Dear PEN-lers:
Though it may not be news to you, I was surprised by how wide-spread the
language of "customer service" and "business-client" is in reference to the
provision of public services.
Below two "[snips]" to illustrate: the first from a GAO report on the
performance of private incarceration contractors (for-profit jailors) and
the problem of quality service; the second from a chat by Gore on the 1993
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). I am interetsed in the
latter (GRPA), beceasue it is behind the push to implement quanitfiable
performance measures for the drug war (like body counts in the days of old).
Good morning shoppers!
Tom
--------------
1. GAO Report
Federal Prison Industries: Limited Data Available on Customer
Satisfaction (Letter Report, 03/16/98, GAO/GGD-98-50).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on whether
Federal Prison Industries (FPI) collects and maintains data that would
enable it to make reliable, generalizable statements about the
satisfaction of its federal agency customers with respect to the
quality, cost, and timely delivery of FPI's products, focusing on: (1)
if FPI has data, either from its management information system or other
sources, to support overall conclusions about how federal customers who
buy and use its products and services view their timeliness, price, and
quality; and (2) whether agencies who are among the largest buyers of
FPI products and services monitor FPI's performance the same way they do
commercial vendors in terms of timeliness, price, and quality.
GAO noted that: (1) FPI has been the subject of substantial debate over
the years, much of which has centered on the timeliness, price, and
quality of its products; (2) missing from this debate have been
convincing data that show whether federal customers who buy and use FPI
products and services are satisfied with FPI's performance; (3) FPI has
a variety of management information systems that allow it to track
customer orders and react to complaints; (4) however, FPI does not have
a systematic or structured process for collecting and analyzing customer
satisfaction data so that conclusions can be drawn about customer
satisfaction; (5) FPI's efforts to gauge customer satisfaction have been
limited to relying on narrowly scoped surveys as well as other efforts;
(6) without convincing data on customer satisfaction, FPI: (a) remains
vulnerable to assertions by its critics that federal customers are
dissatisfied and, in turn, should no longer be required to buy FPI
products; and (b) may miss opportunities to improve its operations by
having better data on how federal customers view its performance in the
areas of timeliness, price, and quality; (7) furthermore, FPI's lack of
a systematic approach for collecting these data appears inconsistent
with contemporary management principles used by both public and private
sector organizations; (8) regarding agencies' efforts to monitor FPI
performance, major customer agencies that GAO contacted stated that they
consider price when awarding contracts and monitor factors like quality
and timeliness while administering contracts for all vendors, including
FPI; (9) it should be recognized, however, that the contracting
officer's leverage in resolving procurement problems is different for
FPI than for private sector vendors since the rules that typically
govern contracts with private sector vendors do not apply to FPI; (10)
in this regard, on September 13, 1993, the Acting Attorney General
issued a legal opinion that FPI, as a seller of goods to the federal
government, is not covered by the Federal Aquisition Regulations (FAR),
and must be treated under its authorizing legislation FAR Subpart 8.6;
(11) furthermore, agencies cannot use past performance information to
deny awarding a contract to FPI because, under the law, FPI is a
mandatory source of supply; and (12) however, at FPI's discretion,
agencies can use it to negotiate with FPI factors such as product
quality or delivery time frames, or to seek a waiver from FPI so that
they can buy from a commercial vendor that can better meet their quality
or delivery requirements.
--------------
2. Gore Comments
Rallying Around the Performance and Results Act
By Stephen Barr Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 24, 1998; Page A25
[...]
The Results Act, which has been phased in over the last five years [...]
seeks to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs. Under
the law, federal agencies write "strategic plans," set goals, develop
measures of progress and write annual reports on how well they performed
against their plans.
Gore, who views the law as a cornerstone of his "reinventing government"
crusade, gave a detailed speech, laced with references to Industrial Age
hierarchies and the Internet.
"In the long run, we have to build agencies -- and, I might add, a
congressional committee structure -- that work more on horizontal than
vertical lines. Partnerships and fluid organizations are the key, because
networks -- not hierarchies -- define government in the 21st century," Gore
said.
"This will be a difficult step. This means working across agency boundaries
-- blurring them into virtual organizations where the customer doesn't have
to care which agency is actually delivering the service," Gore said.
[...]
--------------
Comment: that the client may not know which agency is actually delivering
(or not) is a handy foil for deflecting any and all manner of pressure on
the delivering agency, wundntcha say?
Tom
Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia
Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
