a workshop on assessing to the baldrige criteria l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A Workshop on Assessing to the Baldrige Criteria PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A Workshop on Assessing to the Baldrige Criteria

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

A Workshop on Assessing to the Baldrige Criteria - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 165 Views
  • Uploaded on

A Workshop on Assessing to the Baldrige Criteria. Cheryl L. Jennings, Motorola Lynn Kelley, Textron. Objective of this Workshop. Begin to develop the skills needed to Assess a Baldrige-type application to the Performance Excellence Criteria requirements

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'A Workshop on Assessing to the Baldrige Criteria' - ata


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
a workshop on assessing to the baldrige criteria

A Workshop on Assessing to the Baldrige Criteria

Cheryl L. Jennings, Motorola

Lynn Kelley, Textron

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

objective of this workshop
Objective of this Workshop
  • Begin to develop the skills needed to
    • Assess a Baldrige-type application to the Performance Excellence Criteria requirements
    • Provide feedback relevant to an organization’s Key Factors
  • Understand how to
    • Analyze business results in a Baldrige-type application
    • Report results to demonstrate performance and improvement, in any situation

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

outline
Outline
  • Performance Excellence Criteria
  • The Application Evaluation Process
    • The Scorebook
    • Writing Feedback Comments
  • Evaluating Results Items
  • Team Exercise
  • Report Out
  • Q&A

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

performance excellence
Performance Excellence
  • An integrated approach to organizational performance management that results in
    • Delivery of ever-improving value to customers, contributing to marketplace success;
    • Improvement of overall organizational effectiveness and capabilities; and
    • Organizational and personal learning

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

(Criteria, p. 1)

criteria framework a systems perspective
Criteria Framework: A Systems Perspective

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

(Criteria, p. 5)

categories items and point values
Categories/Items and Point Values

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

(Criteria, p. 9)

item format
Item Format

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

(Criteria, p. 47)

the application evaluation process

The Application Evaluation Process

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

baldrige award process
Baldrige Award Process

Receive applications

Stage 1

Independent Review

Judges select for

Consensus Review?

No

Feedback report

to applicant

Stage 2

Consensus Review

Judges select for

Site Visit Review?

No

Feedback report

to applicant

Stage 3

Site Visit Review

Stage 4

Judges recommend Award

recipients to

NIST Director/DOC

Feedback report

to applicant

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

(Feedback, p. 2)

independent review scorebook
Independent Review—Scorebook
  • Key Factors (KFs)
    • Concise summary of most important aspects of organization
      • Organizational and Competitive environments
      • Key working relationships
      • Key strategic challenges
  • Key Themes
    • Overall summary of key points in application
      • Most important strengths identified
      • Most significant opportunities (OFIs) identified
      • Most significant strengths and/or OFIs in Results
  • Item Worksheets
    • Single, complete comments linked to Criteria and KFs

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

key factors
Key Factors
  • Synthesized by Examiner from the “Organizational Profile” in the application
    • Organizational Description
      • Environment and Relationships
    • Organizational Challenges
      • Competitive Environment, Strategic Challenges, Performance Improvement System
  • Used by Examiners to understand the organization and what is considered important by the organization

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

developing worksheet comments
Developing Worksheet Comments
  • Read the Criteria requirements for the Item
  • Read the applicant’s response against the Criteria
  • Identify the Key Factors relevant to the Item
  • Develop and write 6–10 comments—single, complete thoughts—linked to the Criteria and Key Factors
  • Designate each comment as a Strength (+) or an Opportunity for Improvement (OFI) (–)
  • An OFI should be written for any Area that is not addressed

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

item 1 1 organizational leadership
Item 1.1 Organizational Leadership
  • Basic Item Requirement
    • “Describe how senior leaders guide your organization, including how they review organizational performance”
  • Key Factors may include
    • Type of organization (public, private,industry)
    • Number of locations or sites
    • Mission, Vision, Values, other cultural context
    • Customers and Markets
    • Key suppliers, partners, vendors

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

item 3 2 customer relationships satisfaction
Item 3.2 Customer Relationships & Satisfaction
  • Basic Item Requirement
    • “Describe how your organization builds relationships to acquire, satisfy, and retain customers, …”
  • Key Factors may include
    • Customer and Market segments
    • Main products and services delivered, and their delivery processes
    • Mission, Vision, Values

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

examples of comments
Examples of Comments
  • Item 1.1b (+) The Leadership Team uses a dashboard of performance measures, e.g., Customer Satisfaction, Customer Complaints, and Market Share, to review how well the organization is operating and to identify priorities for improvement and opportunities for innovation.
  • Item 3.2a (–) Although the applicant offers access to its customers via telephone, it is not apparent that it has an approach in place for determining whether its key access mechanisms are sufficient for current or potential customers who are seeking information or who wish to make complaints.

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

evaluating results items

Evaluating Results Items

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

results
Results
  • Results document how the applicant measures its performance
    • Over time,
    • Against competitors’ performance, and
    • Against relevant comparative data
  • Essentials to reporting Results
    • Clearly relate to the organization’s Key Factors
    • Reveal current levels
    • Show trends
    • Contain appropriate comparisons

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

writing comments on results
Writing Comments on Results
  • Address the following questions
    • Is trend positive or negative? What is desirable direction? Are explanations provided for significant changes?
    • Are all important results presented? Are there any gaps in the data?
    • Is the amount of data provided sufficient?
    • Are data appropriately segmented?
    • Do data represent both short- and long-term priorities?
    • Are comparative data presented, and are they appropriate?
    • Are data normalized?

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

(Guidance, p. 11)

item 7 2 financial market results
Item 7.2 Financial & Market Results
  • Basic Item Requirement
    • “Summarize your organization’s key financial and marketplace performance results by market segments, as appropriate. Include appropriate comparative data.”
  • Key Factors may include
    • Number and type of competitors
    • Key strategic challenges
    • Long-term strategic objectives, such as growth

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

examples of results comments
Examples of Results Comments
  • Item 7.2 (+) Average Assets (Figure 7.2-4) have grown more than ten times since 1995, indicating the applicant’s strategy of Branch Growth (Figure 7.2-5) is putting it on track to achieve its strategic objective of $3 billion in assets by 2004.
  • Item 7.2 (–) The applicant does not segment its financial results by customer segments, products and services, or business areas. From the results provided, the applicant may not be able to determine how well it is progressing in its key strategy of increasing Internet-based business …

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

(Guidance, p. 11)

team exercise

Team Exercise

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

triview national bank case study
TriView National Bank Case Study
  • Prepared for use in the 2001 MBNQA Examiner preparation course
  • A sample application written for a fictitious financial services institution applying for the Baldrige award

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

exercise instructions
Exercise Instructions
  • You will be grouped into teams
  • Allotted time: 45 minutes
  • Identify a Timekeeper, Leader, Recorder, and Reporter
  • Prepare
    • Review the relevant Criteria
      • Identify key Criteria requirements
    • Read the excerpts from the application
      • Note the results reported
    • Read the already-completed Key Factors Worksheet

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

instructions cont d
Instructions cont’d
  • Evaluate application to Criteria and prepare the Item Worksheet
    • Select 4-6 most important Key Factors for the Item*
    • Write one Strength comment*
    • Write one OFI comment*
    • Record the “*” on flip charts

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

instructions cont d26
Instructions cont’d
  • Report Out
    • Key Factors
    • One strength comment
    • One OFI comment
    • Observations?

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

questions

Questions?

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

references
References
  • 2001 Criteria for Performance Excellence. Baldrige National Quality Program (BNQP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg (NIST), MD.
  • 2001 Guidance for Producing a Well-Written Scorebook. BNQP, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
  • 2001 TriView National Bank Case Study Packet, including Scorebook and Feedback Report. Prepared by BNQP. Available from the American Society for Quality, Milwaukee, WI.

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

handout at beginning
Handout at Beginning
  • From 2001 Business Criteria for Performance Excellence
    • Criteria for Item 7.1, Category and Item Description for Item 7.1, Scoring Guidelines, Comment Guidelines
  • From TriView Application
    • Item 7.1 Response
  • From TriView Scorebook
    • Key Factors Worksheet
  • From Blank Scorebook
    • Item 7.1 Worksheet

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

handout after report out
Handout after Report-out
  • From TriView Scorebook
    • Recommended Scoring Range for Item 7.1 is 15–25
    • Key Themes, “c”
    • Item 7.1 Customer-Focused Results

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona

contact info
Contact Info
  • Cheryl Jennings can be reached at C.Jennings@Motorola.com
  • Lynn Kelley can be reached at LKelley@TFSA.Textron.com

QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona