The 2010
Business, Public Sector and other Nonprofit Criteria are now
easier to understand and
totally integrated
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.)
|
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%, |
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) |
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.
|
|
10%, 15%,
20%, or 25% |
§
A few organizational
PERFORMANCE
RESULTS
are reported
§
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. |
|
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.
|
|
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) |
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
PROCESS ITEMS
Scoring Grid
Item __.__
|
Factor |
0–5% |
10–25% |
30–45% |
50–65% |
70–85% |
90–100% |
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 fully
deployed without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas
or work units. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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% |
What big changes are in the new 2011 - 2012 Baldrige Criteria?
Will the Criteria become more 'entrepreneurial' in nature?
Will the number of Results Items in Category 7 be reduced from 6 to 4?
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 and Workforce Focus Categories be rewritten to remove the perceived redundancies?
Will the confusion related to 'work processes' and 'work systems' be effectively addressed?
Do we really need two similar Items in Category 6?
Will a relationship hierarchy be established among the terms: 'data', 'information', and 'knowledge'?
Will we see a 'Manufacturing' version of the Criteria to bring the original loyalists back into the fold?
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. Maybe it is time to downsize?
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.
2010 Baldrige Criteria: See the improvements in the only INTEGRATED versions of the Baldrige Criteria available anywhere.
The
2010 Health Care Criteria are now easier to
understand and totally
integrated
Serving organizations serious about achieving or sustaining unsurpassed excellence. Paul Steel
|
President,
Total Quality
Inc
(sample
of TQI
services users) UK: +44 7924 433593; Singapore: +65 9892 2441; Kuala Lumpur: +6012 6368 924 Fax (Seattle/US): + 1 425 818 4978; Email: ToQual@Gmail.com |
|||
| EDUCATION FOCUS | |||
