2015 Baldrige Criteria Changes

2015 Baldrige Criteria Changes Updates

The 2015 Criteria have been drafted (see below) but first,

But first, congratulations to our customers and newest Baldrige winners: St. David's HealthCare & Hill Country Memorial!!!

 

Breaking Badrige:

  • Baldrige was an Ebola victim too . . . a Baldrige site visit was awarded to Texas Health Dallas . . . and, scheduled the week the dying patient and infected staff members were present . . . according to the Dallas Morning News

  • Baldrige appears to promote the VHA as a 'world-best public service role model for health care' . . . really!: The Baldrige Blog appears to have effectively heralded VHA as a world-best public service role model for health care based on their use of the Baldrige Criteria and its VA Baldrige Award version (Carey Award) at the very time VA was 'caught-in-the-act' of pervasively falsifying patient wait time records and misidentifying hundreds of veterans' graves! . . . access this apparent 'counter-testimonial' Blog link and a summary of this sad state of affairs here.

  • Holiday Special: There will be no Christmas for Baldrige Education winner Montgomery County Public Schools this year . . . here's why . . .

  • Is Baldrige crediting itself with revolutionizing American manufacturing?: . . . Are they aware that of the millions of US manufacturing companies which could apply for the Award that none (AKA, zero, nada, zilch) have applied for the Baldrige Award the past couple years? . . . are they aware that they may be the cause? . . . developing . . . check back

Is there an Ebola link to a Baldrige Site Visit and Texas Health Presbyterian Dallas? . . . plus a Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano UPDATE

Another Health Care Embarrassment for the Baldrige Award?

Was Texas Health Presbyterian Dallas (the hospital at the center of the Ebola controversy) selected for a site visit at the time that their first of three Ebola patients was there? . . . and did they cancel the Baldrige Site Visit?  The Dallas Morning News reported: "Presbyterian loses shot at national award amid Ebola case disputes"

Texas Health Presbyterian Dallas Hospital

Texas Health CEO Statement Excerpts: "I know that, as an institution, we made mistakes in handling this very difficult challenge . . . the fact that Mr. Duncan had travelled to Africa was not communicated effectively among the care team . . . on the visit to the Emergency Department, we did not correctly diagnose his [Thomas Eric Dalton] symptoms as those of Ebola." Barclay Berdan, CEO, Texas Health Resources

Is an Independent Investigation Warranted?

A 'Site-less' and 'Visit-less' Site Visit?: Let's hope not . . . but, The Dallas Morning News article also reports something that if correct may be particularly troublesome for the integrity of the Baldrige Award: "Hospital spokesman Wendell Watson said late Saturday that Baldrige officials had expressed concern about its staff’s safety but considered replicating the visit with telephone interviews." If true, an offer to replicate a site validation visit with telephone interviews is unprecedented, inconsistent, and would have given unfair advantage to Texas Health Presbyterian Dallas. We may never know with certainty if this actually occurred because information related to site visits is appropriately confidential . . . so, maybe the Commerce Department should consider an independent investigation to determine if what was reported is accurate. Hopefully, an offer to do a telephone site visit was incorrectly reported and never occurred but it is important to the image and integrity of the award that the Commerce Department know with certainty what actually occurred and that they inform the public to the extent that is appropriate.

Baldrige and Health Care . . . was the separate health care award category strategy introduced several years after the business-focused award program flawed from the beginning?

Baldrige was established to be a "Business" Award: So, why is the Commerce Department sponsoring a separate "health care award" when the Baldrige Award was established by President Reagan for businesses? In fact, that is precisely why it was located within the Commerce Department. Why not consider heath care organizations as 'service' organizations as is done in the leading Asian, European, and Middle East Award Programs? Or, is there fear that doing this would result in no 'health care winners'? . . . let's hope not but, if that is indeed true, health care organizations may benefit by understanding how much they need to improve. More importantly, it may help to restore the prestige of the Baldrige Award to the high level it deservedly earned during its early years.

Has the bar for winning the Baldrige Health Care Award been lowered from 'Great' to merely 'Good'?

  • "Worst-In-Class Health Care?": The US Health Care System is again ranked last among large nations (Source: The Commonwealth Fund, June 16, 2014)

  • Ominous Quote: "It is, I guess, PC, widely believed, that to say American health care is the best in the world, It's not." Dr. Donald Berwick, former Baldrige Judge and Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)

  • Good not Great?: There are no Baldrige Health Care winners among the Honor Roll (top 17) US HC organizations listed in US News and World Report HEALTH (September 2014)

  • Bottom Quartile: Texas is rated by as being in the bottom quartile of "The States With the Worst Healthcare Systems" by The Commonwealth Fund (May 1, 2014), and

  • Not Big in Texas: US News and World Report HEALTH (September 2014) ranks Baylor-Plano 6th in Dallas and 20th in Texas, while Texas Health Presbyterian Dallas is ranked 5th in Dallas and 15th in Texas

  • Patient Safety: Healthgrades gave Baylor-Plano its lowest rating for "Patient Safety: "Death in procedures where mortality is usually low"" (2/27/14)

  • Baylor-Plano Declines Award: Baylor-Plano declined accepting the Baldrige Award amidst publication of patients’ safety allegations related to patient lawsuits that allege botched surgeries (See related article providing insight as to the allegations.),

Why not require evidence of World-Class Performance as was done in the early years of the award?

Given that at the time of the Baldrige site visit Baylor-Plano management and staff, affected patients, the media, the community, and the local justice system all appear to have been aware of the problems that led Baylor Plano to declining the award, it appears fair to ask:

  • On what basis did the US Secretary of Commerce announce them as a Baldrige winner and cite them as a "role model" of excellence?

Hopefully, the circumstantial evidence above is not representative of Baylor-Plano overall and that we will learn more about the root cause . . . so far, we have not learned more which leaves the impression that those involved are hoping it will go away with time.

 

2015 Criteria Developments

The illusion of listening?: The the Baldrige Program's credit, they have reached out more than perhaps ever before. But soliciting input and listening with an open mind are not the same. In fact, the type of improvement feedback solicited was narrowed to only a few topics. History indicates that the Criteria will retain most flaws and introduce new ones.

Why Criteria Terminology Changes are Necessary: In May of 2014, about 50 Baldrige Senior Examiners and Judges participated in a work session to analyze Criteria terminology including 'work systems', 'work processes', 'innovation', 'alignment', and 'integration'. The participants represented more than 500 years of Baldrige experience. Baldrige Program officials facilitated the session in Gaithersburg. All of these terms were unanimously reported as being confusing and/or difficult to understand. So . . ., if the experts find these terms to be difficult to understand, how can the applicants possibly understand them?

Short (?) 2015 Criteria Version: There has been a lot of speculation about a new shorter version of the Criteria for 2015. A draft of the 'Short Criteria' has been developed and it appears that they will consist of nearly 200 separate requirements . . . if this is true, the lack of practicality in the existing Criteria will be preserved in the short version . . . and that is not good.

 

Top this!

Vodafone was my 11th telecommunications client in 11 different countries. I am pleased to report that all eleven achieved their project objectives  . . . which for most of them was to win their 2013 national quality/excellence award . . . thank you Vodafone for keeping the streak alive . . . and, thank you for the special honor of inviting me to work with a truly outstanding organization that never stops improving.


Fiji FBEA Vodafone

Has the Baldrige Award Program Gone Out of 'Business'?

For the first time in the 25 year history of the award, there were no 2013 Baldrige business applicants
and Criteria degradation and impracticality are looking more and more like the primary causes

2013 Baldrige Applicants Summay

Source: NIST Baldrige Website

To put this in perspective, not one of the 20 million for-profit businesses in the United States applied for the Baldrige Award this year.

The Baldrige Criteria are regarded by some (myself included) as a valuable tool for organizational and performance excellence assessment.

However, there is a wide gap between their actual value and their perceived value as measured by the 20-year decline in private sector participation show here.

 

Millions of copies of the Criteria were downloaded but no business organizations applied in 2013. The growing consensus is that Criteria issues are the cause. At a high level, key problems identified by users include:

  • The Criteria have become exceedingly complex and therefore not practical. This discourages their use. For example, there are 71 separate and distinct questions (requirements) that literally use the word 'engage'. However, there are no questions using the word 'engage' for most types of stakeholders including, suppliers, shareholders, community, or board of directors.

  • Confusing 'out-of-the-mainstream' terminology is used leading to resistance

  • The Criteria are imposed for a 2-year period without adequate user review or acceptance

  • Criteria errors are perpetuated until the next 2-year cycle and sometimes for more than 10 years

  • The Criteria are overly complex with 985 non-overlapping response requirements including 135 new response requirements for 2013

  • Major topics including suppliers, customer relationship management, and innovation are cyclically emphasized and de-empathized . . . without any apparent reason

We can all agree or disagree with the reasons for the decline. What is clear is that the Criteria purport to offer a means to improve organizational performance excellence and profit organizations are desperately in need of and open to a means to improve their performance. Defiance of the basic laws of economics: There is an ideal market scenario with both inexhaustible supply and unquenchable demand . . . but, something [arguably the Criteria] has not only prevented growth in the number of 'for profit' applicants but caused a steady exodus. 

 

What follows is a summary of Criteria improvement opportunities (OFIs) identified by users including winners, Examiners, Judges, former Baldrige Foundation Chairman, national award leaders, and an advisor to two US Presidents. Everyone wants to see the Baldrige Program regain its former stature.

Please Note: This summary of the new Criteria changes is being continuously updated. It is possible that in some cases the findings presented may be incorrect. However, if the Criteria are correct and the perception is that they are not, there would appear to be an important opportunity for the Criteria to better communicate to the users.

How many words is too many? There are 5,878 words in the 2013 Criteria and 4,595 additional words in the explanatory notes under the Criteria. Some users think this is too many.

 

Reinstate 'world-class': As Baldrige celebrates its 25th anniversary, it may want to consider reinstating the original 'world-class' requirement in both processes and results scoring guidelines. America ranks lower internationally in manufacturing, health care (worst among large nations), and education than it did when the Baldrige Program began in 1988. Lowering the competiveness bar for winning to national or regional benchmark levels is not compatible with the award' original purpose and is not the best approach to improving America's competitiveness. Reinstating the original 'world-class' threshold will result in fewer winners but State and international excellence award programs have addressed this effectively by using tiered award levels.

Baldrige Work Systems Relevance The Migratory Habits of 'Work Systems'

'Work Systems' were relacated from Operations Focus to Strategic Planning for 2013.
During the past 20 years, Work Systems have been relocated to the Criteria requirements in 13 Criteria Items, the Organizational Profile, and six of the seven Categories. Work Systems never-ending quest for a permanent home has long confused and frustrated users. Confusion and frustration are not conducive to improvement.


 Problematic: In the 2013 Criteria, the design, development, implementation, control, improvement, and sustainability of approximately 95% of the 'key processes' of a large manufacturing organization (e.g., automotive) are not included in the Criteria 'work processes' or 'work systems' requirements because they are performed by suppliers?

Some users perceive that the relationships between and among 'work process' and 'work system' are convoluted or in some cases invalid. Here is an example: A 'work process' is defined as being performed internally. The same process when performed by a supplier is (as of 2013) included under 'work systems' in Strategy Development. If the same process is performed internally, it is required to be assessed for design, development, implementation, control, improvement, and sustainability. However, these requirements are not part of a Baldrige assessment if a supplier performs the work.

Guide to Knowing What 'Is' or 'Is Not' a 'Work Process': Assembly of Samsung Galaxy smartphones is a 'work process' . . . but, assembly of Apple iPhones is not a 'work process' . . . is there any wonder why the Baldrige Award business applicants dropped to zero in 2013?

 SUPPLIERS DENIERS: There Would Not Have Been a Baldrige Award if it Was Not for Suppliers

Baldrige stunned the business community in 2001 by deleting all Supplier-dedicated Criteria Items, Criteria Areas, and Criteria questions.

There would not have been a Baldrige Award if it were not for suppliers: President Reagan was concerned that the Baldrige Award Program could fail if it did not receive wide support from the manufacturing community. He required that financial support for the award be funded 50% by manufacturing suppliers as a condition for his support. For every $300,000 asked from each major manufacturing sponsor organization, it was required that there be an additional $300,000 from their suppliers.

 

Most Baldrige applicants in the early years were suppliers: The chart at the top of this page paints a bleak trend for manufacturing/supplier applicants . . . from nearly 100 in the early years to only six in 2012.

 

Baldrige Faux Excellence FrameworkBaldrige stunned the business community in 2001 by deleting all Process and Results Criteria Items, Areas, and Criteria questions dedicated to suppliers. This led to the December 2001 Quality Digest Magazine cover titled: "Is the Baldrige Award Still About Quality". The feature story was written by Richard J. Schonberger a world-acclaimed author and expert in the field of Lean - Six Sigma and World-Class Manufacturing. He cites several flaws in the Criteria including the removal of the Items dedicated to suppliers. Dr. Schonberger's position accurately reflected the sentiment throughout the business community that sustained the already declining award participation rate of the business community. Today, a consensus is growing in other sectors including education and health care that it is important for the Criteria to accountably address the supplier and partner organizations that represent on the order of 50% of their total expenditures. These costs often take the form of management, design, HR, maintenance, contract workforce, IT, customer support, and operational functions.
Good News (sort of):
For 2013, Supplier-dedicated Criteria Areas (not Items as before) have returned to the Criteria. This marks a significant first step towards restoring the importance of suppliers in achieving excellence. More pressure needs to be applied to restore the Criteria to their previous supplier recognition level in years 1988 through 2000 but even that will be insufficient.

[Action:
Baldrige may want to check out the European Model to gain a better perspective of the importance of suppliers and partners to achieving organizational excellence.]

Suppliers and partners are not second class stakeholders. Give them equal status with other major stakeholders (e.g., workforce, customers) by adding a dedicated Suppliers and Partners Focus Category and a corresponding results item. Doing this will establish applicant accountability to addressing these valuable stakeholders. The winners’ application summaries (especially healthcare) make a compelling argument that to win the Baldrige Award it is no longer necessary to meaningfully address supplier and partner organizations . . . nobody wins when the value of suppliers is minimalized.

 

“On Her Majesty’s Secret Product” . . . Product? Didn’t you mean ‘service’ Mr. Bond? No M. The Queen is using the Baldrige Criteria now. This silly analogy refers to the Criteria requirements references to products and services being deleted in 2008 (with a few exceptions) and replaced with references to products only. In 2012, I had the opportunity to introduce the Criteria through assessment training to more than 30 public and private service organizations in several countries. In every session, I was asked a question by someone new to the Criteria equivalent to this: ‘The Criteria do not apply to us because it asks about how we address products and what our product results are. We don’t have any products. We are a service organization.’ Disillusioning potential Criteria users and providing ammunition to Criteria critics within existing users is not a good strategy for gaining acceptance from service organizations. In fairness to the Criteria, the Glossary explains that products, programs and services are intended to be covered by the word 'products'. Good luck trying to find this information in the glossary though because it is well-hidden and also not included in the Index of Key Terms. However, this hidden information exemplifies a universal problem that is arguably one of the Criteria's worst problems . . . practicality . . . you would need to search through all 64 pages of the Criteria booklet to find the definition of any term in the Criteria requirements and retain what you read . . . and repeat this process thousands of times to effectively understand the Criteria meaning. This impracticality discourages people and organizations from initially embracing the Criteria and severely limits the efficiency of using the Criteria. The Criteria could benefit from being written more from the perspective of the users.

Strategy Results Have Been Deported Back to their Home Country for 2013: In 2011, 'Strategy Results' ran away from their 'Leadership Results' (Item 7.4) home and illegally entered 'Product Results' (Item 7.1) at a remote border crossing under the cover of darkness. Complaints led to Passport Control eventually locating the adventuresome 'Strategy Results' and unceremoniously deporting them back to their home country of 'Leadership Results'. [Action Consideration: Take away the power to impose the new Criteria without user review and acceptance and these type of changes will be filtered out.]

 

 

2012 Criteria Terminology Deleted and Not Included in the 2013 Criteria

 

Scoring Points Changes in the 2013 Criteria

  • Item 2.1 increased 5 points from 40 to 45

  • Item 2.2 decreased 5 points from 45 to 40

  • Item 3.1 decreased 5 points from 45 to 40

  • Item 3.2 increased 5 points from 40 to 45

  • Item 6.1 increased 5 points from 40 to 45

  • Item 7.2 decreased 5 points from 90 to 85

  • Item 7.3 increased 5 points from 80 to 85

Frozen in Time: There have been Criteria Item scoring points changes in every Criteria version since 1988. But, did you know that there have been no changes in the scoring points for the seven Criteria Categories this century?

 

Additions to the 2013 Criteria

  • The confusing and well-traveled 'work systems' has been added to area (P.1b(3) of the Organizational Profile. Ironically, it was not added to the 'strategic context' area of P.2. This appears to be diametrically opposed to the 2013 Criteria changes where 'work systems' have been relocated from the Operations Focus Category to the Strategic Planning Category. For those of you keeping score at home, 'work systems was first added to P.1 in 2007, deleted in 2011, and now it is back again . . . or, at least until the next version of the Criteria.

  • 'Key workforce benefits' have been added to P.1a(3).

  • 'Workforce' has been added to P.2b.

  • 'Improvement' of key projects and processes has been added to P.2c. However, improvement of products and services are not included in this performance improvement area. However, 'products' with are included with processes in the Operations Focus Criteria even though they follow the operations in time ["Let's do the time warp again."]

  • Baldrige has fallen head over heels in love with the trendy term 'intelligent risk' and it is now sprinkled generously throughout the Criteria . . . causing one quality leader of a renowned international organization to quip: "Haven't they heard of FMEAs?"  BTW, 'smart risk' finished second in the voting. 'Best guess' finished third. 'Calculated risk', 'risk avoidance', 'minimum risk', and 'risk adverse' withdrew fearing they were not intelligent enough.

  • 'Social media' use shows up in more areas than before.

Call 1 425 444 4386 to discuss the changes, schedule a visit, or set up a video conference to review all the changes with your teams and to lessen the time and resources in transitioning to the new Criteria. Paul Steel

Proposed Baldrige Criteria Improvements Based on User Inputs

2013 Baldrige Criteria Framework Improvement Opportunity

 Baldrige Criteria Development Process Improvements

2013 Baldrige Criteria Improvements

Category 6 Improvements?

Core Terminology Improvements

Baldrige Faux Integration Graphic

 Baldrige Flawed Integration Graphic

Does Baldrige understand what 'integration' is? Unless some users are really, really wrong, this may be the single-most damaging integrity problem for the award because integration is a core element of both the Criteria and the Scoring Guidelines. The first words of the definition ("integration" refers to the harmonization of . . .")  introduced in 2002 are vague and create a sense doubt. When the "Integrated Approaches (70% - 100%)" graphic at the left was added to the Criteria booklet that same year, it appeared to confirm the worst case scenario. This graphic does not depict integration

Additional confirmation that alignment is improperly substituted for integration can be found in the 100% scoring band wording for both the Process and Results Scoring Guidelines. Degrading the meaning of integration to alignment greatly lowers the standard of excellence bar and impedes the learning of Criteria users . . . if Baldrige would better define and illustrate integration as well as correct the wording in the Scoring Guidelines, this issue goes away. . . and the effectiveness of the Criteria could be improved as much as a quantum level.

Scoring Points Improvements

Criteria Engagement Improvements

2013 Baldrige Scoring Guidelines Improvements

Baldrige Case Study Writing Improvement

Have the Baldrige Case Study writers 'lost the plot'? Warning: The answer is graphic in nature. Viewer discretion is advised.

Baldrige Glossary Improvements

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" . . . but, it is not 'innovation' . . . unfortunately for the Baldrige Glossary

Eliminate the words "Innovation involves the adoption of . . ." from the definition for Innovation to ensure a focus on new and not only copied improvement.

Baldrige Faux Innovation Graphic
Baldrige Faux Integration Graphic

Why? The word innovation comes from Latin word ‘nova’ which means new. The Baldrige definition for innovation is based on the action verb “adopt” which does not have the same meaning as new. Adopting something that is not new and defining it as innovation because it is new to the adopting organization does not make something that is already used . . . ‘new’. For example, one Baldrige winner adopted a process that had been used previously for more than fifty years and presented this in their application and in post-award presentations as innovation . . . not good. However, I suppose that one could salvage some face-saving value by arguing that at least this was an innovative application of an old process. But, that is not simply not good enough for a role model winner. The point is that the organization should not be faulted . . . rather, the Baldrige definition is the enabler of this degradation of the meaning of the term 'innovation'..

Further, it appears that Baldrige may have mistaken a classic corrective action process for innovation in the Criteria Booklet graphic to the left.

Most importantly, allowing imitation to be credited as innovation adversely affects the competitiveness improvement rate of organizations using the Criteria.

2012 Baldrige Criteria

Download special MS Word versions of the Baldrige Criteria at the B21 Home Page

 

Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence versions with and without changes highlighted

Baldrige Criteria                    Baldrige Health Care Criteria                    Baldrige Education Criteria

See the hundreds of the multiple Criteria requirements that have been deleted from the previous version

Baldrige Criteria Navigator

Click on the Criteria Navigator below to see all the new additions and deletions - here and only here

 

P

Preface: Organizational Profile

 

P.1

Organizational Description

 

P.2

Organizational Situation

Category and Items

Point Values

1

Leadership

120

 

1.1

Senior Leadership

  70

 

1.2

Governance and Societal Responsibilities

  50

2

Strategic Planning

85

 

2.1

Strategy Development

  40

 

2.2

Strategy Implementation

  45

3

Customer Focus

85

 

3.1

Voice of the Customer

  45

 

3.2

Customer Engagement

  40

4

Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management

90

 

4.1

Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance

  45

 

4.2

Management of Information, Knowledge, and Information Technology

  45

5

Workforce Focus

85

 

5.1

Workforce Environment

  40

 

5.2

Workforce Engagement

  45

6

Operations Focus

85

 

6.1

Work Systems

  45

 

6.2

Work Processes

  40

7

Results

450

 

7.1

Product and Process Outcomes

120

 

7.2

Customer-Focused Outcomes

  90

 

7.3

Workforce-Focused Outcomes

  80

 

7.4

Leadership and Governance Outcomes

  80

 

7.5

Financial and Market Outcomes

  80

 

 

TOTAL POINTS

1,000

 

2012 Baldrige Health Care Criteria Navigator

Organizational Description Organizational Situation Senior Leadership Governance and Societal Responsibilities Strategy Development Strategy Implementation Voice of the Customer Customer Engagement Measurement, Analysis and Improvement of Organizational Performance Management of Information, Knowledge and Information Technology Workforce Environment Workforce Engagement Work Systems Work Processes Financial and Market Outcomes Health Care and Process Outcomes Customer-Focused Outcomes Workforce-Focused Outcomes Leadership and Governance Outcomes Health Care and Process Outcomes Organizational Profile Health Care Criteria Navigator

2012 Baldrige Education Criteria Navigator

Organizational Profile Organizational Description Organizational Situation Leadership Senior Leadership Governance and Societal Responsibilities Strategic Planning Strategy Development Strategy Implementation Customer Focus Voice of the Customer Customer Engagement Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management Measurement, Analysis and Improvement of Organizational Performance Management of Information, Knowledge and Information Technology Workforce Focus Workforce Environment Workforce Engagement Operations Focus Work Systems Work Processes Results Student Learning and Process Outcomes Customer-Focused Workforce-Focused Outcomes Leadership and Governance Outcomes Budgetary, Financial and Market Outcomes Education Criteria Navigator

Thank you for using and hopefully sharing the only truly integrated versions of the Baldrige Criteria. Paul Steel

2012 BALDRIGE SCORING GUIDELINES - with changes highlighted

Baldrige Scoring Guidelines

 

 

Special limited time offers:

 1988 Baldrige Criteria

 

  Did you ever wonder how the 1988 Original Malcolm Baldrige Criteria compares to the current version?

MISSION: Accelerating organizational improvement beyond the capabilities of Business Excellence approaches. Paul Steel

Quality Gurus 1

Classic 'Quality Gurus Summit' photo (Click on photo for larger version)

Baldrige Excellence Tools and Resources Home

All information provided here on the www.Baldrige21.com website are not intended in any way to represent the views of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program @ http://www.nist.gov/baldrige

 Baldrige Award Criteria