13.5.1. TAS Balanced Performance Measurement System

(1) In addition to using the survey results to assess its performance, TAS analyzes the information collected to identify strategies to improve customer satisfaction, enhance communication, and reach the best possible outcome for taxpayers.

(2) Survey reports will not identify individual TAS employees nor the taxpayers or practitioners who respond to the survey. TAS is required to provide to each survey responder a Privacy Act notice which states: “Data collected will be shared with the TAS staff, but the responses will be used for research and aggregate reporting purposes only and will not be used for other non-statistical or non-research purposes. The information that you provide will be protected as required by law.”

(3) TAS will never use survey information to identify an individual employee or to evaluate the performance of an individual employee.

(4) All identifying information such as name, address, case file number, and phone number are removed before customer satisfaction data is compiled.

(5) BA and TAS Research will provide an end-of-year report at the national level from the customer satisfaction survey results.

(6) The National office has access to all information collected from the customer satisfaction survey regardless of the level it is collected at - national, area or office level. Any data collected below the national level will be shared as follows:

1. Areas will only have access to information for nationwide, their own area and the offices under their chain of command.

2. Offices will only have access to information for nationwide, their area and their own office.

(7) All levels of the organization should use the information collected from the survey to conduct analysis, explore best practices, and develop plans to improve customer satisfaction.

(8) Survey results of any one office or workgroup should not be used as a standard by which any other unit is evaluated because of inherent differences among offices and workgroups.

(9) Customer satisfaction results cannot be used to evaluate any employee or to impose or suggest goals for any employee.

(1) The BA Director is responsible for the national customer satisfaction survey and related activities including:

• Collaborating with the Executive Director of Case Advocacy (EDCA) to develop the specifications of the annual customer satisfaction survey plan;

• Consulting with EDCA in developing a survey instrument that will provide actionable information to drive customer service improvements;

• Collaborating with EDCA to identify organizational training needs, suggest strategic actions and participate in studies to improve customer service;

• Procuring, administering, and overseeing the survey process and delivery of periodic reports that provide a basis for TAS's customer service improvement efforts;

• Recording survey result data in Business Objects Enterprise (BOE); and

• Analyzing nationwide survey results and other data, providing recommendations for improvements and collaborating with stakeholders to implement improvements.

(1) EDCA is a principal management authority for aligning TAS's organizational actions with customers expectations.

(2) EDCA is responsible for the following activities:

1. Setting performance goals at the appropriate level and taking into account the balance of available resources and operational conditions;

2. Coordinating with the TAS Director of Employee Support and Development, and Deputy Executive Directors of Case Advocacy (DEDCA) to meet training needs identified from the customer satisfaction data;

3. Ensuring customer survey results are available throughout TAS's area and LTA offices;

4. Evaluating actions taken at all organizational levels in response to customer satisfaction reports and data analysis; and

5. Collaborating with TAS BA to develop nationwide strategies to improve customer satisfaction.

(1) The EDCA ITS is a principal management authority for aligning TAS’s organizational actions with customers expectations.

(2) The EDCA ITS is responsible for the following activities:

1. Coordinating with the TAS Director of Employee Support and Development, and DEDCA to meet training needs identified from the customer satisfaction data.

2. Maintaining an efficient workload intake and delivery system that promotes achievement of the balanced measures and TAS objectives.

3. Working with the Washington DC LTA office on initiatives to improve customer satisfaction.

(1) The DEDCAs are responsible for the customer satisfaction program for the offices within their area.

(2) DEDCAs and LTAs are collectively responsible for analyzing the data using process management techniques and for engaging employees through their representative organizations in identifying local initiatives to improve customer satisfaction.

(3) DEDCAs will use the detailed data analysis provided with the BA prepared reports and other analysis and provide guidance to LTAs that supplements the annual reports and drives organizational improvement activities.

(4) DEDCAs will periodically evaluate the impact of improvement action plans and implement corrections, as appropriate.

(1) LTAs are responsible for the customer satisfaction program for their office.

(2) The LTA is responsible for:

1. Using the customer satisfaction survey data, along with the other balanced measures and officially published internal guidance, recommend actionable suggestions to improve TAS’s ability to identify and respond to taxpayers concerns. Actionable suggestions could be, but are not limited to, procedural changes within the office or at the national level initiated through a Systemic Advocacy Management System (SAMS) request, recommendations for training, equipment, etc.

2. Monitoring processes and customer satisfaction survey data and any other information available to determine if improvements have had the desired impact and make adjustments as needed to achieve desired results.

(1) TAGMs are responsible for promoting customer satisfaction program awareness at the group level.

(2) The TAGM is responsible for:

1. Understanding customers’ needs and expectations in order to support the LTA in developing improvement initiatives.

2. Effectively communicating customer needs and expectations to their employees to implement improvement initiatives.

3. Monitoring customer satisfaction and acting on results. All feedback should be used to facilitate continuous improvement in day-to-day operations.

(1) Systemic Advocacy uses the information from the survey to gauge Customer Satisfaction and identify possible enhancements that may improve satisfaction.

(2) Systemic Advocacy does not collect any data that identifies the person who responded to the survey.

(1) BA is responsible for the development and operation of the Congressional Aides survey process. This includes working with TAS Research in developing the survey and sample plan, compiling the data, and providing comprehensive reports. TAS Research uses an online survey product for administrating the survey.

(2) BA is responsible for working with the EDCA to ensure the survey meets EDCA’s needs.

(3) BA is responsible for coordinating with the EDCA staff to encourage Congressional Aides to participate in the survey.

(4) Only Congressional Aides who have been identified as associated with an LTA office are surveyed.

(1) The DEDCAs use the information from the Congressional Aides survey to gauge congressional customer satisfaction and identify possible enhancements that may improve satisfaction.

(2) The DEDCAs are responsible for setting performance goals, including accounting for available resources and the operational conditions.

(1) TAS Case Advocacy quality measures are numerical scores indicating the extent to which TAS casework meets the prescribed quality attributes. The attributes measure whether the casework actions correctly followed Internal Revenue Manual procedures and other official case processing guidance such as Interim Guidance memoranda.

(2) These results are indicators of quality and are used to improve TAS's advocacy efforts.

(3) QRP provides quality results at the national, area, and office level. The results are based on QRP's review of the randomly selected closed cases from every office each month.

(4) The quality results are a product review and based on the case in its entirety regardless of whether a case was partially worked and transferred from one office to another.

(1) TAS's Case Quality Attributes make up the overall quality.

(2) The quality attributes measure TAS's effectiveness in key aspects such as advocacy, communication with taxpayers, resolving taxpayers issues, and adherence to procedural requirements.

(1) National office will have access to quality results information at a national, area and office level. Areas will have access to information for nationwide, their own area and the offices under their chain of command. Offices will have access to information for nationwide, their area and their own office.

(2) TAS quality results are based on stratified random samples at the office level and are only statistically valid at the office, area and national level. They are not statistically valid at an individual case advocate level, office group level, or one or more Primary Core Issue Codes level.

(3) Quality scores are an estimate of the population. Because a sample does not include all cases in a population, the estimate resulting from the sample will not equal the actual quality in the entire population and will have some variability associated with it. The precision margin and level of confidence are used to convey the variability of an estimate. Example: An 85 percent quality estimate with a +/- 5 percent precision margin means if TAS reviewed 100 percent of the closures, there is 90 percent confidence the actual quality score of the population would fall somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent.

(4) Quality scores may be shared with all TAS employees in balance with other measures, with the clear purpose of sharing, and not done in such a way as to imply individual or group targets below the organizational unit.

(5) The monthly review results include results at the individual case, office, Area and national level. The individual case level results may not be shared with TAGMs, lead case advocates, case advocates, lead intake advocates, intake advocates or other similar positions in offices. However, managers and designated analysts may discuss with employees in a group or training setting, the issue and procedures for advocating more effectively for taxpayers. The identity of the employee who worked the case should not be revealed and employees should not be asked to defend why they worked cases in a particular way.

(6) All levels of the organization should use the quality result information to conduct analysis, explore best practices and develop plans to increase TAS’s effectiveness in advocating for taxpayers and case processing.

(7) Quality results of any one office should not be used as a standard by which any other office unit is evaluated as there are inherent differences among offices.

(8) Quality results may not be used to evaluate any employee or to impose or suggest goals for any employee.

(1) Each month, QRP reviews a sample of randomly selected closed cases from every office to measure the extent to which casework meets the prescribed quality attributes. Cases are randomly selected through TAMIS for the monthly sample and are accessible in the Quality Sample Selection (QSS) report. The QSS report lists the randomly selected cases, which QRP will review.

(2) The QSS report only selects TAS cases eligible for the quality sample, which includes closed criteria 1 through 9 cases (regular and reopen), including Congressional, Senate Finance Committee, Tax Forum cases (when assigned to a TAS office after the close of the forum) and excludes Special Case Code, F1, Tax Forum Event (Non-CQR) cases.

(3) To ensure an eligible case is not inadvertently excluded as a potential part of the random sampling, the QSS report was designed to use the TAMIS Closed Date and not the TAS Closed Date. Therefore, a TAS case with a TAS Closed Date in one month and a TAMIS Closed Date in a subsequent month will be in the subsequent month’s quality sample pool for possible random selection.

(4) QRP may replace a case from the QSS report using an alternate case under the following circumstances:

1. The case is a Tax Forum case and not correctly coded with Special Case Code, F1.

2. A clerical error caused the erroneous closure and the case’s documentation supports the clerical error.

3. Extenuating circumstances where cases would not properly reflect a sample of TAS's normal work and the DNTA approves exclusion for cases meeting set criteria.

(5) To ensure the selection of the correct original or reopen case, the QSS report also includes the reopen sequence number. QRP will review from the reopen date to case closure.

(6) If the total number of cases closed for the month is less than the required sample size, then all of the cases closed that month will be subject to quality review.

(1) The QRP Director has overall responsibility for the QRP and oversees the following activities:

1. Ensuring QRP releases the monthly quality results;

2. Maintaining and revising, as appropriate, the TAS quality review database with support from TAS Business Modernization (BM);

3. Creating and maintaining monthly and cumulative quality reports at the national, the area and the office levels with support from BM;

4. Publishing the quality results data and notifying the LTA and area designees of the reports availability;

5. Evaluating the monthly case quality review sample size and making adjustments when appropriate; and

6. Analyzing nationwide results, providing recommendations for improvements and collaborating with stakeholders to implement improvements.

(1) EDCA is TAS’s principal management authority for aligning TAS’s organizational actions and goals with customer expectations by:

1. Proposing national, area and office-level performance goals, taking into account the balance of available resources and operational conditions;

2. Determining resources required for TAS’s Area and LTA offices to effectively manage the quality process;

3. Coordinating with the QRP Director, DEDCAs, and Employee Support and Development Director to meet employee training needs identified through the quality review data;

4. Ensuring the quality results are available to Area and LTA offices to improve quality; and

5. Evaluating the actions taken at all organizational levels in response to quality reports and data analyses.

(1) TAS DEDCAs are responsible for the case quality review program for their Area.

(2) The DEDCA is responsible for:

1. Reviewing the area’s and associated offices’ monthly and cumulative quality reports;

2. Analyzing quality review data for the area and offices within that Area to identify trends, procedures needing improvement, training needs, systemic problems, and best practices; and

3. Using the analytical results to improve quality in the area’s offices (e.g., share best practices, identify and provide needed training, work with the offices within the area with room for improvement, etc.).

(1) LTAs are responsible for the quality review program in their office.

(2) The LTA is responsible for:

1. Reviewing the office’s monthly and cumulative quality reports;

2. Disseminating clarifications in TAS procedures to TAS managers and case advocates in the office;

3. Analyzing quality review data for the office to identify trends, procedures needing improvement, training needs, systemic problems, and best practices;

4. Using the analytical results to improve quality in the office (e.g., share best practices, set up training classes, work with managers and case advocates on specific improvement opportunities, etc.); and

5. Ensuring cases that warrant reopening are correctly resolved.

(1) TAGMs are responsible for case quality program awareness at the group level.

(2) The TAGM is responsible for:

1. Assisting the LTA in developing improvement initiatives, including sharing at the group level to foster employee buy-in (participation);

2. Facilitating the development of improvement initiatives by engaging employees during group meetings and during coaching opportunities; and

3. Targeting identified errors during case reviews as outlined in officially published internal guidance to gauge improvement.

(1) EDCA ITS is a principal management authority for aligning TAS’s organizational actions and goals with customer expectations by:

1. Proposing national and organizational performance goals, taking into account the balance of available resources and operational conditions;

2. Determining resources required to effectively manage the quality process;

3. Coordinating with the QRP Director, CCI department managers, and Employee Support and Development Director to meet employee training needs identified through the quality review data;

4. Ensuring the quality results are available to ITS leadership to improve quality; and

5. Evaluating the actions taken at all organizational levels in response to quality reports and data analyses.

(1) CCI Department Managers are responsible for the quality review program in their offices.

(2) The CCI Department Manager is responsible for:

1. Reviewing the monthly and cumulative quality reports;

2. Disseminating clarifications in TAS procedures to CCI managers and intake advocates in their offices;

3. Analyzing quality review data for their offices to identify trends, procedures needing improvement, training needs, systemic problems, and best practices; and

4. Using the analytical results to improve quality in their offices (e.g., share best practices, set up training classes, work with managers and intake advocates on specific improvement opportunities, etc.).

(1) CCI Managers are responsible for case quality program awareness at the group level.

(2) The CCI Manager is responsible for:

1. Assisting the Department Manager in developing improvement initiatives, including sharing at the group level to foster employee buy-in (participation);

2. Facilitating the development of improvement initiatives by engaging employees during group meetings and during coaching opportunities; and

3. Targeting identified errors during case reviews as outlined in guidance to gauge improvement.

(1) QRP performs quality review on all closed APs and IIs to determine if SA worked them according to the standards and procedures.

(2) The attributes are categorized in three focus areas:

• Advocacy - Taking the appropriate actions to resolve taxpayer problems.

• Customer- Providing clear and complete responses to submitters through the use of accurate, effective, and comprehensive written and verbal contacts to ensure submitters find TAS employees professional, positive, knowledgeable, and competent.

• Procedural - Resolving submitter’s inquiries efficiently within the guidelines and timeframes prescribed and through proper workload management.

Note: A list of the individual, SA Quality Attributes can be found on the QRP’s Quality Report SharePoint site.

(1) Once QRP has completed its review of APs and IIs, QRP shares the results with the Executive Director of Systemic Advocacy (EDSA)and their designated staff members.

(2) TAS uses project quality review data to provide a basis for measuring and improving program effectiveness by:

1. Analyzing the results to identify defect trends and root cause;

2. Developing plans to increase effectiveness in advocating for taxpayers and project processing; and

3. Exploring best practices.

(3) Managers and designated analysts may discuss with employees the merits and issues of a particular project that was reviewed but emphasis must be on technique for advocating more effectively for taxpayers and not the quality score. The identity of the employee who worked the case should not be revealed and employees should not be asked to defend why they worked cases in a particular way. Managers should also be sensitive to whether the project was worked by a bargaining unit or non-bargaining unit employee.

(1) TAS established a dialogue process to enable SA to request a reconsideration of an error identified in QRP’s review.

(2) Results of the dialogue process may result in QRP reversing an error charged. If the error is overturned, QRP will revise the quality scores.

(3) The dialogue process is also a useful tool to identify improvement opportunity in procedural guidance, advocacy, and training.

(1) The QRP Director has overall responsibility for QRP.

(2) The QRP Director oversees the following activities:

1. Ensuring QRP reviews and documents the results of the monthly projects reviewed, posts results in SharePoint, and shares results with Systemic Advocacy;

2. Maintaining and revising, as appropriate, the TAS quality review data collection instrument with support from Statistics of Income (SOI);

3. Creating and maintaining monthly, quarterly and cumulative quality reports; and

4. Providing quarterly analysis of quality result trends.

(1) The EDSA has overall responsibility of Systemic Advocacy, which includes processing of APs and IIs.

(2) The EDSA oversees the following quality related activities in SA:

1. Proposing SA performance goals, taking into account the balance of available resources and operational conditions;

2. Determining resources required in SA to effectively manage projects;

3. Coordinating with the QRP Director to meet employee training needs identified through the quality review data; and

4. Evaluating the actions taken in response to quality reports and data analyses.