1 / 27

Criteria Conversations

Criteria Conversations. Process Note 2. Week Happenings ( i.e., Roles/responsibilities ) 4 Prepare for and participate in 2 nd planning call 5, 6 As Item Lead, synthesize IR worksheets and post v1 version of the CR worksheet As Item Backup, review and give feedback

echo-mcguire
Download Presentation

Criteria Conversations

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Criteria Conversations

  2. Process Note 2

  3. Week Happenings (i.e., Roles/responsibilities) 4 Prepare for and participate in 2nd planning call 5, 6As Item Lead, synthesize IR worksheets and post v1 version of the CR worksheet As Item Backup, review and give feedback As Item Lead, incorporate feedback and post the second version, v2 Email team when drafts are posted More later……… In Consensus…Where are we?     

  4. Ethics Energizer #2 While reviewing Category 2 of an application, you see that the applicant uses a strategic planning model that you think would be very useful in your own company.  You know that it is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct to use the applicant’s information in your company unless the information is publicly released by the applicant.  However, you also know that the applicant’s model is very similar to other models you have seen before... 

  5. Ethics Energizer #2 So, you figure that the applicant has simply borrowed the strategic planning model from somewhere else, so why not use it?  You also think, “to stay in line with the Code of Ethical Conduct, I can take this generic model and tweak it to our company’s situation, and that should be okay.” If the Examiner uses the applicant’s strategic model in this fashion, will there by a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct?

  6. Ethics Energizer #2: Response   Yes.  This is a violation because the Code of Ethical Conduct states that “no applicant information is adapted and/or used subsequent to the review process, unless the information is publicly released by the applicant.” It violates at least two of the four principles:

  7. Ethics Energizer #2: response 1) integrity:  This action risks breaking trust with the applicant, and can lead to an erosion of trust in the program. 2)  respect for intellectual property:  Just because the strategic planning model appears to be generic doesn’t matter.  The way it is applied in the applicant’s organization could very well be a strategic advantage to the applicant. 

  8. Comment Writing Lab I

  9. equitable evaluation meaningful feedback insights on organizational maturity What comments should do: Let the applicant know what it does well – and what it needs to improve – specific to: 1. Criteria requirements 2. The particular organization 3. Evaluation factors (ADLI and LeTCI)

  10. Process Strength Comment To carry out its strategic planning, the organization uses a systematic, biennial 12-step Strategic Planning Process (Figure 2.1-1) that involves community leaders, volunteers, member agencies, and donors. The organization determines its strategic challenges in the “Current State” step, and it includes inputs from the SWOT Analysis, Environmental Scan, and Funding Mandate Review. The SPP was initiated in 1997 and restructured in 2004 as a result of benchmarking analyses of food banks and other nonprofit organizations, Baldrige-based self-assessments, and feedback from the state award process.

  11. Process Strength Comment – Criteria Language To carry out its strategic planning, the organization uses a systematic, biennial 12-step Strategic Planning Process (Figure 2.1-1) that involves community leaders, volunteers, member agencies, and donors. The organization determines its strategic challenges in the “Current State” step, and it includes inputs from the SWOT Analysis, Environmental Scan, and Funding Mandate Review. The SPP was initiated in 1997 and restructured in 2004 as a result of benchmarking analyses of food banks and other nonprofit organizations, Baldrige-based self-assessments, and feedback from the state award process.

  12. Process Strength Comment – The Particular Organization To carry out its strategic planning, the organization uses a systematic, biennial 12-step Strategic Planning Process (Figure 2.1-1) that involves community leaders, volunteers, member agencies, and donors. The organization determines its strategic challengesin the “Current State” step, and it includes inputs from the SWOT Analysis, Environmental Scan, and Funding Mandate Review. The SPP was initiated in 1997 and restructured in 2004 as a result of benchmarking analyses of food banks and other nonprofit organizations, Baldrige-based self-assessments, and feedback from the state award process.

  13. Process Strength Comment – Evaluation Factors (ADLI) To carry out its strategic planning, the organization uses a systematic, biennial 12-step Strategic Planning Process (Figure 2.1-1) [A] that involves community leaders, volunteers, member agencies, and donors [D]. The organization determines its strategic challengesin the “Current State” step, [A] and it includes inputs from the SWOT Analysis, Environmental Scan, and Funding Mandate Review. The SPP was initiated in 1997 and restructured in 2004 as a result of benchmarking analyses of food banks and other nonprofit organizations, Baldrige-based self-assessments, and feedback from the state award process. [L]

  14. Process OFI Comment While board members are representative of the organization’s stakeholders, a systematic, transparent approach is not evident for identifying and selecting board members. Without such an approach, the organization may not be fully demonstrating its value of trust and building confidence in its integrity by everything it does.

  15. Process OFI Comment While board members are representative of the organization’s stakeholders, a systematic, transparent approach[A]is not evident for identifying and selecting board members. Without such an approach, the organization may not be fully demonstrating its value of trust and building confidence in its integrity by everything it does.

  16. Thinking about OFIs OFI comments: • sometimes start with “Although…” or “While…” • usually include a phrase such as “it is not clear” or “it is not evident” • are more likely to include a “so what” – often incorporating a key factor

  17. Itches, Scratches, and Rashes What should your comments NOT include?

  18. Itches, Scratches, and Rashes What should your comments NOT include? • Anything not clearly based on the Criteria • Prescriptive language • Judgmental language • OFIs related to how the application is written • Inaccurate information about the applicant – factual errors • Inaccurate references to Criteria requirements • Examiner-focused language • Factual ERRORs

  19. 9: Consensus Review Scoring

  20. Scoring Grid

  21. Item Worksheet – Item 5.2 IMPORTANT! Save this document using one of the following file names (as appropriate): Your RoleFile Name Item lead, posting version 1 Item 5_2v1 Item backup, posting changes to version 1 Item 5_2BU Item lead, posting version 2 Item 5_2v2 Team member, posting feedback Item 5_2v2_[insert your initials] Item lead, posting consensus-call-ready version Item 5_2v3 Item lead, posting Consensus Scorebook version Item 5_2_consensus Rationale for Item 5.2 Version 3 Instructions: Summarize your rationale for selecting and synthesizing the issues identified in your proposed comments (e.g., linkage to a critical key factor; a possible role-model practice or result; an issue that may be preventing the applicant from scoring in a higher range; a general deployment theme across most Independent Review Worksheets; team members LJ, HH, DB, PS included this issue) and the scoring range and score. Note: This tool may be useful for summarizing your analysis before you draft comments. Strength Summary of Proposed Strengths # (Add or delete rows as needed. Aim for around 6 total combined strengths and opportunities for improvement [OFIs].) 1 Workforce capability and capacity aligned with SPP……..(JB, KB, TP, CMW)..aligned with core job requirements job descriptions…..process maps 2 Recruitment strategies….(JB,TP) numerous approaches

  22. 10: Results Items

  23. Evaluation Factor Score Summary—Item 7.6 Scoring Grid

  24. Week Happenings (i.e., Roles/responsibilities) 7,8,9Provide feedback on all Item worksheets, v2s, by agreed-upon deadline Provide feedback on draft Key Themes Worksheet Integrate feedback into Items and post the third version, v3 Review all other Item v3s and KT Worksheet and email Team Leader whether any issues or comments need further discussion Into Consensus…

  25. Week Happenings (i.e., Roles/responsibilities) 10 Review agenda for consensus call Participate fully on the consensus call Make adjustments, as needed to any Items 11+ If applicant does not receive Site Visit, complete Peer Feedback Form Also…complete short surveys at all process stages ..and the Consensus Call…

  26. ..Who You Gonna Call?… NIST Award Process Hotline 1-800-898-4506 or by email at examinerdepot@nist.gov

  27. Criteria Conversations

More Related