The Practitioner’s Quality Toolbox

)) “THE TOP TEN REASONS.., Check 0

Howard N . Apsan

A mong their many endearing traits, quality managers are invet- erate list makers. They make “to do” lists, checklists, follow-up

I call lists, holiday card lists, top prospect lists, wish lists, shop- ping lists, and even laundry [sic] lists. The more obsessive among us are sometimes caught compiling continuous improvement lists. And while all this list making may be quite annoying to our colleagues, friends, and families, it certainly has a place in TQEM. In fact, thanks to David Letterman, list making has actually attained a certain panache. So, to make sure that our column remains au courant, the TQEM Tool Box will present its list of top ten reasons why an otherwise straightforward environmental management project can turn into a major debacle.

Howard N. Apsan, Ph.D.is Director of Environmental Management Services, Northeastern Operations, for Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc., in Edison, New Jersey, and also sewes on the faculty at Columbia University. He advises clients on environmental management and compliance issues.

1. No problem, we can match thatprice. We all like to think that we are getting a bargain. Buyers want to minimize costs, sellers want to maximize profits. In the environmental management marketplace, though, the old adage “you get what you pay for” is particularly apt. If you are buying a comm’odity, you should almost always shop for price. But if you are buying environmental services, the decision-making process generally is much more complex. For those providing environ- mental management services, there is constant pressure to underbid the competition, and seemingly insuperable temptation-when the oppor- tunity presents itself-to satisfy a customer/client by agreeing to match (or beat) a competitor’s bid. There are many reasons why one firm may be less expensive than another (e.g., cost structure, efficiency, automa- tion). Addressing these factors should be part of an ongoing TQM process. Yielding to the pressure or temptation.on a specific project is a risky proposition because while it may win the assignment, it may ultimately cost you the client if you can’t take advantage of the economies that perhaps the other low bidder could. Incidentally, as anyone in a commodity business can tell you, if you lose money on a per unit basis, you are not going to make it up in volume.

2. Sure, we can finish theproject by then. Environmental manag- ers have real deadlines, but that doesn’t mean that the project can realistically be completed by that date. Long-term customer satisfaction depends much more on open and honest dialog than on telling the

0 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 1055-7571/95/0403117-04

’ SPRING 1995 TOTAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 115

HOWARD N. ARAN

customer/client what he or she wants to hear. As with costs, there are many legitimate reasons why a project is delayed (e.g., lack of access, weather). There are also some common excuses that are less palatable (e.g., internal scheduling conflicts, insufficient staff resources, overly optimistic assumptions). If the timetable is realistic and you just can’t meet it, then you probably have a quality management problem that should be addressed through the continuous improvement process. If the timetable is not realistic, don’t agree to it; propose alternatives such as summary letters or interim reports instead.

3. Oh, was that vent line attached to a tank? We can all come up with some clever excuses-it looked like a flagpole; the site contact told me there are no tanks; I guess they must have pulled the tank but forgotten the vent line-but no excuse will solve the problem. In this case, the only important thing is that the tank issue be addressed promptly and thoroughly. We all make mistakes-occasionally. How we respond to those mistakes says much about the effectiveness of a quality management program.

4. The local health department maintains those environmental records?The previous vignette is an example of a fairly serious mistake in the field. And while it is not excusable, it may be understandable at some level. Going out on assignment without being thoroughly pre- pared (e.g., not knowing-or not finding out-which regulatory agen- cies are responsible for which environmental regulatory programs) is thoroughly unacceptable. A quality program that stresses continuous improvement will learn from the missed tank and hopefully never make the same mistake again. A program that allows the health department mistake to occur probably has a way to go on the quality curve.

5. I am absolutely certain that you might need apennit for that! Particularly in the area of environmental compliance, it is important to reach definitive conclusions. This one, obviously, is not. When an environmental issue is opened, it is important to ensure that it gets closed. With so much potential liability on the line, environmental managers and consultants alike try to cover themselves as best as they can. On the other hand, the attempt to minimize risk by obfuscatory language can sometimes get out of control.

6. I am absolutely certain that you don’t need a perinit for that! Of course, if you are committed to providing definitive answers, you had better make sure that they are correct. The environmental field is chock full of qualitative interpretation, but more often than not there is one optimal solution to a given environmental problem. If you have it, that’s great. If you don’t have it, find out what it is. And if you are confident that you need some follow-up investigation to be certain, recommend it. As we saw above, i t is generally not a good idea to equivocate; but it is certainly a bad idea to be definitively wrong.

116 TOTAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SPRING 1995

THE PRACTITIONER’S QUALITY TOOLBOX

7. The estimated cost for remediation is between $12.87 and $12,000,000. Few will dispute the proposition that it is very difficult to estimate long-term remedial costs, especially at the early stages of a project. Nevertheless, some situations require that the projected costs be quantified. In fact, in most cases, cost is the owner’s/client’s pri- mary-perhaps only-concern. If cost estimating is integral to the project, then getting the number down to a realistic range is critical. The bigger the range, the less meaningful the estimate. Whether it is for negotiating purposes in a transaction, cost reimbursement, tax pur- poses, or simply financial management, cost estimates should be well supported and documented. Who knows, someday you may be held accountable for that number.

8. What, you never told ine that! The operational rule of manage- ment has always been “NO surprises.” It is probably even more so in environmental management where so many of the variables are uncon- trollable. In general, it is prudent to keep principals/clients constantly updated on the progress of an environmental project-unless they make it clear that they now know more than they ever hoped to learn about contaminated groundwater remediation in fractured bedrock. Data change, regulatory requirements change, cost estimates and project scopes change. Whatever the case may be, the sooner the information is disseminated, the sooner appropriate action can be taken. On the other hand, there are instances where information may be withheld intentionally to protect privilege and confidentiality of the information and to prevent disclosure. In those cases, it is vital to maintain detailed, up-to-date records, and to maintain ongoing communications with the responsible attorney.

9. You71 have the report toinorrow! In general, if you’ve gotten a call that requires this answer, you’re probably already in trouble. If that is the case, it is a good idea to redeem the promise by actually getting the report to them tomorrow. A11 too often, though, people have miscon- ceptions about what tomorrow really means. Unless otherwise speci- fied, “You’ll have the report tomorrow” means that the report will be on the recipient’s desk sometime during the next day: not in the overnight air freight package tomorrow night; not on the fax line before eight o’clock on the next business day; and not a rough draft of the report without the appendices, figures, photos, and other supporting docu- mentation. Delivering a product on time is a critical component of maintaining customer satisfaction.

10. Did I happen to mention what the final bill came to? As suggested above, the concept of accurate cost estimates and the “no surprises” doctrine are generally inseparable partners. And when hon- ored in the breach, they can become very volatile partners. From a TQEM standpoint, cost overruns present a dramatic challenge. If the overrun is caused in part by a supplier (e.g., consultant, subcontractor,

SPRING 1995 TOTAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 117

HOWARD N. APSAN

118

or equipment manufacturer), that supplier should be held accountable. If there is nobody else to blame for the overrun, take responsibility and apply the continuous improvement principle to prevent the same thing from happening again. And ultimately, even if the overrun is legitimate, you will at least find out the true depth of your customer’s satisfaction.

Conclusion At this point, the Late Show staff will flash the “Applause” sign and

Dave will cut to a commercial. When he gets back, there will be a new guest or a new shtick to grab our attention. For environmental manag- ers, that luxury is very rare. At best, there is a new crisis to address; at worst, any of these top ten reasons can lead to litigation, regulatory enforcement, and expanded financial liability. And as with David Letterman’s lists, each of our top ten reasons entails some comic tension because of its mixture of humor and truth. Unfortunately, the more often we have had one of these reasons rear its ugly head and threaten to turn an otherwise straightforward environmental project in to a major debacle, the harder it becomes to appreciate the humor. There- fore, it might be a useful TQEM exercise to focus on minimizing the opportunities for these top ten reasons to see the light of day. Thanks, Dave. +

TOTAL QUALITY ENVIROiVMENTAL MANAGEMENT SPRING 1995