Administrative Memorandum Process Management

Administrative Memorandum Process Management

You are required to write a brief memorandum explaining the concept of Total Quality
Management describing how this approach would apply to the case study found on Dresang:
Exercise, Form 18. You must briefly explain which diagrams and charts referenced in Dresang:
Exercise 5 would be most beneficial in addressing the issues reflected in the case study, and
what purpose each would serve in process management.
This is a graduate-level research assignment designed to test your ability to conduct effective
research, gain a nuanced understanding of complex concepts, synthesize the ideas reflected in
your research with those reflected in your textbook readings, and to evaluate and apply these
ideas to an issue of political economics.
To do well on this Administrative Memorandum:
Process Management Assignment you must conduct high-quality research and offer a rich,
well-supported analysis; mere opinion or conjecture will not suffice.
INSTRUCTIONS
 This assignment must be 3 pages (not including title page, reference page, and any
appendices).
 This assignment must be in current APA format with 1-inch margins, 12-pt Times New
Roman font, and must include a title page and reference page.
 You must include citations to at least 2 scholarly sources (in addition to the course
textbooks, assigned readings, and the Bible) to fully support your assertions and
conclusions.
Plagiarism in any form is strictly prohibited and may result in failure of the assignment, failure
of the course, and/or removal from the program. It is your responsibility to ensure that you fully
understand what constitutes the various forms of plagiarism and to avoid all forms of plagiarism.

(Exercise 18
Outcome-Based Budgeting BUDGETING FOR PRIORITIES Instead of budgeting with a focus on expenditures or programs, we might rank alternative investments in expected outcomes. The core activity of Exercise 18 is to compare and rank alternative packages of expenditure against one another. This approach directs the attention of managers to the relative value of different programs by forcing them to set priorities when they make their budget requests. Initially this approach was called “zero-base budgeting (ZBB).” This title, however, is a misnomer and caused confusion. ZBB does not in fact require administrators to start from zero and justify every dollar. That would be a very complicated and onerous task! Indeed, some of the popularity of this approach derives from its relative simplicity, especially in contrast to the intricate calculations, projections, and narratives that comprise program budgeting. To avoid the confusion caused by the ZBB label, this exercise uses the more descriptive title of “outcome-based budgeting.” Developed in 1969 for the Texas Instrument Corporation, ZBB gained widespread attention when President Jimmy Carter mandated its use by federal agencies in the late 1970s. Although subsequent administrations have not required its use, many federal agencies continue to present a ranking of alternative spending packages when preparing budget requests. This form of outcome-based budgeting is also widely used. This is an approach toward budgeting that is especially popular when spending has to be cut back. DECISION UNITS AND DECISION PACKAGES As with all budget formats, there are many different ways to implement an outcome-based system; the specific approach will vary with the needs of the particular jurisdiction. In essence, though, this approach involves four basic steps: 1. Identify decision units. 2. Analyze programs and alternatives. 3. Prepare decision packages. 4. Rank decision packages. A decision unit is the organizational entity that prepares a budget. An agency as a whole may be designated a decision unit for budgeting purposes, or an agency may be subdivided into several different units. But what constitutes a proper decision unit? Unfortunately, there is no obvious answer. The main idea is to involve in the budget process line officials who have major program responsibilities. In our Department of Parks and Recreation, we might decide that the Grounds and Maintenance Division constitutes one logical decision unit, the Recreation Division another, and the central administrative offices a third; alternatively, we might decide to break the divisions down into smaller decision units by designating an adult recreation decision unit and a children’s recreation decision unit within the Recreation Division. What we decide will depend on the structure of the organization and on how responsibilities are arrayed. On balance, the outcome-based approach tends to decentralize budget- making design; program budgeting, by contrast, has centralizing tendencies. The second step in outcome-based budgeting, once the decision units have been designated, requires that the programs of each decision unit be identified and analyzed and that alternatives to these programs be investigated. In effect, managers ask themselves, “Why are we operating this program? What purposes does it serve? Are there better ways to accomplish our goals?” In a budget-cutting context, the central questions are, “How would we operate? What would our priorities be if we had less money?” You can also use this format when there is more money to spend and ask, “How could we best use more resources? Are there opportunities for reorganizing in order to accomplish more objectives?” Having identified the programs and purposes of their decision units, managers next prepare sets of decision packages. A decision package specifies a level of service to be achieved given a particular level of funding. Decision packages also summarize the objectives of a program and indicate alternative methods considered by the decision unit for reaching program goals. A sample decision package prepared by the Recreation Division of the Department of Parks and Recreation for the tennis instruction program is provided in Figure 18.1. (1) Decision Unit: Recreation (2) Package Name: Tennis Instruction (3) No: 1 of 3 (4) Rank: 1 (5) Statement of Purpose: This program is intended to provide basic tennis instruction to adult residents of the county. (6) Outcome: This level of funding will bring 30 residents to the beginning level in tennis. (7) Personnel Required: 1 seasonal instructor (8) Costs (FY 2010–2011): $4,500____________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ (9) Consequences of Disapproval: Discontinuation of tennis program, with resultant inadequqte recreational opportunities for residents. (10) Alternatives Considered: Volunteer instructors–rejected because experience indicates problems with program reliability. Figure 18.1