2009-2010 Baldrige Scoring Guidelines - Business, Nonprofit, Public Sector

Baldrige Business, Nonprofit and Public Sector Scoring Guidelines - INTEGRATED Versions

(Note: 2010 BUSINESS, NONTPROFIT and PUBLIC SECTOR Scoring Guidelines versions are shown below with live hyperlinks to the definitions for key terms indicated by words in ALL CAPS.)

2010 Baldrige PROCESS Scoring Guidelines - Business, Public Sector and Other Nonprofit

Note: Click on a CAPITALIZED word or letter to go to its definition in the INTEGRATED version of the Baldrige Business, Nonprofit and Public Sector Scoring Guidelines. Although the words are the same, it should not be viewed as endorsed by NIST

2010 Baldrige RESULTS Scoring Guidelines - Business, Public Sector and Other Nonprofit

SCORE

2010 Baldrige RESULTS Scoring Guidelines

0% or 5%

§ There are no organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS and/or poor RESULTS in areas reported. (Le)

§ TREND data either are not reported or show mainly adverse TRENDS. (T)

§ COMPARATIVE information is not reported. (C)

§ RESULTS are not reported for any areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION.
No PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS are reported. (I)

10%, 15%,

20%, or 25%

§ A few organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS are reported; and early good PERFORMANCE LEVELS are evident in a few areas. (Le)

§ Some TREND data are reported, with some adverse TRENDS evident. (T)

§ Little or no COMPARATIVE information is reported. (C)

§ RESULTS are reported for a few areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION.
Limited or no PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS are reported. (I)

30%, 35%,

40%, or 45%

§ Good PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported for some areas of importance addressed in the Item requirements. (Le)

§ Some TREND data are reported and a majority of the TRENDS presented are beneficial. (T)

§ Early stages of obtaining COMPARATIVE information are evident. (C)

§ RESULTS are reported for many areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION.
Limited PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS are reported. (I)

50%, 55%,

60%, or 65%

§ Good organizational PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported for most areas of importance to the Item requirements. (Le)

§ Beneficial TRENDS are evident in areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (T)

§ Some current PERFORMANCE LEVELS have been evaluated against relevant COMPARISONS and/or BENCHMARKS and show areas of good relative PERFORMANCE. (C)

§ Organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS are reported for most KEY CUSTOMER, market, and PROCESS requirements. PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS for some high-priority RESULTS are reported. (I)

70%, 75%,

80%, or 85%

§ Good to excellent PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported for most areas of importance to the Item requirements. (Le)

§ Beneficial TRENDS have been sustained over time in most areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (T)

§ Many to most TRENDS and current PERFORMANCE LEVELS have been evaluated against relevant COMPARISONS and/or BENCHMARKS and show areas of leadership and very good relative PERFORMANCE. (C)

§ Organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS are reported for most KEY CUSTOMER, market, span PROCESS, and ACTION PLAN requirements, and they include some PROJECTIONS of your future PERFORMANCE. (I)

90%, 95%, or 100%

§ Excellent organizational PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported for most areas of importance to the Item requirements. (Le)

§ Beneficial TRENDS have been sustained over time in all areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (T)

§ Evidence of industry and BENCHMARK leadership is demonstrated in many areas. (C)

§ Organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS fully address KEY CUSTOMER, market, PROCESS, and ACTION PLAN requirements, and they include PROJECTIONS of your future PERFORMANCE. (I)

PROCESS ITEMS Scoring Grid

Item __.__

Factor	0–5%	10–25%	30–45%	50–65%	70–85%	90–100%
A pproach	No systematic approach to Item requirements is evident; information is anecdotal.	The beginning of a systematic approach to the basic requirements of the Item is evident.	An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the basic requirements of the Item, is evident.	An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the overall requirements of the Item, is evident.	An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.	An effective, systematic approach, fully responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
A pproach
D eployment	Little or no deployment of any systematic approach is evident.	The approach is in the early stages of deployment in most areas or work units, inhibiting progress in achieving the basic requirements of the Item.	The approach is deployed, although some areas or work units are in early stages of deployment.	The approach is well deployed, although deployment may vary in some areas or work units.	The approach is well deployed, with no significant gaps.	The approach is fully deployed without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or work units.
D eployment
L earning	An improvement orientation is not evident; improvement is achieved through reacting to problems.	Early stages of a transition from reacting to problems to a general improvement orientation are evident.	The beginning of a systematic approach to evaluation and improvement of key processes is evident.	A fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process and some organizational learning, including innovation, are in place for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of key processes.	Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning, including innovation, are key management tools; there is clear evidence of refinement as a result of organizational-level analysis and sharing.	Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning through innovation are key organization-wide tools; refinement and innovation, backed by analysis and sharing, are evident throughout the organization.
L earning
I ntegration	No organizational alignment is evident; individual areas or work units operate independently.	The approach is aligned with other areas or work units largely through joint problem solving.	The approach is in the early stages of alignment with basic organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other Process Items.	The approach is aligned with organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other Process Items.	The approach is integrated with organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other Process Items.	The approach is well integrated with organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other Process Items.
I ntegration

Guidance: The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; you should select the range and score that are most descriptive of
the organization’s achievement level for the Item.

Item __.__— Overall Score

□ 0–5%

□ 10–25%

□ 30–45%

□ 50–65%

□ 70–85%

□ 90–100% Item __.__ Score ________%

What big changes are in the new 2011 - 2012 Baldrige Criteria?

Process Scoring Guidelines: If the "Overall Criteria Requirements" do not actually refer to the Overall Criteria Requirements, should they be renamed to prevent possible confusion?
The number of words in the Process Scoring Guidelines increased 247% (from 79 to 195) in 1993 and the number of words has since more than doubled to 435 in the 2010 Criteria. Wholly holistic!
Will the number of Results Items in Category 7 be reduced from 6 to 4 as NIST indicated at Examiner Training? The rationale given was that this would better align the Results Items to the Process Items. Sounds promising.
Will all the 'What' questions be relocated to the Organizational Profile? Will the Organizational Profile questions be linked to the Criteria to improve understanding consistency?
Will the Customer Focus Category address some questions being asked including "How many ways can you ask the same thing?" and "Shouldn't the questions be arranged more logically from a business perspective"?
Will the Workforce Focus Category be rewritten to remove perceived redundancies? For example, will all the chatter about the 95 discrete questions currently embedded in Item 5.1 (including 26 variations of workforce engagement) lead to a more user-friendly approach to Criteria writing? We can only hope.
Will the confusion related to 'work processes' and 'work systems' be effectively addressed? And, do we really need two similar Items in Category 6?
Will a relationship hierarchy be established among the terms: 'data', 'information', and 'knowledge'? For example, should the 'Management by Fact' Core Value be upgraded to 'Management by Knowledge'?
Will we see a 'Manufacturing' version of the Criteria to bring the original loyalists back into the fold? Some think this may not be needed if the new Criteria better utilize widely-adopted (mainstream) terminology.
Will there be a new definition for "Innovation"? If you read the 'adoption' paragraph of the current definition carefully, you likely already know the answer.
Will the Criteria become more 'entrepreneurial' in nature? NIST announced their intent to do this at training this year. But, what does this mean? Some hope it means dramatically leaner.
If Projections are not Results, why are they in the Results Scoring Guidelines? Projections were added to the Process Scoring Guidelines in 2008. Requests from the Criteria user community to purge them have been relentless since then, Bet on this changing.
The 2009 - 2010 Criteria have more words than the original 1988 Criteria and more than double the words when you include the explanatory notes. The highly regarded Singapore Criteria are Baldrige-based but have deleted more than 3,000 words. Is it time to downsize big time?
Will the Criteria revision cycle return to an annual cycle as it had been for 21 of the 22 years of the award? The sense of some people is that it will . . . out of necessity.

Check back soon for the answers? Or, email ToQual@gmail.com now to request the 2011 - 2012 Criteria be sent to you as soon as they become available.

Today's Baldrige Quiz: What two Core Values may actually be duplicates? And, which Core Value is actually two? Answers

SCORE	2010 Baldrige PROCESS Scoring Guidelines
0% or 5%	No SYSTEMATIC APPROACH to Item requirements is evident; information is ANECDOTAL. (A) Little or no DEPLOYMENT of any SYSTEMATIC APPROACH is evident. (D) An improvement orientation is not evident; improvement is achieved through reacting to problems. (L) No organizational ALIGNMENT is evident; individual areas or work units operate independently. (I)
10%, 15%, 20% or 25%	The beginning of a SYSTEMATIC APPROACH to the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of the Item is evident. (A) The APPROACH is in the early stages of DEPLOYMENT in most areas or work units, inhibiting progress in achieving the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of the Item. (D) Early stages of a transition from reacting to problems to a general improvement orientation are evident. (L) The APPROACH is ALIGNED with other areas or work units largely through joint problem solving. (I)
30%, 35%, 40% or 45%	An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, responsive to the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of the Item, is evident. (A) The APPROACH is DEPLOYED, although some areas or work units are in early stages of DEPLOYMENT. (D) The beginning of a SYSTEMATIC APPROACH to evaluation and improvement of KEY PROCESSES is evident. (L) The APPROACH is in the early stages of ALIGNMENT with your basic organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other PROCESS Items. (I)
50%, 55%, 60% or 65%	An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, responsive to the OVERALL REQUIREMENTS of the Item, is evident. (A) The APPROACH is well DEPLOYED, although DEPLOYMENT may vary in some areas or work units. (D) A fact-based, SYSTEMATIC evaluation and improvement PROCESS and some organizational LEARNING, including INNOVATION, are in place for improving the efficiency and EFFECTIVENESS of KEY PROCESSES. (L) The APPROACH is ALIGNED with your organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other PROCESS Items (I)
70%, 75%, 80% or 85%	An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, responsive to the MULTIPLE REQUIREMENTS of the Item, is evident. (A) The APPROACH is well DEPLOYED, with no significant gaps. (D) Fact-based, SYSTEMATIC evaluation and improvement and organizational LEARNING, including INNOVATION, are KEY management tools; there is clear evidence of refinement as a result of organizational-level ANALYSIS and sharing. (L) The APPROACH is INTEGRATED with your organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other PROCESS Items. (I)
90%, 95% or 100%	An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, fully responsive to the MULTIPLE REQUIREMENTS of the Item, is evident. (A) The APPROACH is fully DEPLOYED without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or work units. (D) Fact-based, SYSTEMATIC evaluation and improvement and organizational LEARNING through INNOVATION are KEY organization-wide tools; refinement and INNOVATION, backed by ANALYSIS and sharing, are evident throughout the organization. (L) The APPROACH is well INTEGRATED with your organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other PROCESS Items. (I)