as
well as a supportive hand to help.
“Benchmarking isn’t a solution in
or of itself, but one tool in a tool kit to
excellent, world-class status,” said
Richard Brown, TQM manager. “We
don’t see benchmarking as a panacea.
We didn’t see a lightning bolt and all of
a sudden start benchmarking.”
One of the common misconcep-
tions about benchmarking is that it’s
as simple as copying the success of
another company directly into your
own organization. Lewis has commu-
nicated to JJMI associates that they can
go study a Federal Express- and Mil-
liken-like organization and discover
their best-in-class features, but they
can’t necessarily take their processes
and put them in JJMI. They are not
going to fit.
ARTCRAFT LANDMARKS
(from January 1989 to December 1992)
Customer rejects .........reduced by 85 percent
Leadtime .........reduced by 83 percent
Customs cycle time .........reduced by 72 percent
Manufacturing waste .........reduced by 69 percent
Team participation .........increased by 350 percent
Manufacturing costs .........reduced by 34 percent
Inventory .........reduced by 60 percent
Supervisory 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 rolls
before one cut can be made. Elvira Barragan,
machine operator lay-up, monitors the process
to ensure the rolls flow at maximum efficiency.

16. 20 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
“So, our attitude and strategy is to
go out and see what the concepts are—
and take it to the next level and under-
stand what those concepts mean and
the 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 takes
time and money…to “see,” individuals
see only what they want to believe. But
“do?” That is the difficult part of
benchmarking. People say they “do”
things, but more often than not, it’s just
lip service. Lewis tries to instill in asso-
ciates that they need to change and
come back with take-aways—improve-
ment opportunities. He asks them to
make a list of 10 things they learned
from benchmarking. From this list, he
prefers the organization implement one
strong change to make a legacy to the
organization, rather than trying to
accomplish 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 not
come back and ‘do’ something—some-
thing you learned. Or, your take-away
was you don’t want to do that.”
JJMI’s benchmarking structure
revolves around a seven-step process
(see Figure 1) the organization adapted
from many sources. This process is
introduced to employees, along with
the basics of benchmarking, as one
component in their “Quality Journey”
training.
One of JJMI’s benchmarking
efforts involved Milliken, which excels
in two areas: measurement and associ-
ate recognition. Lewis, who attended
this benchmarking trip, wanted to
implement something he learned from
Milliken when he returned. Milliken
sponsors sharing rallies, where “the best
of the best” teams make presentations
and glory in recognition from peers and
management.
“We came back and realized we
could do the same thing, because we
already had teams set up,” Lewis said.
“And we’ve done it three times so far. It’s
overwhelming what that has done for us
in the organization, because people want
to contribute. We don’t have a three-ring
binder and 100 pages on the Milliken
recognition program. My belief is if we
had done that, it would have taken
longer to have our first sharing rally.
We realized success very quickly.”
“Distinciones,” the Spanish word
for 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 can
present their successes to the audience,
though 15 have already applied for the
next sharing rally from the Artcraft
facility. On the off years, JJMI recog-
nizes employees on a plantwide basis.
“‘Distinciones’ is a chance for teams
to showcase their talents and results,”
Morrison said. “People want to be rec-
ognized, and they deserve it. Everyone
wants to feel they earned their pay.”
Lewis also visited Federal Express
(as part of Federal Express’ required
tours as a Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award winner). Lewis recog-
nized two take-aways from this visit as
well—Federal Express is sensitive to the
customer and has incredible education
and training programs. While many
may not call this visit “benchmarking,”
Lewis does. In his mind, Federal
Express is a winner, so they are consid-
ered a benchmark.
When Lewis attended this tour in
1992, the tour started at night when the
bulk 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 Process
1. 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 and
create a gap analysis.
6. Develop plan to close the gap.
7. Implement plan and monitor results.
Figure 1

17. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 21
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
thousand Federal Express employees
come in at night to process one million
packages in four to five hours. The
planes take off, and the employees
depart. What struck Lewis as he
watched this process is “organizations
must have happy customers.”
“That was a real eye-opener for
me—customer satisfaction is very
important,” Lewis said. “Because if
Federal Express settled for only 99 per-
cent on-time delivery, that would
account for maybe 5,000 packages that
didn’t get sent on time to people who
had to have their packages. So, we
started trying to understand what cus-
tomer satisfaction is to us and how we
need to do that. And we’re still trying
to learn.”
One method JJMI uses to ensure
it’s reaching customer requirements is
to conduct plant tours with nurses,
JJMI’s major customers, several times a
year. The majority of the 20-25 nurses
per group are the decision-makers at
their facilities. Nurses tour the JJMI
plants in El Paso and Juarez, and in
return, give JJMI feedback on products,
environmental initiatives, and other
appropriate measures. JJMI depends
on this feedback and often makes
adjustments as a result of customer con-
cerns. Doctors and their operating pro-
cedures drive what JJMI produces. The
organization develops packs and changes
product lines to meet the needs of doc-
tors, based on feedback from the nurses.
The visit to Federal Express also
taught JJMI associates about training
by showing them the capabilities that
Federal Express has to train their associ-
ates. Lewis said they took concepts they
learned from Federal Express, as well as
others they had studied, and tried to
determine where JJMI’s niche was and
how it fit its personality. At that point,
the organization developed its programs
and processes for education. One is the
“Quality Journey” training all associates
learn, as well as other courses that JJMI
developed for employees.
The Heart of the Matter
What 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…the
Border Quality Improvement Team
(BQIT).
This management-level team is the
leadership for the JJMI operation on
both sides of the Rio Grande. In 1989,
this team, composed of management
and union leaders in El Paso and Juarez,
formed with the belief that each week
management needs to ensure that it is
still following the same road map. A
fixed weekly agenda with published pri-
orities allows members to follow the
strategic plan and focus on quality,
costs, and benchmarking. These are
important items for discussion, because
JJMI believes they are all intertwined.
“Our quality initiatives are all driven
by the BQIT—training, benchmarking,
etc.,” Brown said. “The key is that group
of leaders meeting every week and
agreeing on what their focus will be.”
Most important, this leadership
team serves as a cross-functional team
that sends a message to the rest of the
organization—leadership by example.
Lewis said the evolution of the BQIT
will require some tweaking, but he
believes it’s entrenched in the culture
now.
“The BQIT has been the common
thread to bring the associates together
who provide the leadership—in a very
focused, concentrated way to make
results happen,” Lewis said. “Not to get
together and talk or feel good about
what we’re doing—but to continue to
make change continue to happen. After
our benchmarking studies, we’ll come
back and sit as a BQIT and talk about
how that concept would apply to us. In
some cases, it was an easy fit. In others,
it wasn’t fitting at all.”
Change is in the Air
As a result of JJMI’s quality and
benchmarking efforts, nothing seems to
stay the same for long—improvement is
the word of the day…every day. And
one of the big changes involves the
JJMI associates.
“People feel more empowered to do
what they feel is right and not be penal-
ized for making a mistake,” Morrison
said. “Associates feel they can question
management, and they definitely have
more pride.
“I love showing improvement! It’s a
matter of goal setting and putting a
structure in place to improve. We
haven’t been faced with a situation that
we couldn’t do what we wanted to do.”
Morrison’s words have examples to
back them up. Two of JJMI’s most
impressive recognitions occured its sec-
ond time around—the organization did
not 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.

18. 22 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
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., entered
the first year, they did not win. They weren’t even finalists. But
1993 was a different story… with a happy ending.
The Premio Nacional de Calidad is given to organizations
that succeed as a result of their efforts in continuous improve-
ment toward total quality. In 1993, 85 organizations registered
to apply for the award. From those, 12 were selected to prepare
and send additional information. Eight of these companies
received final site visits, and Surgikos was one of three winners.
The president of Mexico presented the award to JJMI associates
in November at the official presidential residence in Mexico City.
“It was pretty overpowering for me to go down to Mexico
and have their president present that award to us with more
than 1,000 people in the room,” Lewis said. “It’s an outside
indicator that says we’re getting this right. But we have to make
sure we don’t get arrogant and think we have arrived, because we
haven’t. We still have a lot of work to do.”
Another recent accolade JJMI is pleased to tout involved
Industry Week and its annual “Best Plants in the United States”
recognition. JJMI’s El Paso facility was named one of the best
plants in 1993 in the magazine’s October 19 issue. El Paso
proudly follows the footsteps of Johnson & Johnson’s Sherman,
Texas, plant, which received the honor in 1991.
For its celebration, nearly 200 associates and their families
gathered on the grounds of the Artcraft facility in El Paso for the
presentation, reception, and plant tours. Bill Clarke, JJMI’s
president in Arlington, Texas, complimented associates on their
teamwork and “willingness to try new approaches to increase
productivity while better satisfying customers.”
Turning the Tables: JJMI as a Benchmark
In 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 have
benchmarked several of its operations, including cutting room
operations, customs/traffic operations, sterilizer operations, and
materials management.
In customs, for example, the traffic-and-customs team has
reduced the number of inspections to cross the border from 130
in 1991 to 10 inspections in 1993. Instead of taking 40 hours
for one truck to travel across the border with inspections, it now
takes two hours. These reductions are based on JJMI’s special
security agreement with U.S. Customs signed in 1992 to reduce
inspection by 90 percent.
By working with such a large volume—30 shipments per
day—the reduction definitely affects JJMI’s bottom line. JJMI
is 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, which
is rework and lots of scrap,” Morrison said. “Our inspection
rate is one trailer out of 100. You must have an ability to main-
tain accuracy. It’s a matter of learning what the requirements are
from Customs.”
Team Benchmarks Pay System
In early 1992, management at Johnson & Johnson Medical
Inc. (JJMI) handpicked a team to solve the following general
mission: “to develop a pay system consistent with the continu-
ous flow manufacturing process” for its associates working in
Mexico. This cross-functional team, dubbed MAPS (Mexico
Associate Pay System), went through the necessary steps to
solve this critical situation: data collection/analysis, produc-
tion manager brainstorm, pay system benchmarking, design
conceptualization, and implementation.
Beginning Stages
As 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 process
and collecting extensive amounts of data on wage laws and
regulations, current pay structures, and other pertinent infor-
mation. Armed with this background data, the team was ready
to learn from other organizations through benchmarking.
Looking to Others
The MAPS team began benchmarking locally in El Paso
to stay within the garment industry. First, they looked internally
at one of JJMI’s own operations, the Critikon Cuff Operation,
which manufactures blood pressure cuffs. They discovered how
Critikon was paying associates, measuring productivity, and
paying out bonuses. The team also looked at H.D. Lee, which
is a similar operation in El Paso.
In May 1992, three members of the MAPS team attended
a three-day pay systems seminar where seven organizations pre-
sented how they compensate their employees in a continuous
flow process. These companies included Byte Systems, Tanner
Company, H.D. Lee—Alabama, Sara Lee, Square D, Leader
Systems, and Mine Safety Appliance.
“Benchmarking was an integral part of the design of our
compensation system,” Donna Welch, senior accountant and
team 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 on
how to do benchmarking,” she continued. “In cases where
something needs to be funded, the commitment is there.”
side notes
more ➤

19. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 23
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
A Simple Environment?
The word simple usually doesn’t have a place in the
environments of corporate organizations. They typically
strive for complex language, complex processes, and com-
plex organizational structures. Why has the philosophy of
Thoreau 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’ may
give you 89 percent in benchmarking,” Lewis said. “But it’s
going 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 its
benchmarking efforts simple and not create a huge binder after every
benchmarking study, JJMI associates admit that a small amount of
documentation is necessary to capture take-aways from the
benchmarkingvisitandbasicinformationforfollow-upwithorganizations
at a later date.
• Diagonal slice teams allow for different observations during
site visits. JJMI typically sends a manager, supervisor, two production
associates, and a Quality Assurance technician on benchmarking studies.
This diverse representation allows everyone to be involved and discover
new tidbits of information that all managers, for example, may not
notice.
• Organizations can get a lot of mileage from benchmarking
internally with other affiliates/divisions/units. By the nature
of being affiliates, organizations may not naturally share information.
• Find a champion to push you through the benchmarking
process. Organizations need an individual who is commited to the
benchmarking process—someone who continues to believe you must
change, when others waiver.
Sometimes, as in the case of MAPS, a benchmarking study
will illustrate what companies should not do. In this example,
MAPS benchmarked an organization that paid its teams on a salary
basis, not wage. JJMI recognized that this did not seem compatible
with its Mexico wage force. “These young workers need some
motivation to put in the extra effort for a goal,” Welch said.
Implementation
Based 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 up
to 40 percent of minimum wage as a bonus, depending on how
ambitious they are.
“In this age group, everyone needs to be recognized for indi-
viduality, and this system gives us the opportunity to train at different
levels,” Welch said. “This is the most important part of it. That’s
something 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 system
one production line at a time. The pay system has been in place
only a few weeks, but success stories already exist. On the first day, the
associates were still new to the whole process and did not meet their
production goal. Yet, by day two, the manufacturing team had real-
ized, individually, what each needed to do to ensure the production
goal was met.
“It was great to watch them analyze and adjust their ways,”
Welch said. “Moving around to help another associate—that was
unheard of before in the plant. Associates began to help others in the
line. They met their production goal 20 minutes before their shift
was over. They did high-fives to celebrate!”
Future
For 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 is
skilled, 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 be
paid equal.
• You need to work to meet a specific plan—Employees need to
know the goal and when they need to meet it. “If you meet
these requirements, this is the bonus.”
• Focus on safety and quality—Quality and sterility are primary
concerns for JJMI, who want associates to be protected in a safe
environment.

20. INDUSTRY
XYZ
24 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
W
HY WOULD A LEADING MEDICAL CENTER
want to study Marriott’s hotel guest regis-
tration process? Avis Rental Car’s staffing
system? Why would an airline spend time
comparing notes with—of all things—an
Indianapolis 500 pit crew?!
Sound crazy? No. These organizations are using
benchmarking to break out of their industry paradigms to
reach new, world-class levels of performance. The medical
center’s patients judged their hospital experience not only
on 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’ better
than we do?”
The airline needed faster maintenance turnaround
than anyone in the airline industry currently provided.
Who better than a race car pit crew to shed a whole new
way of looking at the process?
Leave the Box
This is called “benchmarking outside-the-box”—
learning from processes in other industries to improve
your own. At the American Productivity & Quality
Center’s International Benchmarking Clearinghouse, we
constantly see evidence of the power of out-of-the-box
benchmarking.
For those who are used to thinking of benchmarking
as 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, and
adapting outstanding practices and processes
from organizations anywhere in the world to help
your organization improve its performance.”
Practices and processes range from customer service to
human resources, from warehousing and distribution to
leadership. Even industry-specific processes, such as
claims processing in insurance, are candidates for learning
from 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, of
course. Your customers do. But if you only try to match
your competitors, you will never leave them in the dust.
Many organizations, from manufacturing to government
agencies to telephone companies, join the Center’s Clear-
inghouse so they can safely and easily network and learn
from other industries. Our 280-plus members come from
every possible industry and many nations.
by Carla O’Dell, Ph.D.
American Productivity & Quality Center
B enchmarkingOut-of-the-Box

21. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 25
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
Why and when should you bench-
mark outside your industry? Here are
six reasons:
To avoid reinventing exist-
ing solutions. No one
has the luxury, time, or
money anymore to rein-
vent in a vacuum that
others have already discov-
ered and tested.
To achieve breakthrough
improvement and accel-
erate change. Bench-
marking offers the
opportunity for break-
through improvements—
not 5 percent or 7 percent, but gains of
30 to 50 percent, sometimes even 300
or 500 percent! Firms that are already
behind 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 enormous
inertia of the status quo. As Jack Welch
at GE has said, “Incremental change
doesn’t work very well in the type of
transformation GE has gone through.
If your change isn’t big enough, or revo-
lutionary enough, the bureaucracy can
beat you.”
To drive and direct reengi-
neering. It would be
foolhardy to spend the
time, money, and organi-
zational energy to reengi-
neer without looking out-
side to see how others have approached
the same objective.
We strongly urge our Clearing-
house members and clients to bench-
mark at least twice during any major
reengineering project we work with. At
the beginning of a reengineering
process, smart managers use competi-
tive analysis, customer information,
operating performance, and bench-
marking to identify those key processes
to reengineer. Then, when the creative
portion of redesign begins, they bench-
mark world-class examples to create the
new design.
To set stretch goals. Inertia
and past success leads
many organizations to
plan for the future in sim-
ilar patterns. Without
some external stimulus and
example, the goals for improvement are
likely to be “the same as last year...plus 5
percent.” That won’t cut it in this
world. Xerox once thought it was
doing well in one of its divisions with
gains of 8 percent annually. They
benchmarked and found it would take
18 percent to merely catch up, and
much more to stay ahead.
Benchmarking outside the industry
can legitimize stretch goals. Goals picked
out of thin air and from off-the-wall
guesses rarely inspire anyone. Numbers
from competitors analyzed in a black
box are equally suspect—and ignored—
by most managers. But stretch goals
based on believable external evidence,
not only of results but the process that
produced those results, are believable
and give people a model from which to
work.
To overcome NIH (Not
Invented Here). Bench-
marking offers evidence,
not theory, that ideas
NIH can work. This
helps to convince skeptics,
overcome resisters, and convert fence
sitters—increasing the odds of making
new and large changes. Benchmarking
takes thinking outside normal channels
(also known as ruts), to look at brand
new approaches that would never have
occurred to them had they not stepped
out of their well-worn thinking.
To anticipate and head off
new competitors. If goals
are set based on current
industry standards, a vir-
tual competitor may move
in and change the rules.
Dell Computer rocked the personal
computer industry when it successfully
adopted mail order as a sales and distri-
bution channel. Mail order was not a
new idea in other industries, but it fun-
damentally transformed computer sales
and set off a wave of competition in the
last three years that is shaking one-time
leaders to their foundations.
You can’t beat competitors by fol-
lowing them. Whole industries can get
locked into mediocrity, and few would
get ahead by more than inches. They
will remain a prisoner in their own
industry.
In the past, one could identify eas-
ily who competitors were and monitor
them. Today, industry lines are grow-
ing fuzzy. Competitors come from
other industries, from other technolo-
gies, and certainly from other nations.
For example, the Swiss watchmakers
were overwhelmed by competitors that
weren’t even in the same business. The
Swiss didn’t even see them coming!
Ideas for Cross-Industry
Benchmarking
Many of our Clearinghouse mem-
bers make cross-industry benchmarking
easier, faster, and cheaper by joining
consortium benchmarking studies and
Common Interest Groups.
In a consortium study, companies
who are interested in the same process
can join together to benchmark them-
selves and with firms that have world-
class “best practices.” The sponsor par-
ticipants not only share the costs in
time and money, but also learn a
tremendous amount from each other.
The target companies are delighted to
deal with only one group, rather than
10 companies all wanting to bench-
mark the same process.
One Clearinghouse consortium
study currently underway relates to
“processes to translate customer informa-
tion into product and service improve-
ments.” The 10 participating companies
include two telephone companies, a
chemical firm, an insurance company,
and a leading food manufacturer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
You can’t beat
competitors by
following them.

22. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 27
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
Another consortium on new product
development includes 19 member com-
panies from a wide variety of industries.
Other recent hot processes that
Clearinghouse 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 successfully
benchmark outside your industry?
• Knowledge of your own process and
problems to see the underlying char-
acteristics and spot analogies across
other industries.
• Ability to look for common themes
without having them spoon-fed
• Information about outstanding
companies in other industries. This
information needs to be organized
by process and not just industry.
• Language that is common to all.
One of the barriers to sharing across
industries is finding a common lan-
guage that describes processes
regardless of industry. For example,
the medical center had to equate its
admissions process with hotel regis-
tration in order to see the analogy
and potential transfer. With our
members’ assistance, we have devel-
oped a Process Classification Scheme
that identifies generic processes from
other industries and contexts.
Finally, true breakthroughs require
a different mindset. The Clearinghouse
has a second definition of benchmark-
ing that captures the psychology and
willingness to learn that is necessary to
benchmark outside your industry and
make breakthroughs:
Benchmarking is the practice of
being humble enough to admit
that someone else is better at
something and wise enough to
learn how to match and even
surpass them at it.
Ad
One of the barriers to sharing across
industries is finding a common
language that describes processes
regardless of industry.

23. As you see and hear about how companies are conducting
benchmarking today, what bothers you? What are
companies doing wrong?
The fundamental problem I see with benchmarking today
is the [benchmarking] teams. I see them reacting to the
short-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 simply
looking at a company’s annual report. Either the questions are
much too elementary, or they are at such a broad level that they
serve no purpose.
As you probably know, I’m a proponent of focusing on work
processes. This is the most effective way to get good results from
a benchmarking study.
Is there a model for benchmarking that you personally
endorse? Are there “bad” models that you know of?
My belief is that it’s those models that focus on processes
that work the best. The Clearinghouse’s model, for
instance, works well. It’s when you go to the extremes—
either too detailed or too elementary—that the models break
down. 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 job
setting up a corporatewide structure for benchmarking.
What are some of the best-in-class companies that have an
organized strategy?
I hate to answer this because I know I’ll miss some peo-
ple. But, IBM, certainly TI, Du Pont, Kodak, and DEC
are the kinds of companies that are doing it right. The
difficulty is that no one is perfect.
&&
28 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
Q AWITH
RobertCamp
Manager, Benchmarking Competency
Xerox Corporation
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A

24. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 29
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
What makes these organizations superior at
benchmarking?
The key is that someone in these organizations has
been 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 success
factor: they must have the unconditional support of senior
management.
How does Xerox handle what must be an overwhelm-
ing number of requests to benchmark?
We have to be selective. Unpreparedness is a big
problem 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 questions
they’re asking the partner.
A good number of the benchmarking requests come to
me. 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 money
for travel, positions, etc. It’s done in a piecemeal
fashion, more or less. It’s not culled out as such.
One argument against benchmarking is that it is very
hard for smaller organizations to get started, much
less complete benchmarking studies. What advice do
you have?
That’s a question that gets asked a lot, and I think it’s
a misnomer—really overblown. Xerox is made up of
a number of small entities—for instance, our ware-
house operations. People think, ‘Oh my gosh, how can I
benchmark with such a huge company?’ When you get right
down to it, most of the benchmarking is done at the func-
tional levels. It becomes much more manageable when you
look at it this way.
The other part of this question gets at the resources
smaller companies have to do benchmarking. If necessary,
they can do benchmarking on a part-time basis. Scale it
down. The key is that one person, at least, is responsible for
keeping a constant watch for benchmarking opportunities.
Or, the management team should always be on the watch.
Implementation of study findings has proven to be a
major 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 this
type of information in the public domain. I just saw
that 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 having
some prominence displayed. It’s just a matter of getting used
to it. Many are leery of the press; too often, they’ve been
blind-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’s
less reluctance there. I think it’s the medium. Conference
proceedings are almost seen as private publications, but
they’re really not. There’s a lot of good information that
comes out of such publications.
When you hear the arguments concerning the cost and
time associated with benchmarking, what is your
response?
The first thing you have to ask yourself is, “What am I
going to get for it (benchmarking)?” The substance
of the results obtained from benchmarking is proven.
In many cases the return is 10 times the investment, in some
cases more. But, you have to be judicious. If it’s a significant
business 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, benchmarking
can be accomplished via satellite, teleconferencing, and even
electronically. I challenge organizations to do it differently.
Getting other potential benchmarking partners to
agree to participate (i.e., agree to be benchmarked) is
another challenge. What should organizations do to
get not just cooperation, but enthusiastic cooperation?
This is the biggest myth of benchmarking. Others are
willing to cooperate—if you are prepared. No one
wants 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 my
own answers to the questions,” do you really think they
wouldn’t want to participate?
Before someone initiates a benchmarking study, what
is the best way to weigh the costs of conducting the
study against the potential savings from improvements
as a result of the study?
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q

25. 30 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
Getting Benchmarking
off the Bench
One way, and probably the best way, is to go into the
public 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 your
company 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 the
definitions distinguish the efforts. Reengineering is
the radical redesign of work processes. Benchmark-
ing involves finding and implementing exemplar practices.
Some companies take the reengineering approach—radical
redesign of processes. Others may want to take the continu-
ous improvement, or TQM, approach. These are both
choices. I see benchmarking as a necessity. It plays a vital role
in both approaches.
Fred Bowers (of Digital Equipment Corporation) has
said that benchmarking will eventually disappear—
that it will become a subliminal operation in organi-
zations. Do you agree? Can benchmarking advance
to 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 it
will become subliminal in my lifetime! I do believe that
benchmarking is beginning to be recognized as a positive,
proactive tool for improvement.
What about the use of the phrase “benchmarking
movement”? Do you like that label? It’s used a lot,
suggesting that many people think of benchmarking as
a trend, rather than an established avenue for
improvement.
Benchmarking is really the essence of productivity
and quality improvement. But, we have to remind
ourselves that it’s just one in a ‘suite’ of quality tools. Like any
tool, it should be used when and where appropriate. In some
cases, 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 resources
affected the use and/or abuse of benchmarking?
I think it’s been very positive. People have to have a
place 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 organization
that serves its customers, and to the extent it does that, it will
continue to prosper. The competition that is out there is an
indication of the worth of benchmarking.
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
A
comprehensive 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:
x Executive Summary of Major Findings
x Analysis of Screening Survey
x 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 of
the Human Resources Alignment Study, call now:
(800) 776-9676
(713) 685-4600
$125 Center/Clearinghouse Members
$175 Non-Members

26. 32 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
BETTING PAY
ON CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION
Utility Experiences Performance Improvement
When 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
M
ost corporate executives
talk about the importance
of customer satisfaction.
At one company, however,
the entire management team is betting
its 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 as
part of an overall quality improvement
effort that is part of a program to steer
the entire company toward specific
long-term goals.
Dubbed “Vision 2000,” the new
focus is resulting in expanded use of
variable pay to reward individuals for
corporate achievements—including
improvement in customer satisfaction.
Getting Pay ‘In Line’
The changes in compensation
began in 1991 when Young retained
Compo Consulting Group (CCG) to
determine if Bay State’s pay structure
was in concert with Vision 2000.
“Initially, we concentrated on
reviewing senior executive compensa-
tion to determine how much pay
should be fixed and how much should
be variable,” said Paul Ford, Bay State’s
senior vice president for division opera-
tions and human resources.
“As well, we wanted to determine
whether our performance measures for
setting variable pay were consistent
with what we were trying to accomplish
under Vision 2000,” he said.
The issue of customer satisfaction
came up when the company and CCG
realized that the Vision 2000 objective
was not being rewarded under the com-
pensation structure existing at that time.
“Vision 2000 sets Bay State Gas on
a course to be New England’s leading
gas distribution utility in terms of cus-
tomer satisfaction, relationships with
regulators, quality of service, and,
among similar factors, financial perfor-
mance,” Ford explained.
In addition to customers, therefore,
compensation for senior management
had to provide performance incentives
for achieving measurable goals of con-
cern to the company’s two other exter-
nal stakeholder groups: regulators and
shareholders.
CCG and Bay State reviewed the
concerns of each stakeholder group and
created a means to measure corporate
performance that would increase that
group’s “satisfaction” with Bay State Gas.
Lowering Rates = Increasing Pay
Working with Bay State’s chief
financial officer, Thomas W. Sherman,
for example, the CCG team identified
regulators’ primary concern—lowering
customers’ rates.
Variable compensation, however,
couldn’t be pegged directly to customer
rates because the actual price of gas too
often varies sharply as a result of factors
totally beyond the control of anyone at
Bay State.
The cost of providing gas service, as
well, can be severely influenced by
by Michael J. London
Michael J. London & Associates

27. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 33
many external factors, ranging from
weather to interest rates.
As a result, Bay State used a mea-
sure of customer gas cost in relation to
that of the seven other gas utilities in
Massachusetts.
“We found that by comparing rev-
enues per thousand cubic feet of gas,
one could very quickly determine
which regional utility is providing the
most cost effective service,” said Jack
Lederer, president and chief financial
officer of CCG. “That’s a primary
objective of the regulators.”
CCG reviewed each group of stake-
holders in the same way and recom-
mended changes in variable pay—the
annual incentive program for senior
management—to help increase the sat-
isfaction of the stakeholders.
For shareholders, CCG created a
performance measurement that com-
bines dividend growth with earnings
growth. Bay State’s performance then
could be measured against the 35 or so
other gas utilities in the nation—not
just the seven gas companies in Massa-
chusetts.
The national list was selected for
two primary reasons.
“Bay State competes nationally for
capital,” Lederer said. “In addition,
investors frequently base their decisions
to buy or sell stock on a comparison of
company performance throughout the
industry.”
A Customer Satisfaction Index
For the last group of external stake-
holders—customers—CCG created the
customer satisfaction index.
“The index is based upon two key
interactions with customers: billing
and service,” explained Kim Corwin,
Bay State’s director of corporate perfor-
mance. “The index quantifies perfor-
mance in each of these interactions
from three different perspectives—reli-
ability, responsiveness, and assurance
and empathy.”
For each component of the index,
an internal and external measure was
developed.
For the internal component on reli-
ability in billing, for example, the index
tracks billing inquiries per customer.
The external measure was the percent-
age of “yes” answers to two questions on
a customer survey: “Was this your first
contact on this matter?” and “Was your
question answered or problem
resolved?”
Another measure of reliability and
responsiveness was the percentage of
phone calls answered in 30 seconds or
less. To determine responsiveness to
service calls, the internal measure tracks
the percentage of heating service calls
with a technician arriving in less than
four hours. The external measure com-
bines responses to customer survey
questions on the scheduling and timely
arrival of service personnel.
“Actual performance levels are then
translated into a point score,” Corwin
said.
Measuring assurance and empathy,
however, could only be done through
customer surveys.
After reviewing the program, the
Compensation Committee of Bay State’s
Board of Directors voted that these new
measures of stakeholder satisfaction
would account for 100 percent of the
CEO’s annual bonus. For other senior
executives, the satisfaction indices would
account for 75 percent of the annual
bonus. The remaining 25 percent would
be determined by measures of individual
performance (based upon achievement
of specific, outcome-oriented tasks
determined for each position).
“This significant weighting insures
that executives pay attention to the
needs of customers, regulators, and
shareholders, through their own activi-
ties, and their management of others,”
Lederer explained.
Bay State Gas launched the program
in May 1992, beginning with individu-
als from CEO through director level.
“We were pleased with the results
for 1992,” said Kevin McCarthy, Bay
State’s director of human resources.
“Targeted goals for the company were
substantially exceeded in nearly every
area—including substantial reductions
in operations and maintenance.
“About 30 people participated in
the new compensation program that
year,” McCarthy continued. “Ten more
were added in 1993. We also set our
targets higher, increasing the minimum
corporate achievement needed for any
bonuses to be paid at all.”
The Compensation Committee voted
that 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 COMPANY
KEICP Customer Satisfaction Index
• INCENTIVE EARNED •
Number of
Points
<18
18
21
24
27
30
Payouts as
Percent of Target
0%
50% (of 15%)
75% (of 15%)
100% (of 15%)
125% (of 15%)
150% (of 15%)
Threshold
Target
Maximum
Figure 1.

28. 34 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
Another 10 people will be added to
the program in 1994,” McCarthy
added. “That will bring the program
from CEO level down through supervi-
sor level in our operating divisions.”
“We would like to carry the program
into lower staff levels as well as through
the operations side of the company,”
Corwin said. “We’re in the process of
developing performance measures for
the corporate staff personnel.”
In 1995, about 30 percent of Bay
State’s 600 union employees also will be
participating in a program of variable
compensation designed to improve
stakeholder satisfaction.
Half-Page Ad
In 1992, Bay State Gas Co. launched Vision 2000, a program that rewards individuals for corporate
achievements through variable pay. This effort sets Bay State Gas to be New England’s leading gas
distribution utility, especially with customer satisfaction.

29. A
fter a few years,
the initial
promise of the
company’s qual-
ity improvement team
structure was not coming
to fruition. The teams met, targeted
problems to be addressed, investigated,
and found a variety of avenues to impact
the problem. Then, instead of making
the decisions and implementing their
recommendations, the teams reported
their findings and recommendations to
management. This gave management
the initiative to decide to implement (or
not implement, as the case may be) the
recommendations.
After a series of interviews with var-
ious team members, team leaders, and
managers at all levels, it became obvious
that the team members were afraid they
might select a course of action that
could prove unpopular with manage-
ment. That could jeopardize their indi-
vidual jobs.
How did the teams know certain
avenues of action might be unpopular
with 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 definitive
statements, which courses of action
were not recommended.
Redefining Management
Responsibilities
The team process in a total quality
environment requires a redefinition of
management responsibilities. High
control suppresses the development of
competence, commitment, and prob-
lem-solving initiative. It increases fear
and reduces risk-taking and creativity at
the first level of the organization—
where the real work of the enterprise
occurs. It destroys the desired perfor-
mance that is key to the
success of the total quality
environment. In talking
with the managers in our
example, it became obvi-
ous that there was no new
role for them to play that was enticing
enough to allow them to give over their
power to the teams.
W. Edwards Deming was quick to
remind us that behavior is simply a
function of the system. A manager who
refuses to relinquish his control is there-
fore only responding to a system that
continues to encourage management
control rather than team control. In
our example, something had to be done
for the managers. The organization had
to create a new role for them that was
powerful 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 the
managers in the various departments
assume the role of team leader. Now it
Continuous Journey April/May 1994 35
THE MAKING OF A
FACILITATOR
T E A M S & T E A M S K I L L S
by DeAnne Rosenberg, CSP

30. 36 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
was becoming evident that if the teams
were ever going to become “empow-
ered,” something about the make-up of
the team leadership had to be changed.
One Possible Solution
Since a key role on any team is the
facilitator, it was decided to begin there.
The human resource manager
approached every employee in the orga-
nization through departmental and
management meetings. He explained
that each of the quality teams were
going to get a specially trained person
to be its facilitator. He asked employees
to send him nominations of people who
had the interpersonal skills to assume
that role. Anyone could be nominated
no matter what their job title or length
of time with the company.
As might be expected, many of the
employees nominated the same people—
47 individuals out of 1,800 total employ-
ees were named. The human resource
manager then interviewed each of the
nominees individually to determine
who 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 extra
hours to their weekly schedule;
• They would be attending a special
workshop on the skills of facilitation;
• The team they would be working with
would not be in their department;
• They might not know any of the
people on their team prior to their
assignment;
• There would not be extra pay
involved for the assumption of this
responsibility.
Of the 47 nominees, only 23 said
they would be interested. Of the 23
who were interested, six were individual
contributors, seven were from the man-
agement ranks, and 10 were employees
with no leadership experience.
Pairing Facilitator to Team
Each team was given the list of 23
facilitators and asked to select three of
the names. Teams could not select their
own manager as a facilitator. Moreover,
teams could not select anyone from
their department or members of the
departments from which their members
were drawn (if they were process
teams). The three selected names were
then put into a hat. The first name
drawn was the team’s first choice, the
second name drawn was its second
choice, etc. Wherever possible, each
team was given its first choice.
Training of the Facilitators
The skills of facilitation focus on
participating without taking over, guid-
ing without directing, and encouraging
action without suggesting what those
actions should be. It is the facilitator
who must keep individual team mem-
bers from taking over the team. It is
also the facilitator who must keep the
team focused on constant, continual
improvement, and thus encourage the
team to set goals for its own growth.
The critical event for any team is
the meeting, whether it be daily, weekly,
semi-monthly, or some other mutually-
agreed-upon schedule. If it is of poor
quality, the team will be unable to
achieve its goals. The facilitator must
push the team to plan its meetings and
then assist the team in maintaining an
orderly meeting process. Part of pro-
ductive meeting strategies is to recog-
nize behaviors that are destructive to
the team’s effectiveness and to coach
members into behaviors that are
empowering to further the team’s cohe-
siveness. Assisting the team to resolve
its various conflicts without outside
intervention enhances the team’s sense
TEAM FACILITATOR ASSESSMENT
Helps Initiate Action
Assists in defining team problems.
Redirects the team when it gets side-
tracked.
Seeking and Clarifying
Information
Asks members to share relevant facts
or opinions.
Asks for the rationale behind opinions.
Giving Information
Shares opinion and reasons for it when
asked.
Shares concerns regarding the team’s
process and/or content.
Clarifying and Elaborating
Asks for clarification of ideas to insure
team has heard them accurately.
Helps team members communicate their
thoughts and ideas more effectively.
Summarizing
Assists the progress of team discussions
by summarizing ideas and action plans.
Checks for consensus on decisions.
Harmonizing
Encourages every member to voice his
concerns.
Empathizes with members when they
become upset.
Manages the Team’s
Process
Invites silent members to share their
opinions.
Keeps the team focused on its mission
and goals.
Encourages the Team
Praises members from their contri-
butions.
Shows visible approval when members
take on extra responsibilities for the
team.
Champions Compromise
Encourages members to explore their
differences and identify all areas of
agreement.
Pushes members to resolve their
conflicts.
Good Role Model
Is open to feedback from team members
about their effectiveness as team
facilitator.
Regularly asks team to evaluate their
role as facilitator and make suggestions
for change.
Assists In Meeting
Management
Encourages the team to start and end
their meetings on time.
Reminds the team that every meeting
must start with an agenda.
* Adapted from “Team Process Inventory,” in Managing Quality Through Teams, by Lawrence
Miller and Jennifer Howard, 1991. The Miller Consulting Group.
Figure 1

31. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 37
of competence. The more a facilitator
knows about group dynamics and team
empowerment, the better he will be
able to guide the team through the
mine fields of seemingly innocent deci-
sions that, in the long run, will increase
the team’s chances of failure.
The special workshop for the facili-
tators was an intensive two days where
each participant had the opportunity to
both 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 team
was asked to evaluate the facilitator (see
Figure 2). In this way, the facilitation
skills of the group visibly improved
with every activity.
As a result of the workshop, the
facilitators cultivated their own plan of
action to use with their own individual
teams. The plan of action included:
• developing a “contract” that clearly
states what they will and will not do;
• developing a code of conduct or behavior
by which the team can “govern” itself;
• meeting monthly as a support group to
hone their facilitator skills and share
mutual concerns and problems.
The Results
Three months later, the teams were
functioning as they had been designed
to function. What made the difference
was formally removing the manage-
ment person from the team leader role.
Those facilitators who came from the
management ranks have said that their
management skills are better for having
had the facilitator training. Now they
have a gut-level understanding of what
management’s new role should be in a
quality environment.
Future Predictions: Greater
Empowerment
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 fact
that the team—not the manager—is to
provide the primary control function
over the work.
Since the manager’s function is to
serve the team, the team then becomes
the manager’s primary customer. It is
the team, therefore, that should
evaluate the leadership service
provided by the manager. Per-
haps it is also the team that
should write the manager’s job
description (expectations)
describing how it wants that
“leadership” service to look. The
next logical step would be to have the
manager’s compensation package reflect
that assessment.
Perhaps all of this is too radical to
put into operation all at once. How-
ever, providing managers with the skills
of facilitation and assigning them to
work outside their areas just might be
the best way to start the manager-into-
facilitator process working.
About the Author
DeAnne Rosenberg, CSP, is an inter-
nationally-known lecturer and training
consultant 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 the
accomplishment of the task?
2. What behavior was helpful?
3. Whose participation seemed to hinder the
accomplishment 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 the
team’s effectiveness in dealing with the task?
The team becomes
the manager’s
primary customer.

32. 1994couldbetheyear
thatmakesorbreaks
healthcarereform
forthenextdecade.
Forgenerations.
CREATING A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THAT WORKS:
SOLUTIONS & SUCCESSES
July 7–9, 1994
The George R. Brown Convention Center
and Hyatt Regency Downtown
Houston, 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 individuals
interestedinhealthcare. Examplesinclude: hospitals,insurancefirms,physicians,nurses,academicmedicalcenters,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

33. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 39
KEVIN
SPEAKS
The Voice of a Customer
E D I T O R I A L / O P I N I O N
H
EALTH CARE HAS COME A LONG WAY. A mere five
years ago, the language of quality improvement in
which we are now conversing with comfort, if not
the ideas themselves, would have met with blank stares in
most quarters of American health care. It is not that we
did not then believe that improvement was needed; it was
simply that we had no plan—at least, no plan in which we
believed.
Now, we know the outlines of what a plan should look like. We
know that it has to be driven by a constant purpose: to be in the
future far better than what we are today. We know that there are
principles we must use—focusing on need, involving all the people
we work with and for in structures that allow them to be involved,
thinking statistically, understanding variation, relying on intrinsic
motivators, 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 yield
results 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 the
purpose that is so compelling as to cause us to undertake willingly
the dislocation of our systems, our priorities, our beliefs, and I actu-
ally think, of our personalities? What would cause us to incur the
discomfort 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.

34. 40 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
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 in
Hebrew literature: “There is no solu-
tion. Let us seek it together lovingly.”
In quality management, we think
in terms of the journey and not the des-
tination. If we really can believe that
there is no solution, we can free our-
selves to seek it.
For me, the most durable source of
energy for the difficult task that we are
undertaking comes from the people we
serve—from the patients. It is fitting,
therefore that this summation should
be given by a patient.
Enter Kevin
Last year I had the opportunity to
teach on a hospital teaching service,
which I do annually, and I want to tell
you about a patient. The patient is
Kevin. He is real, and he’s 15 years old.
As a newborn, Kevin had a catastrophic
problem: a portion of his small intes-
tine—the part of the bowel that absorbs
nutrition from food—lost its blood
supply, and as a result had to be
removed. Kevin now suffers from what
is 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 fed
in part by a special intravenous tube, a
catheter that stays in his veins, through
which special fluids are put in to give
him calories. Nine times in 15 years
that intravenous tube has gotten
blocked or infected—it’s very hard to
maintain access to the blood supply in a
patient for this purpose—and when it
becomes blocked or infected, the tube
must be replaced surgically.
When I met Kevin, he was in the
hospital for the tenth time to replace
the tube. At the time, no one—not
Kevin, not I, not his surgeon—yet
knew if a suitable vein could be found
for a new tube. The stakes were very
high, and Kevin knew it.
When my medical students asked
me, “Can you help us understand the
life of a child with chronic illness?” my
search for the answer led to Kevin, the
expert. I asked him to write down on a
sheet of paper the answer to two ques-
tions: When things go great, what is it
like for you—what is great for you?
And when we fail, how do we fail?
Kevin wrote, “Care is best when you
tell 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 they
keep you waiting and when they don’t
listen to what you say (even when some-
times you know better), and when they
do 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, the
Canadian option, managed competi-
tion, rationing, protocols, incentive
compensation, and even in the debates
about TQM—it is frighteningly easy to
forget why we chose this work in the
“Every now and then, as I feel my
commitment to quality improvement
tested, I ask, ‘Why improve?’”

35. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 41
first place. It is so easy to become
trapped in a sterile thesis: that our true
deep purpose is to gain and preserve
market share in a vacant terrain of oth-
ers whose purpose is precisely the same.
The work is not there in the first
place. In the first place, there is Kevin.
He says, “Tell me what you know right
away.” He says, “Answer me, comfort
me, don’t make me wait.” He says,
“Don’t waste my time, don’t frighten
me.” He doesn’t say, because he’s too
scared to say it, “Help me live.” He
doesn’t say, because he’s too scared to
say it, “Do the best you can for me so
that I survive with a risky condition.”
We are not there to survive; we are there
to help Kevin survive.
We have a very serious problem if
we mean that. The more we consider
Kevin’s temperate, respectful, and com-
pletely understandable requests, the
harder they seem to satisfy. In fact,
when I showed the medical students the
piece of paper that Kevin wrote, they
said, “He’s unrealistic.” “Doesn’t he
know he’ll have to wait?” “Does he
think he’s special?” To his request that
we give him answers consistently, the
residents replied that medicine was too
much of an art and, at any rate, that
would require meetings among them-
selves, with consultants and nurses, and
there was no time.
Kevin’s requests are reasonable,
their satisfaction is our purpose, and yet
they are daunting. I asked Kevin for
scores. “How are we doing,” I said, “on
a scale of zero to 100?” (Fifteen-year-
olds love this.) He said, “You’re a 35.”
It is, I propose, our duty to help
him, and we cannot do so without
changing ourselves. There is a direct
line between meeting his needs, on the
one hand, and the methods through
which we manage ourselves, on the
other. TQM, CQI, systems thinking,
improvement—taken in the context of
the needs of a frightened 15-year-old
boy, these are not buzzwords. They are
answers to the question, “How can we
help him better?” Kevin doesn’t put it
this way, although he certainly is smart
enough to have done so had I given him
the chance: Be a system—I require it of
you—and once you are a system, make
the system better—because I need you to.
Why does the request of a 15-year-
old boy lead us to such remote corners
of self-reflection as systems thinking,
process control, variation, process
improvement? It is because fundamen-
tally his requests are not requests of the
parts of us; they are requests of the
whole of us. It is inconceivable that any
collection of fragments can reliably give
this boy what he has every right to
expect from us. Who can make it true
that Kevin is not kept waiting? Who
can make it true that he is treated con-
sistently over time and place? Who can
make it true that he is reassured, when
and how he needs to be? Who can
make it true that Kevin, in our collective
custody, in our collective hands, is
safe—as safe as he possibly can be? How
can we give Kevin the sense that what
he needs will be there for him, that we
are all there for him, all together?
Whose job should that be—the doc-
tors’, the nurses’, the pharmacies’, the
schools’, the laboratories’, the payers’,
“Shall I go to Kevin and tell him our
ability to meet his requests depends
on the vote of Congress?”
The first annual Texas Quality Award recipients—Texas
Eastman Division and the office of the Texas Comp-
troller of Public Accounts—were presented on March
17, 1994 at the Texas State Capital in Austin.
The Texas Quality Award, administered by Austin-
based, not-for-profit Quality Texas, was created when a
team of representatives from business, education, and
the State joined together to formulate a state award
based 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 Founding
Sponsors of the award.
Texas Eastman Division of Longview, Texas, employs
approximately 2,800 people and was honored for its
exemplary dedication to employees and community
interests. 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 and
plastics, has been located in Texas since 1950 and dis-
tributes its products to customers worldwide.
The office of the Texas Comptroller of Public
Accounts is Texas’ chief financial office, which manages
the state’s accounts and administers taxes. It was praised
by award examiners for the strong leadership of John
Sharp, state comptroller, as well as for its devotion to
high standards of performance and strong quality ini-
tiatives. The Texas Comptroller’s office was established
in 1835, and currently has 43 offices statewide serving
more 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 are
available by calling (512) 267-2134, or writing to:
Quality Texas, 17312 Whippoorwill Trail, Lago Vista,
Texas 78645.
Texas Quality Announces 1994 Award Recipients

36. 42 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
the computer people’s, his parents’, his
church’s?
Peter Senge describes the fallacies
that come from thinking and acting in
fragments. His MIT colleague Fred
Kofman has recently proposed the term
“recovering the memory of the whole”
as the nature of the challenge.
If we wish to serve Kevin well, we
must do it together as well. We must
think in process terms and improve the
processes of work, or we will let him
down. 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 health
care—its excesses, the gaps in its cover-
age, the errors in its services—will not
yield to conventional approaches. It
does not matter how much the financ-
ing game is changed. I do not believe
that under pay or play, global budgets,
managed competition or any other
salad there will be any issue for those of
us who make care other than this:
Either we will make that care better,
safer, and less costly; or we will just get
by. Shall I go to Kevin and tell him that
our ability to meet his requests depends
on the vote of the Congress?
They need us to change. The 35
million Americans who lack health
insurance need us to change. The one
out of four inner city mothers who lack
adequate prenatal care need us to
change. The victims of adverse events,
which occur in one out of every 10 hos-
pitalizations. The black citizens of
America whose infant mortality rates
are twice those of whites, whose rates of
violent deaths are three times those of
whites. The victims of thoroughly pre-
ventable deaths from lung cancer,
strokes, heart attacks, and premature
birth. The elderly whose bed sores can
be avoided. The children whose learn-
ing disabilities can be avoided. The
teenagers whose pregnancies can be
avoided. The communities whose
resources we continue to drain by dou-
ble-digit rates of increase in cost with-
out any credible defense in the form of
scientific proof of effectiveness. They
need us to change, as much or more
than Kevin does. They need us to be in
the future what we are not today.
When Ed Deming urged us to con-
stancy of purpose, or Joseph Juran
instructs us to schedule our improve-
ments, or Tom Nolan inquires about
what we wish to accomplish or what is
our aim, or Peter Senge reminds us of
our inescapable systemness, they are
doing far more than asking us if we are
satisfied with our bottom line. They are
not just calling on us to consider our
own adaptive capacities so that we may
survive. They are giving us the oppor-
tunity to reconnect with our reasons for
being there in the first place. TQM is
worth little, or nothing, except in the
context of fulfilling the aims of our
organizations, and, through our organi-
zations, the aims of our lives.
Kevin summed up best when I
talked to him a bit more about his sim-
ple requests. The one that intrigued me
the most was, “Do you think you could
ask me the same question once or
maybe twice, but not over and over
again 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 each
other?” “Don’t you ever meet?” “Don’t
you understand that if you don’t talk to
each other, you might forget me?” He is
saying, “Don’t forget me.”
It’s our choice whether we will or not.
About the Author
Dr. Donald M. Berwick, is President
and CEO of the Institute for Healthcare
Improvement in Boston, Massachusetts.
Half-Page Ad

37. 44 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
Handbook for Productivity Measurement and
Improvement by William F. Christopher, ed. and
Carl G. Thor, ed.
The Handbook for Productivity Measure-
ment and Improvement contains approximately
100 essays by many authorities on the subjects
of productivity measurement and improve-
ment. Many of the essays discuss not only
theories, but also practical applications. All
of the essays are short and jammed-packed
with charts, graphs, and information. Each
section begins with very basic generalized infor-
mation and becomes more specific and detailed.
I was amazed by the wealth of information contained in this
handbook and learned a great deal by reading the entire book. This is
not the type of book one should read from cover to cover. Instead, it
should be used as a reference book. This book should be on the shelf
of anyone who is involved with quality and productivity, as well as every
CEO and president of any type of company.
Teams At Work: 7 Keys to Success by Suzanne Willis
Zoglio
Are all of your teams considered to be
high-performance teams? If your answer
is “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know,” then Teams
At Work is for you. This book is designed as
a workbook and guide for team leaders and
members to help them excel.
The author believes there are seven keys
for successful teams: Commitment, Con-
tribution, Communication, Cooperation,
Conflict Management, Change Manage-
ment, and Connections. Each chapter focuses on one of the seven keys
and includes simple assessments, tips, activities, and chapter sum-
maries to improve your teams.
Suzanne Willis Zoglio has
done an excellent job of writ-
ing a book that is extremely
user-friendly. There is plenty
of room to write your own
notes in the margins, and she highlights all of the Improvement Tips
in each chapter.
Teams At Work provides simple, practical how-to’s that anyone
involved in or thinking about teams should read. I was impressed
with this book and decided to also request 50 Activities for Teams At
Work, which was listed as available support material. Armed with
these tools, anyone can create high performance work teams.
Average reading time: 1 hour, 30 minutes
ALT Graduates: 22 minutes
Human Resources Management and the Total
Quality Imperative by Carla Carter
Is your human resources department
helping or hurting your quality movement?
Human Resources Management and the Total
Quality Imperative by Carla Carter will help
you decide. The information provided a
new perspective on implementing total qual-
ity. Topics include employee involvement
and recognition, training and developing,
communications, and measuring and
improving the HR function. This book
shows how important it is for HR to be a driving force in the quest
for total quality. Carla Carter points out the need to educate every-
one in human resources not only about quality, but also his role in the
quality process.
Human Resources Management and the Total Quality Imperative
should be read by both HR and quality people to help bridge the gap that
currently exists. It provides not only why we need to bridge this gap, but
also how to go about it. This book is fairly easy reading and has several
checklists and charts to help keep your total quality efforts on track.
Average reading time: 2 hours, 45 minutes
ALT Graduates: 43 minutes
q a quick review of newly-released books focusing on quality q
Donna Caligiuri is the author and instructor of Accelerated Learning
Techniques (ALT), a comprehensive workshop designed to improve learning
skills. Students learn to improve reading speed, comprehension, and retention
of new material. ALT offers public and corporate workshops throughout the
United States. For more information on workshops, call 1-800-856-6074.
booklookby Donna Caligiuri

38. Continuous Journey April/May 1994 45
BENCHMARKING’S BEST: AN
OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN,
SHARE
Learn about new trends in benchmarking,
tried and true methods, what works, what
doesn’t, and what other orga-
nizations are doing with their
benchmarking efforts.
“Benchmarking’s Best,” the
Third Annual Benchmarking
Conference is a symposium
of speakers, meetings, work-
shops, and training, which
provides beginner and expe-
rienced benchmarkers the
opportunity 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 event
includes a two-day conference featuring
renowned benchmarking speakers who will
make presentations about a variety of bench-
marking-related topics. John Mitcham,
keynote speaker and president of AT&T Para-
dyne, will discuss “How Benchmarking Has
Worked Successfully for AT&T Paradyne.”
The conference will culminate with an
awards ceremony and presentations by recip-
ients of the second annual Benchmarking
Awards. Three awards recognize achieve-
ments in benchmarking: Benchmarking
Research Award, Benchmarking Study Award,
and Award for Excellence in Benchmarking.
The purpose of the first two awards is to pro-
mote excellence through benchmarking by
recognizing the benchmarking contributions
of individuals and teams. The third award,
the Award for Excellence in Benchmarking,
encourages the development and maturity of
formalized benchmarking activities at an orga-
nizationwide level. It complements the Mal-
colm Baldrige National Quality Award by
focusing on the approach and deployment of
the benchmarking process,
as well as the results from
benchmarking studies.
Guidelines for the Award for
Excellence in Benchmarking
can be used by organizations
as a self-assessment tool.
“By applying, every
applicant benefits because
they have to thoroughly eval-
uate their benchmarking practices, which
contributes to improved processes,” said
Genie Wilson, manager of
the awards program. “Addi-
tionally, recipients benefit
through prestigious recogni-
tion for their achievements.”
Other highlights include
a two-day forum for Com-
mon Interest Groups (CIG).
CIG sessions are specialized
learning opportunities generally reserved for
members, but open to the public during the
conference. Topics include Corporate
Performance Measures, Information Tech-
nology, Customer Satisfaction, Human
Resources, Strategic Planning, and New Prod-
uct Development. Benchmarking training
begins with Basics of Benchmarking,
running concurrently with second-day CIG
sessions, and resumes on the final day with
Organizing & Managing Benchmarking.
“The greatest benefit of the week is the
opportunity to select from a wide menu of
resources and information to meet specific
needs,” said Carla O’Dell, director of the
Center’s International Benchmarking Clear-
inghouse. “Participants are exposed to best
practices in benchmarking, tools that can be
used immediately to improve benchmarking,
and compelling success stories.”
For more information call (800) 776-9676
or (713) 685-4600.
SPEAKING TO A CENTER
SPECIALIST IS NOW AS EASY
AS (PRESSING) 1,2,3
A new automated telephone attendant is mak-
ing the Center more accessible while helping
customers save time and
money.
In March, the Center con-
verted to an automated atten-
dant, which greets callers with
an extensive directory. Vari-
ous services are listed under
each directory heading, so the
customers’ calls are routed
directly 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 departments
are divided further into specialized areas. An
operator or an employee extension can be
reached at any time.
q what’s happening at the American Productivity & Quality Center q
centernews

39. 46 April/May 1994 Continuous Journey
centercalendar
E V E N T S
april1994
HR: Managing Diversity 12-13
Kickoff Meeting: Benchmarking Study 15
Customer Call Centers
Communication Consortia Workshop 25-27
Visitors’ Day 26
APQC, Houston, TX
may1994
Visitors’ Day 24
APQC, Houston, TX
june1994
Common Interest Groups (CIGs) 6
Corporate Performance Measures
Customer Satisfaction Management
Information Technology
BENCHMARKING’S BEST 6-10
3rd Annual Benchmarking Conference
Itasca (Chicago), IL
Common Interest Groups (CIGs) 9
Strategic Planning
New Product Development
Human Resources
Visitors’ Day 28
APQC, Houston, TX
T R A I N I N G
april1994
Team Member course 4-6
Team Leader/Facilitator course 7-8
Project Management course 13-15
INFOMART, Dallas, TX
Internal Consulting Skills course 14-15
Implementing TQM course 18-20
Benchmarking Training (3 different courses) 18-22
Itasca (Chicago), IL
may1994
Benchmarking Training (3 different courses) 2-6
St. Louis, MO
Benchmarking Training (3 different courses) 9-13
Gain Sharing course 17-18
INFOMART, Dallas, TX
Statistical Process Control course 17-19
Implementing TQM course 25-27
june1994
Benchmarking Training (3 different courses) 6-10
INFOMART, Dallas, TX
Coaching & Mentoring Skills course 8-10
Basics of Benchmarking course 9-10
Itasca (Chicago), IL
Organizing & Managing Benchmarking 10
Itasca (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.