Innovation and Improvement in the Delivery of Public Services: The Use of Quality Management Within Local Government in Canada

Public Organization Review: A Global Journal 2: 387–405 (2002)# 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

Innovation and Improvement in the Delivery ofPublic Services: The Use of QualityManagement Within Local Government inCanada

ROBERT ROBERTSONCity of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

ROB BALL

Stirling University, Scotland

Key words: local government, quality management, innovation, continuous improvement

Abstract

Local government in Canada has been subject to considerable change in the 1990s. In response, a

number of mechanisms have been adopted to improve performance and respond to citizen and

customer demands. One particular mechanism quality management, has received considerablecontinuing support. This article documents the level of use of quality management within local

government in Canada, discusses some of the key challenges of introducing this type of program,

and, outlines some elements of success of those programs in public management.

Introduction

The past decade has been one characterized by considerable change, challenge,and uncertainty for public sector organizations (Tindal, 1995). The factors drivingchange are addressed in numerous publications and articles (Kanter, 1992;Porter, 1990; Farazmand, 2001). Briefly, these factors include: an increasinglyglobal economy; significantly expanded use of technology; organizationalpressures to do more with less as senior government fiscal transfers arereduced; and, an increased awareness of the concept of customer in servicedelivery (KPMG, 1997).

In response to these factors of change, the public sector, including localgovernment, has moved towards a more output-oriented, customer-focusedapproach to service delivery. In many respects, this movement has followed theprinciples of the quality management movement. The purpose of this article istwo-fold: First, the article defines the term quality management, and brieflydiscusses the concept of quality management as it relates to the public sector.

Second, the article presents a discussion of data from a recent survey and casestudies of local government in Canada. This component of the article describesspecific challenges that must be addressed in the implementation of qualitymanagement. Successful applications of quality management systems include,for example, the use of customer surveys, process improvement exercises, theuse of e-government to deliver services 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, andsimilar initiatives. This latter component may serve as of a series of ‘‘bestpractice’’ concepts that could be instructive for other public sector organizationsconsidering the use of quality management.

Defining quality management

Early applications of quality and total quality management were in privatesector, primarily manufacturing, organizations. In manufacturing applications ofquality, original efforts were aimed at ‘‘documenting and tracking the costs offailure and re-work necessary to correct defects. The sum of these costs (lackof quality control) represents 10–40% of companies annual sales’’ (Feigen-baum, 1991).

From a public sector perspective, the Federal Quality Institute in the UnitedStates defines total quality management as ‘‘a comprehensive customer-focusedsystem . . . to improve the quality of products and services. It is a way ofmanaging the organization at all levels, top management to front-line to achievecustomer satisfaction by involving all employees and continuously improving thework processes of the organization’’ (Brown et al., 1991).

The notion of ‘‘quality’’ evokes a broad range of responses that is, in part, dueto ‘‘the nature of the service (product) offering; and, the fact that definition ofquality may vary from person to person and situation to situation’’ (Bensley andWortman, 1994). The term ‘‘Total Quality Management’’ is defined by theInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO) as ‘‘a management approachof an organization centered on quality, based on participation by all its membersand aiming at long-term success through customer satisfaction and benefits tothe members of the organization and to society’’ (Lewis, 1991).

The application of quality management principles to the service sector hasbeen a more recent phenomenon (Zeithmal, Parasuramen, and Berry, 1990).For the most part (American Quality Foundation, 1993) private sector qualityapplications have generally been seen as successful by organizations thathave applied quality management techniques. Applications of qualitymanagement within government are even more recent and the remainderof this article will focus on the public sector, primarily local government inCanada.

388 R. ROBERTSON, R. BALL

Quality management and the public sector

As discussed, the quality movement emanated from a private sector, initiallymanufacturing orientation. As a result, some fundamental concerns about theadoption of quality management to the public sector are frequently raised andthese concerns must be addressed. In particular, principal issues associated withthe use of quality techniques in the public sector include:

1. The nature of ‘‘quality’’ itself inhibits public sector application.2. The nature of the public sector is inimical to the reception of quality

applications.3. The work cultures of professional groups that characterize the public sector

are inimical to the public sector.4. In the public sector, the ‘‘customer’’ is a more problematic concern.5. Public sector provisions (decision-making) are much more complicated than

manufacturing (Morgan and Murgatroyd, 1994).

To address these types of concern it is important to adapt quality principles to fitthe unique context of public sector organizations.

At the applied level, there are a number of suggested guidelines (see Figure 1)that provide a useful framework for public sector organizations consideringquality initiatives.

Notwithstanding the concerns raised related to the use of quality managementwithin the public sector, there are a number of notable examples of the use ofquality management at both the federal and state/provincial levels in NorthAmerica, which are instructive.

In the United States, the National Performance Review (NPR) suggests that‘‘effective entrepreneurial governments insist on customer satisfaction. They

Figure 1. Guidelines for public sector quality improvement. Source: M.E. Milakovich, Improving

Service Quality: Achieving High Performance in the Public and Private Sectors, St. Lucie Press, DelrayBeach, FL 1995 p. 162.

INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICES 389

listen carefully to their customer—using surveys and focus groups—andrestructure their basic operations to meet customer needs. They use marketdynamics such as competition and customer choice to create incentives thatdrive their employees to put the customer first’’ (Gore, 1993). Overall, NPR resultsin achieving stated objectives are viewed as mixed. Thompson (2000) suggeststhat the lower order objectives of downsizing and budgetary savings weregenerally achieved; however, higher order objectives such as culture change andenhanced service quality remain unachieved.

At the state level, the National Governor’s Association states that ‘‘increasedpressure on management and service functions have required governors to lookfor ways to refocus and re-energize governments. Quality management has beenviewed as one of the tools to reinvent government and to stimulate serviceexcellence’’ (National Governor’s Association, 1992).

In practice, the American Society for Quality reports (American Society ofQuality, 1993) that fully 82% of all states are implementing some form of qualitymanagement program.

In Canada, similar national initiatives are discussed in Public Service 2000:The Renewal of the Public Service of Canada (PS2000), which was aimed at‘‘putting people first’’ (Kersill, 1991) in the efficient delivery of governmentprograms.

On a functional level, the Government of Canada (as well as a number ofprovincial governments) has introduced the concept of business planningincluding the application of many quality techniques to ‘‘improve the effective-ness of public management’’ (Potter and Bernier, 2001).

Further, to assist in more broadly encouraging the use of quality techniqueswithin Canada, the federal government participated in the formulation of theNational Quality Institute (NQI). The NQI is a public/private sector, not-for-profitorganization with a mission to ‘‘stimulate and support quality driven innovationwithin all Canadian enterprises and institutions; including business, government,education and healthcare. Its vision is to ‘‘create a new future for Canadaemploying the full potential of every Canadian’’ (National Quality Institute, 1995).The NQI has produced a number of useful ‘‘how to’’ documents that can be usedby organizations in the private and public sectors considering quality initiatives.Also, the NQI sponsors an annual recognition and award program (CanadaAwards for Excellence).

At a provincial level, a number of provinces have adopted quality initiatives.One notable example is the Province of New Brunswick ‘‘Service NewBrunswick’’ project. The mandate of Service New Brunswick is to review ‘‘allprograms, infrastructure, work processes, and organizational structures withinthe public service and ensure that a more customer-oriented, quality manage-ment approach is adopted’’ (Government of New Brunswick, 1993). The Provincealso assisted in the development of a front-line employee training program—Think Like a Customer (TLC)—that has been made available to public and privatesector organizations.


Another well-documented provincial example is evident in Ontario. In the caseof Ontario, a province-wide initiative has been structured to transform the publicservice. Fundamentally, this will (a) enable Ontarians to obtain governmentinformation when and how they want; and, (b) provide a focus on core businessand service quality, integrating operations and redefining and clarifyingaccountability. This Ontario model received the Gold Medal in innovation fromthe Commonwealth Association for Public Administration in 1998 (Ontario PublicService, Cabinet Office, 2000).

In the United Kingdom, formal programs to improve public service deliveryinclude the Citizen’s Charter introduced in 1991. The Charter was designed ‘‘to seepublic services through the eyes of those who use them. For too long, the providerhas dominated; now it is time of the user’’ (Prior, Stewart, and Walsh, 1995). One ofthe mechanisms used to assist in the implementation of the principles of theCitizen’s Charter is the establishment of quality networks. These networks aredesigned to ‘‘share information or development on best practices; compareprogress in areas of common interest; help erode boundaries between publicsector organizations; and, encourage problem sharing and solving’’ (Morrison,1997). The networks have been particularly useful in documenting successfulquality techniques and sharing this information with other public sector agencies.

Clearly, there are significant public sector quality initiatives and total qualitymanagement programs that have been introduced in a variety of jurisdictions.Although there are many differences in the definition of quality-related programsand initiatives in the public sector, there are a number of common themes. Inparticular, quality management common themes include:

. Vision.

. Strategic approach (planning).

. Orientation to serve customers/clients.

. Employee involvement/support.

. Measurable results.

. Continuous improvement.

Quality management: a critique

It is important to note that quality management has been subject to considerablecriticism. Indeed, an analysis by Ernst and Young and the American QualityFoundation suggests quality is only a partial success and may hamperperformance and waste money (Ernst and Young, 1993). More specific criticismsinclude:

1. A perceived lack of precision as to what quality constitutes although certaincore ideas seem to prevail (Wilkinson et al., 1995).


2. An assumed casual chain from quality programs through changed employeeresponse to outcomes; however, employee response has not been seriouslyaddressed (Garvin, 1988). Further, Garvin suggests that quality does not fitconveniently into existing research domains the results being most of theevidence of effectiveness is anecdotal (Garvin, 1988).

3. Proponents of quality suggest it enables empowerment, enhances responsi-bility and commitment. Critics suggest quality is often ‘‘imposed uponunprepared and hesitant if not hostile management by the intensity of globalcompetition’’ (Wilkinson and Wilmott, 1994).

In any assessment of quality management initiatives, it is important to note thesecritical perspectives. Indeed, some reports suggests a failure rate as high as twoout of three companies (Brown, 1993).

Notwithstanding these serious concerns related to the use of quality initiatives,there does appear to be continued interest and use of fundamental qualitymanagement techniques within the public service worldwide (Borins, 2001).

Quality management and local government: an international perspective

At the local government level, there are only a limited number of examplesillustrative of the increased use of quality management techniques. Onedocumented case study is the City of Saarbrucken, Germany. Saarbruckeninitiated a quality management program in 1993 ‘‘in response to a number ofthings. The city must deal with cross-border competition in the region betweenFrance and Luxembourg. At the same time, at the beginning of the 1990s, ourfinancial situation worsened’’ (Hirschfelder, 1997). In 1997, the Speyer GermanQuality Award was presented to Saarbrucken as ‘‘the first city that succeeded ininstalling a quality management system. Setting up municipal works of a private(business-like) character, reorganizing the departmental structures, and moder-nizing services (based on customers) are further pillars of the reform’’(Hirschfelder, 1997). The key factors that drove Saarbrucken to consider aquality management scheme—competition, declining financial situation, use of abusiness-like model and a system based on customer service—are similar innature to pressures facing local government elsewhere, including Canada.

On a broader level, the International City/County Management Association(ICMA) conducted a survey of local governments in the United States during thesummer of 1993. The survey was designed to ‘‘document the strategies localgovernments used in implementing quality management’’ (West, Berman, andMilakovich, 1995).

The ICMA reports that 11% of local governments surveyed had a formal qualitymanagement program and a further 22% had a less formal ‘‘developing’’program. The majority of these programs were in larger cities; and, for the mostpart, programs were relatively recent (less than four years). On balance, most


respondents cited their programs as successful in the following key areas: qualityof service 89%; productivity 85%; increased communication 84%; and,customer satisfaction 83% (West, Berman, and Milakovich, 1995).

Further, the ICMA survey identified a series of lessons or ‘‘best practices’’ forconsideration by other jurisdictions considering quality management. First, it isimportant to start with a ‘‘customer facing’’ service area that is prepared to adaptnew methods to improve service. A successful, internal pilot project can serve asa catalyst for other areas to adopt similar programs.

Second, the importance of gaining the support of key internal stakeholders,particularly senior managers, cannot be overstated. The most importantstrategies are ‘‘obtaining and maintaining managerial support, identifyingcustomer needs, and involving employees with implementation’’ (West, Berman,and Milakovich, 1995).

Finally, evidence from the survey supports the concept of recognizing successby acknowledging employees and work teams that support quality goals/achievement. Although ‘‘it is impossible to say definitively whether qualitymanagement initiatives will have a lasting effect on municipal government,preliminary indications . . . suggest quality management can be adopted to avariety of local government settings in response to a mix of internal and externaldriving forces. In many cities, a broad array of implementation strategies havebeen used with promising results despite a formidable combination of restraintsand barriers’’ (West, Berman, and Milakovich, 1994).

In the United Kingdom, local authorities have had ‘‘an increasing interest inquality and quality management’’ (Freeman-Bell and Grover, 1994). To someextent, the expanded interest in and use of quality techniques in the U.K. may beattributed to the work of the Audit Commission. The Commission produced apaper entitled Putting Quality on the Map: Measuring and Appraising Quality inthe Public Service (1993), which has served as an important document for localauthorities.

This paper suggests that ‘‘there are four key areas that together will contributeto a quality service:

Quality of communication—does the Council communicate with, listen to, andunderstand its users?Quality of specification—is this understanding converted into clear standardsfor service delivery?Quality of delivery—are the standards actually delivered, and is remedial actiontaken when failure occurs?Quality of people and systems—are staff motivated, trained, well-managed,and supported by good management systems and processes’’ (Audit Commis-sion, 1993).

In the United Kingdom, there has been a more recent initiative ‘‘Best Value’’which is designed to encourage local governments to work towards continually


‘‘improving service delivery to customers and citizens. Local authorities would berequired to publish performance plans with targets for service improvement.Authorities will be expected to meet the aspirations of local people for servicesthat represent the highest quality and most effective delivery possible within theresources that are available’’ (Tichelar, 1997). Councils have already investedsignificant resources in response to Best Value. Nationally, more than £50 millionis being invested annually (Audit Commission, 2001).

On a broad basis, the Local Government Management Board has undertakenan annual survey of local government in the United Kingdom since 1993 todocument the evolving use of quality management. The annual nature of thesurvey provides trend line data and ‘‘it demonstrates that quality initiatives havebeen deepening their influence on local authority service on a year-by-yearbasis’’ (Local Authority Association Quality Group, 1995).

The key findings contained in these survey data for 1995 include:

1. 97% of local authorities are involved in the use of quality initiatives.2. 86% report the use of quality initiatives on a corporate-wide basis.3. 53% report quality initiatives were successful in achieving their objectives;

32% stated they were partly successful.4. fully 50% report that they have pursued registration to the ISO 9000 standard

for one or more service areas.

The survey identifies ‘‘leadership by senior staff including the Chief ExecutiveOfficer; employee involvement; and, commitment to sustaining the qualityinitiative’’ (Local Authority Association Quality Group, 1995) as the mostimportant factors in the successful implementation of a quality system.

More recently, the United Kingdom has embarked on a more comprehensiveapproach to ‘‘modernize local government’’ (Prescott, 1998; Pratchett, 1999) byrequiring the development of structures and systems that people want in theircommunities.

Quality management and local government in Canada

There are more than 4,000 local governments in Canada employing approxi-mately one million people with a payroll in excess of $35 billion (Treft and Cook,1995). Similar to local governments in other parts of the world there have beenconsiderable financial and other pressures (Wilson and Game, 1994) impactinglocal government in Canada. Local government in Canada is described as a‘‘creature of the province’’ as it does not exercise independent legal authority.The powers available to local government are delegated in nature. Recently therehas been a movement in a number of provinces to force amalgamations of localgovernments (Tindal, 1995).


Politically, local government in Canada follows the council/manager modelprevalent in the United States and being considered currently by a number oflocal authorities in the United Kingdom. In general, mayors are elected at-largeand councillors do not run on a political party platform. Functionally, localgovernments in Canada are responsible for police, fire, public works, land usemanagement, transit, parks and recreation, finance, human resources and socialservices at the local level. Finally, the ‘‘reinvention’’ of federal and state/provincialgovernments in North America has had significant impacts on local governments.In Canada, senior level funding for local governments has been reducedconsiderably placing fiscal pressure on many communities. Additional respon-sibilities have been ‘‘down-loaded’’ to local governments. At the same time,citizen expectations for good value, quality local services continue to increase.Unfortunately, the study of local government in the Canadian context is grosslyneglected (Rowat, 1983).

In Canada, a survey of municipal managers was conducted in the fall of 1999 toassess the level of understanding, degree of use, and key elements of qualitymanagement at the local government level. The survey was conducted with thesupport of the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators (CAMA). Thesurvey included a detailed assessment of existing documentation within selectedlocal governments in Canada using quality management initiatives. A further casestudy component included the selection of a number of jurisdictions for a more indepth analysis. This component utilized a review of quality managementdocuments within these jurisdictions; and, a series of semi-structured interviewswith key local government stakeholders to develop a better understanding ofthese initiatives.

The survey itself was loosely based on similar surveys recently undertaken inthe United States and the United Kingdom (see Figure 2). Further, the surveyused terminology, definitions, and categories identified by the National QualityInstitute. The survey was circulated to 186 chief administrative officers asidentified through the CAMA membership; and, 119 surveys were returned for aresponse rate of 64%.

Overall, 24% of local governments identified that they used a formal,documented quality management program; whereas, 56% identified a lessformal program. For comparative purposes these data are illustrated in Figure 2with other, recent survey results from the public and private sectors. The BritishInstitute of Management survey reflects a mixture of public and private sectorrespondents from organizations in the United Kingdom. The Fortune 500 surveyis a private sector survey of American companies. The remaining surveys are oflocal governments identified earlier in this paper.

It is important to note that each of the surveys identified in Figure 2 use amarginally different definition for the terms ‘‘TQM’’ or ‘‘quality management’’initiative. However, these data confirm considerable interest in and use of qualityinitiatives and TQM in both the public and the private sectors. Also, it is of interestto note that all of these surveys conclude that the use of quality initiatives or TQM


within respondent private and public sector organizations were generally deemed‘‘successful.’’

In terms of the CAMA survey, the data illustrates that the use of qualitymanagement is new and evolving with fully 40% of respondents citing use ofquality for a period less than one year. Also, responses confirm that largerjurisdictions in Canada are more likely to use quality management.

In addition, it is important to note that many respondents specifically noted thatthey did not use the term ‘‘total quality management’’ to describe their systems.In large measure, these decisions regarding terminology reflect their desire todesign their own, in-house system of quality and quality applications. Examplesof applied quality management systems include the City of Vancouver’s ‘‘BetterCity Government’’ program designed as a ‘‘process of review and redesign ofwork methods to unleash the potential of the work force and put in place anemployee-driven, customer-focused reassessment and restructuring of what wedo, followed by a continuous improvement strategy across our organization’’(City of Vancouver, 1997).

Another example of good practice is the City of Winnipeg’s ‘‘ContinuousImprovement Initiative,’’ which received the Manitoba Quality Award in 1993. TheAwards Committee noted that ‘‘the effort provides a solid foundation andmaintains a comprehensive approach including development of corporate-widemission and vision statements; preparation of a code of ethics; and emphasis onemployee empowerment; and, the increased use of cross-functional, employeeimprovement teams in key areas such as employee suggestions; building andplanning permits; and, customer service’’ (Frost, 1993).

Figure 2. Recent surveys of the use of TQM in public/private organizationsSources:

1. Wilkinson, A., T. Redman, and E. Snape. (1995). ‘‘New Patterns of Quality Management in the

United Kingdom.’’ Quality Management Journal, Winter, 2(2) ASQ Milwaukee, WI 1995 pp. 37–51.

2. J.R. Lackritz. (1997). ‘‘TQM Within Fortune 5000 Corporations’’. Quality Progress, February 30(2)ASQ, Milwaukee, WI, 69–74.

3. West J.P., E. Berman, and M. Milakovich. (1994). ‘‘Total Quality Management in Local

Government.’’ The Municipal Year Book 1994, ICMA, Washington, D.C., 14–25.4. Quality Initiatives: Report on the Findings from the 1995 Survey of Local Authority Activity. The

Local Authority Associations Quality Group, London, U.K.: ACC Pub.

5. CAMA Quality Management Survey. (2000). Original Data.


The factors cited as ‘‘important’’ in the decision to introduce a qualitymanagement system are illustrated in Figure 3. The key factors included the needto increase employee productivity; the interest of the city manager; and,increased budget pressures. In particular, survey respondents identified theleadership and support of the City Manager as a key element. Other researchconfirms the role of the City Manager in supporting innovation and changeinitiatives as important to the ultimate success of these types of programs (Riveraet al., 2000). In addition to the role of the City Manager, these factors reflect thecontinued fiscal and other challenges affecting local governments in Canada.

The specific quality technique found by the survey to be the most prevalent isthe use of the customer survey. Fully 93% of respondents cite customer surveysas ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘very important’’ in the identification of customer issues andpriorities. The City of Burlington, Ontario has used a survey called ‘‘MakingBurlington Better: A Quality Survey of Services’’ to gauge citizen satisfactionregularly since 1994. The survey polls the public, council, senior city manage-ment and city staff which enables (gap analysis) comparisons betweenrespondents (City of Burlington, 1998). These results are reported publicly andused in business planning and budget decision-making on a regular basis. Othertechniques to assess customer satisfaction included customer comment cards;complaint management systems; and, the use of focus groups.

Many respondents (District of Maple Ridge, 1999; City of Grande Prairie, 1999)identified the increasing use of e-government as a means to provide informationand service to citizens and customers in a more efficient manner. Thesee-government solutions were also seen as a method to enable citizen andcustomer comment on service delivery and other civic issues. Specificapplications of electronic government in Grande Prairie and other communities

Figure 3. Internal factors and the introduction of quality management. Source: CAMA Survey 1999.


include posting council and committee agendas on-line, posting programinformation on-line and enabling registration electronically, the submission ofsome permits (building permits and business license applications) are availableon-line, and in some cases payments can be made electronically for parkingtickets and some are proposing to extend this capability to include payment oftaxes.

Many (70%) respondents are aware of the national quality awards programsponsored by the National Quality Institute. The Canada Awards for Excellenceprocess is seen by some municipalities as important as it requires ‘‘we step backand take a critical look at our quality system’’ (City of Calgary, 1998).

In addition to the national awards program, a number of respondents identifiedprovincial quality award programs as being important to their initiatives. Forexample, the District of Maple Ridge, British Columbia has received a BronzeLevel Quality Award (1997) as part of its ongoing quality efforts. This awardrecognizes organizations that have developed corporate-wide vision and missionstatements; undertaken an internal employee survey designed to identify thelevel of employee knowledge, involvement and commitment to corporate goals:and, implemented a continuous improvement plan aimed at work processanalysis and innovation. In the case of Maple Ridge, the corporate framework formanagement and continuous quality improvement is contained in a businessplan adopted annually by Council (District of Maple Ridge, 1999). Many surveyrespondents identify similar mechanisms—or a ‘‘systems approach’’—to ensurethat all corporate initiatives are properly aligned to support one another andsupported by the organization consistently over time.

In addition to award programs, a further 7% of respondents stated they werepursuing ISO 9000 registration; and, fully 63% indicated an interest inconsidering registration. One example of a community that has pursued ISO9000 registration on an organization-wide basis is the Town of Ajax, Ontario. Inthe case of Ajax, the purpose of pursuing registration was to ‘‘establish acontinuous improvement program to help keep costs and taxes down andprovide customers with predictable, consistent and ultimately better service.’’(Skinner, 1997).

Performance measurement is a key component of a quality managementsystem (Ball, 1998). In that regard, only 44% of survey respondents haddeveloped a performance measurement system; and, a further 10% noted thatthey were in the process of developing performance measures. One example ofan applied performance measurement system is evident in the City of Calgary.Calgary has a relatively long history of using quality initiatives. The currentinitiative is called ‘‘Quality Service’’ and it uses a formal business planningprocess to establish performance measures. Calgary has recently participated ina pilot study conducted by the International City Management Association todevelop a best practice handbook (ICMA, 2000) on performance measurement.

More recently, the Province of Ontario has announced an initiative to requirethe preparation and public reporting of annual ‘‘report cards’’ by local


governments. In announcing this performance measurement and benchmarkinginitiative, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing stated that ‘‘Ontariomunicipalities have more authority now than they had in the past and, withincreased authority, comes the need for increased accountability. . .we are aimingfor better municipal services and clear government accountability’’ (Province ofOntario, 2000). On a practical basis the development and use of these measuresto ensure the quality of local government services has proven to be challenging.As discussed earlier, what constitutes ‘‘quality’’ service is dependent in part onthe context or perspective of the customer or client.

Another key element in a quality management system is employee involve-ment. In this area 47% of respondents cited participation and involvement by lessthan 50% of their staff. Although these data may reflect a less than corporate-wide quality management effort, the low reported level of employee involvementis generally seen to be an area of concern (Lawler, 1999).

Most (88%) respondents noted that their quality management progress hadassisted in the identification of specific corporate training requirements.Specifically, these included front-line customer service training (70%); trainingin the development and use of teams (50%); supervisory and management skillstraining (45%); business planning (40%); and, continuous improvement training(40%). As an example, the City of St. Albert, Alberta has used a program called‘‘Alberta Best’’ for all of its employees. This program identifies the concept of‘‘customer’’ in the service delivery model and develops ways to enhancecustomer service (City of St. Albert, 1998).

To ensure that the quality management message is consistently applied overtime, many (52%) survey respondents note that individual (and team) employeeappraisals are tied to the system. The issue of employee appraisals and their rolein a quality management system is the subject of some debate. Indeed, ‘‘thereare two schools of thought with respect to performance appraisal. The followersof Deming would like to see it abolished while many practitioners and academicsperceive there to be a strong need for the appraisal of individual performance’’(Frye and Bauer, 1996). In the case of Canadian local government, 28% ofrespondents note that pay for performance is a part of their quality managementsystem (Robertson, 2001).

Further, 70% of respondents note that there is strong recognition and supportof quality management initiatives at staff level. Methods of recognition includespecific events (dinners/rewards/certificates or days of with pay etc.) aimed at‘‘celebrating success.’’ One program in use in Grande Prairie, Alberta is called‘‘Very Innovative People’’ (VIP); and, it is aimed at recognizing employees whocontribute suggestions that ‘‘enhance or improve the way we do business’’ (Cityof Grande Prairie Annual Report, 1998).

Overall, respondents identified a number of factors (see Figure 4) as importantin their quality management efforts. These factors include leadership; a customerfocus; employee involvement; and, recognition of success. Further, fully 86% ofrespondents suggested that their quality management efforts were seen as


successful. In particular, many respondents noted the need to tailor the qualitymanagement system to the unique circumstances of their particular organiza-tions. In addition, a number of respondents noted the particularly difficult task ofsustaining a quality initiative during a time of considerable change (Totten, 1996).There is a need to continually restate, refresh and recommit to quality.Notwithstanding these concerns, respondents reported decreased costs;improved performance; increased customer satisfaction; and, a more corpo-rate-oriented focus as tangible measures of the success of their initiatives.Additional comments related to the success of a quality management programincluded:

. council and staff relationships are stronger;

. the program must be seen as continuous and evolving but at this point it issuccessful;

. saved more than one million dollars so far notably in reduced rework costs;reduced cycle time costs; and, by doing the right things correctly (Town ofAjax, 1996).

In general, respondents identified a number of key components which in theirview, were important to the overall success of a quality management program.These components are illustrated in Figure 4.

Summary

There are a number of observations that can be drawn from the CAMA surveyand case studies related to the use of quality management within localgovernment in Canada.

First, there does appear to be considerable interest, understanding, and use ofquality management amongst local government; however, in many instances it isa new, evolving technology used in a less than formal manner. Also, there is moreuse of quality management by larger local governments with the resources andcapacity to pursue these types of initiatives.

Figure 4. Components of a successful quality management program.


Although 80% of respondents confirm that they do use quality initiatives only,24% do so in a formal, documented manner. Unfortunately, these data may pointto a very preliminary interest by respondents or a less than corporate-wideinitiative. Indeed, there may be a ‘‘panacea phenomenon’’ (Kramer, 1993)associated with the use of quality management in some local governmentapplications. Essentially, this type of phenomenon suggests that applying atechnique (whether it is TQM, re-engineering, business improvement or similarinnovative program) will automatically improve an organization. The organizationsthat do report using quality management techniques suggest that it is importantto utilize an integrated ‘‘systems approach.’’

Many of those respondents that do have a quality management system see anincreased role for formal recognition and award programs at either the provincialor national level. Currently, there has been significantly less use for certificationprograms in Canada as compared to, for example, local government in theUnited Kingdom; however, there is considerable interest in certification programssuch as ISO 9000.

A number of local governments see quality management as a formalizedmethod to deal with change in a structured, fact-based manner. This point wascited as particularly relevant during a period in which senior governments are‘‘down-loading’’ service delivery to local governments and reducing financialsupport; and, at a time when it is important to develop an increased recognitionof the concept of customer.

The support of senior staff, notably, the City Manager, and, the Council,are important elements to the successful introduction and implementation ofa quality management system. The alignment of the political objectives anddirection of the elected Council with the administrative direction of appointedstaff in the pursuit of quality initiatives is seen as particularly important. Onecommentator states that ‘‘it is a dangerous mistake to believe that politicaland management processes are opposed to one another or can beseparated. Effective management of an organization has to be grounded inthe purposes and conditions of that organization and the political processsets the purposes and conditions of local government’’ (Gaster, 1995).Further, at the applied level, broad employee involvement and participationare important elements of a successful program. In Canada, the survey datadoes suggest that employee involvement could be improved. In addition, it isimportant to align the quality management initiatives properly with othercorporate programs. The objectives of the quality management programmust be communicated on an on-going basis to all employees andstakeholders.

The use of performance indicators or other methods such as benchmarking tomonitor performance and measure improvement is an important component of aquality management system. Overall, there has been only limited research intothe links between performance indicators and citizen satisfaction however, theuse of performance measurement within public sector organizations is increasing


(Swindell and Kelly, 2000). Again, the Canadian survey data suggest thatimprovement may be warranted in this area.

Finally, most local governments see their particular programs as successfuland there is strong commitment to the concepts of innovation, continuousimprovement and the delivery of high quality service to customers and citizens.

Conclusion

Clearly, local government in Canada continues to experience considerablechange, challenge, and uncertainty. In response, a number of local governmentshave applied quality management initiatives as mechanisms to provide for moreeffective and efficient service delivery. Some examples of best practice identifiedthrough this research include—

. The increasing use of e-government to assist in provision of services.

. Employee support and recognition programs.

. Recognition of customers in the delivery of local services.

. Concept of ‘‘one-stop’’ customer counter.

. Use of performance measurement to assist in a cycle of continuousimprovement.

The use of quality techniques is not without its problems and challenges;however, there have been many positive results to date. Further research;documentation of successful quality initiatives; development of best practicecase studies; and, more opportunities to network or disseminate these datawould all be useful in promoting the concepts of quality management at the localgovernment level in Canada and more broadly throughout the world.

Finally, local governments will continue to evolve to become more fiscally self-reliant; customer-focused; and, output-oriented. The principles of qualitymanagement provide a blueprint for local governments to achieve thoseobjectives.

References

American Quality Foundation. (1993). The International Quality Study—Best Practices Report: AnAnalysis of Management Practices that Impact Performance. New York: American Quality

Foundation.

American Society of Quality. (1993). ‘‘The State of the States.’’ Quality Progress 28–29, May.Audit Commission. (1993). Putting Quality on the Map: Measuring and Appraising Quality in Public

Services. London: Audit Commission, March.

Audit commission. (2001). Changing Gear: Best Value Annual Statement 2001. London, U.K.: Audit

Commission.Ball, R. (1998). Performance Review in Local Government. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate Publishers.


Bensley, F., and B. Wortman. (1994). ISO Primer. Terre Haute, IN: Quality Council of Indiana.Borins, S. (2001). The Challenge of Innovating in Government. New York: Price Waterhouse.

Brown, S., E. Gummesson, B. Edvardsson, and B. Gustavsson. (1991). Service Quality: Multi-

disciplinary and Multinational Perspectives. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Brown, M.G. (1993). ‘‘Why Does Quality Fail in Two Out of Three Tries?’’ Journal of Quality and

Participation, ASQ 16(2), 80–89.

CAMA. (2000). Quality Management. CAMA, Ottawa, Ontario.

City of Burlington. (1998). Making Burlington Better: A Quality Survey of City Services. Burlington: Cityof Burlington and Angus Reid Group.

City of Grande Prairie. (1998). City of Grande Prairie Annual Report. Grande Prairie, AB: City of Grande

Prairie.

City of Grande Prairie. (1999). The CyberCity Initiative. Grande Prairie, AB: City of Grande Prairie.City of St. Albert. (1998). Quality Service Training: Alberta Best. St. Albert, AB: City of St. Albert.

City of Vancouver. (1997). Better City Government: The Next Steps. Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver

Staff Report.District of Maple Ridge. (1999). Maple Ridge Business Plan. Maple Ridge, BC: District of Maple Ridge

Council and Staff Report.

Ernst and Young and American Quality Foundation. (1993). The International Quality Study. New York:

Ernst and Young.Farazmand, A. (2001). ‘‘Editor’s Note: Public Organizations in the Age of Accelerated Globalization.’’

Public Organization Review 1(1), 5–13.

Feigenbaum, A.V. (1991). Total Quality Control. New York: McGraw Hill.

Freeman-Bell, G., and R. Grover. (1994). ‘‘The Use of Quality Management in Local Authorities.’’ LocalGovernment Studies 20(4).

Frost, R. (Spring, 1993). ‘‘Winnipeg is Quality . . . And Has the Award to Prove It!’’ CAMA Bulletin, 3.

Frye, T., and L. Bauer. (1996). ‘‘Performance Appraisals in Quality Award-Winning Companies: Does

Practice Follow Prescription?’’ Quality Management Journal 4(1), 40.Garvin, D.A. (1988). Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive Advantage. New York, NY: Free

Press.

Gaster, L. (1995). Quality in Public Services: Manager’s Choices. Buckingham, U.K.: Open UniversityPress.

Gore, A. (1993). Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: Report of the National

Performance Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print Office.

Government of New Brunswick. (1993). Service New Brunswick. Fredericton, NB: Queen’s Printer.Hirschfelder, R. (1997). ‘‘The Driving Force was Quality for this Award Winning City.’’ Journal for

Quality and Participation 48, September.

ICMA. (2000). Center for Performance Measurement: Comparative Performance Measurement Report.

Washington, D.C.: ICMA.Kanter, R.M. (1992). The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work. New York: Routledge.

Kersill, J. (1991). ‘‘Some PS 2000 Principles have been Tested.’’ Journal of Public Management 25,

22–23.KPMG. (1997). Organizations Serving the Public: Transformation to the 21st Century. New York:

KPMG.

Kramer, F. (1993). The Panacea Phenomenon and the Fate of Total Quality Management. ASPA

Conference Proceedings. Washington, D.C.Lackritz, J.R. (1997). ‘‘TQM Within Fortune 5000 Corporations.’’ Quality Progress 30(2), 69–74.

Lawler, E. (1999). ‘‘Employee Involvement Makes a Difference.’’ The Journal for Quality and

Participation AQP 22(5).

Lewis, F.L. (1991). Introduction to Total Quality Management in the Federal Government. Washington,D.C.: Federal Quality Institute.

Local Authority Association Quality Group. (1995). Quality Initiatives: Report on the Findings from the

1995 Survey of Local Authority Activity. London, U.K.: ACC Publishers.


Milakovich, M.E. (1995). Improving Service Quality: Achieving High Performance in the Public andPrivate Sectors. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Morgan, C., and S. Murgatroyd. (1994). Total Quality Management in the Public Sector. Buckingham,

U.K.: Open University Press.Morrison, I. (1997). Introduction to Citizen’s Charter Quality Networks. London, U.K.: Cabinet Office

HMSO.

National Governor’s Association. (1992). Total Quality Management Initiatives in State Government.

Washington, D.C.: National Governor’s Association.National Quality Institute. (1995). The Total Quality Future: The Canada Campaign for Excellence.

Ottawa, ON: NQI.

Ontario Public Service. (2000). Transforming Public Service For the 21st Century. Toronto, ON:

Province of Ontario.Potter, E., and L. Bernier. (2001). ‘‘Business Planning in Canadian Public Administration.’’ Institute of

Public Administration of Canada 7, 1.

Pratchett, L. (1999). Local Government Studies. London, U.K.: Frank Cass.Prescott, J. (1998). Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People. London, U.K.: Department of

Environment Transportation and the Regions.

Prior, D., J. Stewart, and K. Walsh. (1995). Citizenship: Rights, Community and Participation. London,

U.K.: Pitman Publishers.Province of Ontario. (2000). Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Press Release. Ontario: Ministry

of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.

Rivera, M.D., G. Streiband, and K. Willoughby. (2000). ‘‘Reinventing Government in Council-ManagerCities: Examining the Role of City Managers.’’ Public Performance and Management Review 24(2),

121–133.

Robertson, R. (2001). ‘‘Pay for Performance: A Canadian Experience.’’ Municipal World 5(8), August.

Rowat, D. (1983). ‘‘A Note on the Uniqueness of the Study of Local Government.’’ Canadian PublicAdministration, IPAC 26(3).

Skinner, B. (1997). ‘‘Another First for Ajax: ISO 9001 Certification.’’ Cordillera Institute Journal 5(5).

Swindell, D., and J. Kelly. (2000). ‘‘Linking Citizen Satisfaction Data to Performance Measures: APreliminary Evaluation.’’ Public Performance and Management Review 24(1), 22–29.

Tindal, C.R. (1995). Reinventing Municipal Government. Toronto, ON: Insight Information Inc.

Tichelar, M. (1997). Performance Indicators. London, U.K.: Local Government Management Board.

Thompson, J. (2000). ‘‘Reinventing as Reform: Assessing the National Performance Review.’’ PublicAdministration Review 60, 508–521.

Totten, T. (1996). ‘‘How Cities Can Meet the Challenge of Change.’’ Saint John Telegraph p. A2, 9

April.

Town of Ajax. (1996). Saving Town of Ajax Real Dollars. Ajax, ON: Town of Ajax.Treft, K., and K. Cook. (1995). Finances of the Nation: A Review of Expenditures and Revenues of the

Federal Provincial and Local governments of Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Tax Foundation.

West, J., E. Berman, and M. Milakovich. (1994). Total Quality Management in Local Government.Washington, D.C.: ICMA The Municipal Yearbook 1994.

West, J., E. Berman, and M. Milakovich. (1995). Implementing TQM in Local Government: The

Leadership Challenge. Washington, D.C.: ICMA.

Wilkinson, A., R. Redman, and E. Snape. (1995). ‘‘New Patterns of Quality Management in the UnitedKingdom.’’ Quality Management Journal 2(2), 37–51.

Wilkinson, A., and H. Wilmott. (1994). Making Quality Critical New Perspectives on Organizational

Change. London, U.K.: Routledge.

Wilson, D., and C. Game. (1994). Local Government in the United Kingdom. London, U.K.: MacmillanPress.

Zeithmal, V., A. Parasuramen, and L. Berry. (1990). Delivering Service Quality: Balancing Customer

Perceptions and Expectations. New York: Macmillan Publishers.


Robert Robertson is the City Manager of the City of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The City of Hamiltonprovides local government services to a population of more than 500,000 citizens and customers. He

holds a Ph.D. from Stirling University in Scotland, and is also a member of the Board of the

Government Division of the American Society of Quality. He can be reached at [email protected]

Rob Ball is Professor and Chair in Public Service Management at the University of Stirling in Scotland,

where he is also the Dean of the Faculty of Management. His research interests are in such

management issues of local government and higher education as performance review, quality control,and partnership. Recipient of support from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and

several local organizations and industries, he is also the author of Performance Review in British Local

Authorities. As an elected official, Professor Ball has also served on various committees of the localgovernment in Scotland for 20 years.


Documents

Innovation and Improvement in the Delivery of Public Services: The Use of Quality Management Within Local Government in Canada