Quality Management Process

TQM in government refers to “an organisational transformation strategy and a method of process improvement by which quality and productivity goals can be achieved without additional resources” (Akbar and Awan, 2006: 1). Top Quality Management (TQM) refers to management techniques that extend to development of performance:

… a range of techniques including performance review, staff appraisal systems, performance related pay, scrutinise, so-called “quality audits”, customer feedback mechanisms, comparative tables of performance indicators, charter marks, customer charters, quality standards and TQM (Hoggett, 1996: 20).

Total quality under the NPM model reflects an organisation structure, attitude and culture that strives to provide government customers with products and services to satisfy their needs. The culture of quality in all aspects of the government’s operations

174

implies a decentralised and innovative government where staff members are adaptive, flexible and willing to learn in order to respond quickly to changing conditions.

According to Common (2001), quality management refers to a range of private sector techniques, including Total Quality Management (TQM) and Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). He adds that Dunleavy located a “push towards limited deprofessionalisation under disaggregation components of NPM, which reflects the close organisational relationship between TQM and decentralisation” (1994: 41). On the other hand, Business Process Reengineering (BPR) as an innovation is regarded as a post-TQM development as mentioned by White and Wolf (1995).

This section of the survey contained six elements concerned with quality process reform in the practice agenda of NPM and administrative reform: (1) quality management (deprofessionalisation); (2) periodical systematic review (systematic analysis of costs and benefits of individual programmes); (3) consumerist mechanisms (consultancy with users or clients – citizen’s charters); (4) public relations and marketisation of public services (establishing a market identity for public organisations); (5) one stop shop practice as a notion of integrated service delivery (one stop shop and case management); and (6) fostering greater transparency (public as monitors of services).

Table 4.24 shows participants’ overall perception of the existence of quality management in Bahrain public management practice. Table 4.24 shows that there was a quite good statistical distribution trend supporting an agreement (Yes) position. The mean score for this set of questions was 2.86 (almost reaching the middle score of 3), while SD = 0.947. This result indicates that the data distribution tends to be close to and spread around the mean value.

Table 4.24: Quality management process factors

Quality / Scale Strongly Agree/ Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly/ Disagree Total % Result Status

Q27: Quality measurement 36 19 45 100 Disagree

Q28: Programme review 45 21 35 100 Agree

Q29: Consumerist 41 21 39 100 Agree

Q30: PR and Marketing 37 22 41 100 Disagree

Q31: Integration 25 26 49 100 Disagree

175

Table 4.25: Quality management process: mean and mode statistical frequency results

Statistics Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32

N 358 358 358 358 358 358

Mean 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.0

Mode 1 3 3 1 1 1

Figure 4.24: Histogram plot of quality management factors

4.3.5.1 Q27: Assessing the implementation of quality management in public service organisation

This first element investigated the existence and implementation of quality management (deprofessionalisation) in the public sector in Bahrain. Survey results show that 45% of managers disagreed with the idea that their ministry or agency implemented quality management, while 36% of them thought it did (Figure 4.25). In fact the public sector in Bahrain has implemented TQM as far back as 1996, when many ministries such as the Ministries of Defence, Commerce, Finance and so forth adopted the idea. Some ministries made an agreement with the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) to train their staff members (Al-Ghatam, 2007), and implement a TQM programme. Attainment of International Quality Standards (ISO 9000) was a

176

consequence of that effort, as many governmental initiatives were awarded ISO 9001:2000 for improving the productivity of the civil services.

Figure 4.25: Responses to (Q27): Assessing the implementation of quality management in public service organisation

4.3.5.2 Q28: The use of periodic systematic review on the public programmes (services) implemented (delivered)

The second characterstic of quality management is programme review, which refers to a systematic analysis of the costs and benefits of individual programmes. Such analysis can help leaders to identify and then remove or adapt functions that no longer contribute to core objectives.

In this study 45% of respondents (see Table 4.24) indicated that their ministry or agency consulted with its users or clients over service delivery, while 35% disagreed. A further 21% neither agreed nor disagreed on this issue.

4.3.5.3 Q29: To what extent did public service organisations consult with their users or clients over service delivery?

The third element in the quality management set of questions involved consultation with users or clients over service delivery. Common (2001) uses the term consumerist mechanisms to refer to attempts to bring more openness and transparency into the system by introducing a whole range of techniques for citizen and client consultation. He adds that “More people become aware of the performance of specific agencies or

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Agree (Strongly Agree) Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree (Strongly Disagree) 36% 19% 45%

Q27: Has quality management been implemented in your organisation?

177

officals and are offered channels to exert both individual and collective pressure then agencies are supported to perform better” (ibid, p. 247).

There was agreement by 41% of respondents that their organisations consulted with users or clients over service delivery (see Table 4.24). On the other hand, almost as many (39%) disagreed. Consultation with users or clients over service delivery is one of the key elements of public service reform, as it creates user-driven pressures for continuous improvements in public service quality.

This results tend to confirm the recent situation, whereby some ministries are consulting clients and users in a more accessible manner and organising information and services according to clients' or users’ needs. They aim to deliver better and more responsive governmental services, implementing more efficient and timely electronic services (e.gov is a strategic approach in this respect), and building trust and confidence in service delivery. However, other ministries are struggling to cope with the era of improvement of quality and service delivery, characterised by competition, quasi- privatisation and the cutting edge of e-service delivery, as mentioned earlier.

4.3.5.4 Q30: Do public service organisations market their services?

The fourth element in the quality management set of questions focuses on the establishment of a market identity for public organisations. This is “linked to competion, public organisations employ a battery of techniques aimed at establishing their own market identities” as Common indicates (2001: 247). He adds that “a range of public organisations increasingly employ Public Relations techniques and communication specialists” (ibid).

In this regard, the results below show that 41% of respondents thought their organisation did not market its services, whereas 37% of respondents thought otherwise. This result is consistent with the results of Q18, which indicated that PPBS was not fully implemented in government organisations. If PPBS were to be implemented, the establishment of a market identity for public organisations would happen more systematically.

178

Figure 4.26: Responses to (Q30): Do public service organisations market their services?

4.3.5.5 Q31: Assessing the public service organisations’ contribution to service delivery through “one stop shops”

The fifth element in the quality managment set of questions was designed to explore and investigate ministries’ or agencies’ contribution to delivering their services through a “one stop shop” approach to shared government service delivery (case management) as Common (2001: 247) states. For Aucoin, this attempt to have co-ordinated programmes is to eliminate or avoid duplication, given that citizens “expect public servants to provide them with integrated or seamless services” (1997: 296).

Figure 4.27: Responses to (Q31): assessing the public service organisations’ contribution to service delivery through “one stop shops”

However, the results above show that 49% of the sample indicated that their organisation did not contribute to service delivery through a “one stop shop”. This reflects the fact that some ministries participate in the Bahrain Investment Centre

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Agree (Strongly Agree) Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree (Strongly Disagree) 37% 22% _41%

Q30: To what extent does your organisation market its services?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Agree (Strongly

Agree) Neither Agree nor Disagree (Strongly Disagree

Disagree)

25% 26% 49%

Q31: Does your organisation contribute to service delivery through one stop shops?