Baldrige Criteria for its internal Business Excellence Model - The Baldrige Dance

Borrow from Marc's "Baldrige Dance", I am seeking for forum partner on this topic.
I worked in an organization in Malaysia who has modelled Baldrige Criteria for its internal Business Excellence Model for the last 4 years. So far, 22 companies has completed a baseline assessment. They scored range from 50 - 550 points. To kick start, I have the following questions :-

1) During the baseline assessment, we spend much time interview assessee for most companies. These companies ended with less than 250 points. Is this the right approach ?

2) What approach should be taken to assess these companies (0-250 points)during their second assessment ?

3) What different approach is needed to conduct a second assessment for company who has attained 350-550 points in the last internal assessment ?


------------------
Thanks and Best Regards

lmfoong

[This message has been edited by lmfoong (edited 12 September 2000).]

[Marc]

I do hope you get a response on this. Unfortunately I haven't seen much activity in the Baldrige forums.

[Roger Eastin]

Unfortunately, it seems that so much attention is being given to ISO standards that areas such as Baldridge award and TPM initiatives are being swept under the rug. It's too bad because these two initiatives alone can add a lot of value to a company's operations.

[Andy Bassett]

I have participated as an award assessor for the EQA a couple of times, which is similar to Baldridge, but i dont think i understand full your questions, maybe you can clarify.
-------------------------------------------
Qu 1) During the baseline assessment, we spend much time interview assessee for most companies. These companies ended with less than 250 points. Is this the right approach ?
-------------------------------------------
The beauty of the Business Excellence Model is that you can assess it absolutely as you wish, ie by yourself or using a third party external to the company. Whoever carries out the assessment has a range of different ways to do this (6 i think at the last count) How exactly are you doing it?

------------------------------------------
Qu 2) What approach should be taken to assess these companies (0-250 points)during their second assessment ?
------------------------------------------

I cant honestly think of any reason to change the approach for a second assessment. Maybe for the first time the company will use an external person to assist them through the process using for example the comparatively simply questionnaire method, and the second time they maybe sufficiently experience to do it themselves using a matrix approach.

--------------------------------------------
3) What different approach is needed to conduct a second assessment for company who has attained 350-550 points in the last internal assessment ?
--------------------------------------------

Again i cant think of any reason to change the assessment method becuase of the scores the company has got.

Not much help i know, maybe you could give a little more info.

Regards




------------------
Andy B

Andy B,
I guess to get specific response, I have to give more information about the assessment.
Essentially, there are carried out in two stages, namely :-
Stage 1 :
A desktop assessment will be carried out based on a written report about how a company addresses the Baldrige criteria requirements. Then assessor will allocate a score using Baldrige scoring system as a guide. ( Baldrige assessor do not conduct on-site assessment if the desktop score is low, I guess if it is less than 550 point)
Stage 2 :
After the desktop assessment, an on-site assessment will be conducted in the applicant company. Method used will include interview with process owner, varify and clarify items stated in the write-up and witness its deployment.

Our experience is that a 0-250 company would have a poor write-up and does not practice most of the items required by the criteria. This write-up normally does not address the criteria clearly. As such, we need to do quite a bit of clarification and verification through interview sessions. And normally, there is no need to witness any deployment.

On the other hand, a 250-350 company is likely to have a reasonable write-up and addresses many of the criterai requirement. They likely also indicated deployment in the roganization. However, we still need to do quite a bit of clarification and verification through interview sessions. Also we will spend some time to witness deployment.

In the case of above 550 companies ( we had two so far ), their write-up is not as good as expected. As such, we still need to do quite a bit of clarification and verification through interview sessions. But these two companies deploy much better than indicated in the write-up. The issue is how to see the difference in their deployment in terms of integration, alignment etc as required by the scoring system.

So, come back to my 3 questions; The scoring guidelines for above 550 points company is more strigent than a 350-550 company and 0-250 company. Based on this, I seek to explore experience from the forum group.



------------------
Thanks and Best Regards

lmfoong

[Andy Bassett]

Hello Imfoong

Thanks for the clarification. You raise some interesting points. For information the EFQM (The organisation administering the European Quality Award in Brussels), uses a similar system;

(Just for info, over 10,000 people are using the Business Excellence Model in Europe to do 'Self-Assessment' but only about 100 apply for a award)

The EFQM gathers together Award Applications (Written documents that totals about 75 pages), these are then forwarded to Teams of about 4-5 trained assessors. These assessors then assess and score the applicants and give the results back to the EFQM.

The EFQM then decides who will get a 'Site Visit'. I dont know the criteria for this decision, but i suspect that they also use the 500-550 mark. The company is then duly visited 'on-site' by the Award Assessors where the truth of their application is verified (Im not sure if the EFQM would put it quite so simply).

Interestingly, as far as i know, any award applicant can request a site visit, irresepctive of their score, and as long as they are prepared to pay for it they will get one.

Having said all that i can see a certain amount of logic in what you are saying.

A low scoring company is likely to be having problems in understanding the model and writing the assessment. A 'desktop' assessment would be enough for these companies. A high scoring company is unlikley to have any problem understanding the model, but the truth of what they are saying needs to be verified in a site visit, additionally a more in-depth view of such a company is necessary to define any 'Points for Improvement' or 'Strengths'.

Regards



------------------
Andy B

I agree that Baldrige has much to offer, but may be too difficult and costly for some organization to initiate. Although some believe Baldrige is being swept aside, what other standards focus on strategy, planning, and leadership? It is becoming increasingly evident that strong strategy, planning and leadership may provide organizations with the best chance at differentiation and/or competitive advantage.

Any thoughts?

Diane

[Marc]

I think its the difference between being required to do something and wanting to do something. Those who pursue the Baldrige - whether to 'comply' to or to actually apply for it - are those in which upper management sees it for its merits - which, as you point out, are important (at least in my opinion). Strategy, planning, and leadership - long term, not a 'quickie' like so many 'fixes' companies seek.