Welcome, Examiners! Washington State Quality Award Return Examiner Training 2009.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Using Baldrige to Create Organizational Alignment & Integration
Advertisements

EVALUATOR TIPS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT WRITING The following slides were excerpted from an evaluator training session presented as part of the June 2011.
June 2002QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona A Workshop on Assessing to the Baldrige Criteria Cheryl L. Jennings, Motorola Lynn Kelley, Textron.
Welcome, Panel of Examiner and Process Development Members! Washington State Quality Award PEPD #1 Training 2008.
Core Competencies Training for Supervisors
2014 Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | Introduction to the Baldrige Criteria Baldrige Performance Excellence Program |
TNCPE Site Visit Opening Meeting. Site Visit Agenda Introductions What is TNCPE? Where we are in the process Site visit expectations Confidentiality and.
HR Manager – HR Business Partners Role Description
2015 Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | 2015 Baldrige Excellence Framework (Health.
WSQA PEPD Mentor Training Session 1: Mentoring role and responsibilities.
Decision Making Tools for Strategic Planning 2014 Nonprofit Capacity Conference Margo Bailey, PhD April 21, 2014 Clarify your strategic plan hierarchy.
2010 AHCA/NCAL National Quality Award Program - Gold Overview - Jeri Reinhardt Ed McMahon Tim Case.
2015 Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | 2015 Baldrige Excellence Framework A systems.
Building Performance Excellence in Health Care James R. Evans Professor of Quantitative Analysis and Operations Management College of Business University.
Understanding Boards Building Connections: Community Leadership Program.
Leadership and Strategic Planning
Performance Measurement and Strategic Information Management
Community Capacity Building Program Strategic Planning
2010 Performance Evaluation Process Information Session for Staff
Baldrige Health Care Criteria for Performance Excellence
© American Bar Association Effective Strategic Planning Henry F. White, Jr. Executive Director & Chief Operating Officer American Bar Association 10 th.
Site Visit. 2 Process Intent Observation (IO) Strength to Comment Intent Observation: “Double plus on the process used for strategic planning.” Comment:
Creating a Learning Organization Through the AHCA/NCAL Quality Award Program Demi Haffenreffer, RN, MBA President Haffenreffer & Associates, Inc.
THE STERLING MANAGEMENT MODEL… Is it right for you?
Creating Sustainable Organizations The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program Sherry Martin HIV Quality of Care Advisory Committee September 13, 2012.
Organization Mission Organizations That Use Evaluative Thinking Will Develop mission statements specific enough to provide a basis for goals and.
2015 Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | Producing a High-Quality Scorebook 2015 Presentation for Senior and Alumni Examiners.
Applicant Name RMPEx Site Visit Opening Meeting Team Leader - Team Members –
Michigan Quality Leadership Award New Examiner Training 2014.
Scoring 1. Scoring Categories 1 – 6 (Process Categories) Examiners select a score (0-100) to summarize their observed strengths and opportunities for.
ISLLC Standard #1 ISLLC Standard #1 Planning School Improvement Name: Planning School Improvement that Ensures Student Success Workshop Facilitator.
THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF QUALITY, 5e, © 2002 South-Western/Thomson Learning TM 1 Chapter 8 Performance Measurement and Strategic Information Management.
A Florida Natural Resource: The Sterling Approach to Performance Excellence A workshop at The Florida Conference on Aging 2001 Doris Reeves-Lipscomb Groups-That-Work.
ISLLC Standard #2 Implementation
Application Workshop – Session One April 26, 2011.
2015 Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | 2015 Introduction to the Baldrige Excellence.
BPK Strategic Planning: Briefing for Denpasar Regional Office Leadership Team Craig Anderson Ahmed Fajarprana August 11-12, 2005.
Minnesota Council for Quality Driving Excellence, Sustaining the Journey Landmark Center, St. Paul, MN May 18, 2010 Minnesota Department of Human Services.
1. Housekeeping Items June 8 th and 9 th put on calendar for 2 nd round of Iowa Core ***Shenandoah participants*** Module 6 training on March 24 th will.
Facilitating Learning in Professional Experience: Mentoring for Success Module 1 - An Introduction.
Applicant Name RMPEx Site Visit Opening Meeting Team Leader - Team Members –
2010 AHCA/NCAL National Quality Award Program - Silver Overview - Session One Lance Reynolds Kevin Warren Tim Case.
Take Charge of Change MASBO Strategic Roadmap Update November 15th, 2013.
2008 AHCA/NCAL National Quality Award Program - Step III Overview - Jon Frantsvog Ira Schoenberger Tim Case.
Quality Management.
Overview Module Preview
Factor0–5%10–25%30–45%50–65%70–85%90–100% Approach No systematic approach to Item requirements is evident; information is anecdotal. The beginning of a.
Information, Analysis, and Knowledge Management in the Baldrige Criteria Examines how an organization selects, gathers, analyzes, manages, and improves.
Tennessee Center for Performance Excellence Section 2 – Process Evaluation Factors.
Baldrige National Quality Program Baldrige Background l Results l Baldrige Program Impacts Legal Aid Group March 11, 2002.
Measuring Results of Improvement Actions Márcio Rodrigues, Tallin, 13/01/2015.
Kathy Corbiere Service Delivery and Performance Commission
ISLLC Standard #6 ISLLC Standard #6 Implementing Educational Policy Name Workshop Facilitator.
MGT 498EDU The learning interface/mgt498edudotcom.
CHB Conference 2007 Planning for and Promoting Healthy Communities Roles and Responsibilities of Community Health Boards Presented by Carla Anglehart Director,
Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | New Examiner Orientation and Examiner Training Experience Welcome to … BALDRIGE.
Instructional Leadership Supporting Common Assessments.
2016 Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | Producing “Straight A” Feedback for Baldrige Applicants 2016 Presentation for Senior.
Core Competencies Training for Supervisors
Core Competencies Training for Supervisors
Finalizing Award Recommendations
Sustaining Continuous Improvement
Applicant Name RMPEx Site Visit Opening Meeting
Overview – Guide to Developing Safety Improvement Plan
Getting the Most Out of Your Application
AMP 434Competitive Success/tutorialrank.com
AMP 434 Education for Service tutorialrank.com. AMP 434 Week 1 Discussion 1 For more course tutorials visit This course contains.
Overview – Guide to Developing Safety Improvement Plan
Governance and leadership roles for equality and diversity in Colleges
Updating Items in Scorebook Navigator
Presentation transcript:

Welcome, Examiners! Washington State Quality Award Return Examiner Training 2009

WSQA Return Examiner First things first! THANK YOU! WSQA’s mission: Improving the way we live, learn, and work in Washington by helping organizations improve through the use of the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence

WSQA Return Examiner Objectives For This Class Review Changes to the Baldrige Criteria Strengthen Skills in Areas of Opportunity Review Resources for Examiner Software

WSQA Return Examiner Agenda: 1.WSQA organization overview 2.Baldrige criteria changes 3.WSQA ethics review 4.WSQA process Full Vs Lite 5.Review process 1.Individual review worksheets 2.Consensus process 3.Improvements 6.Examiner Software 7.Summary

For a Successful Course… Be an active participantBe an active participant Give only constructive feedbackGive only constructive feedback Be courteous to your colleaguesBe courteous to your colleagues Honor diverse opinionsHonor diverse opinions Seek to understandSeek to understand Ask questionsAsk questions Have fun!!Have fun!!

WSQA Return Examiner Introductions Name, organization, what you do Questions and expectations? What do you like to do when you’re not working?

WSQA Return Examiner What is WSQA? Created by State law to: Promote excellence Recognize achievement Educate and train Patterned after the Baldrige National Quality Award Awards presented annually by the Governor Awarded to private, public, and not-for-profit organizations in manufacturing, service, education, and healthcare

WSQA Return Examiner What is WSQA? WSQA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization supported by Corporate donations Individual memberships Workshop, collaborative and conference fees Many (many, many!) volunteer hours

WSQA Return Examiner Who is WSQA? Examiners Lite Assessment Full Assessment Certification follows assessment Senior Examiners Level 3 Team Leads Scorebook Editors Panel of Examiner & Process Development (PEPD) Mentors Panel of Judges Board of Directors Executive Director and support team

2. Baldrige criteria changes

WSQA Return Examiner Baldrige criteria booklet Beginning in 2009 revised every 2 years

WSQA Return Examiner Baldrige 2007 Criteria Changes Strategic advantages Workforce engagement Leadership- performance measures Strategic Planning-innovation, strategic advantages

WSQA Return Examiner Baldrige 2008 Criteria Changes Order of information in the booklet Scoring system description Diagrams added for core values and maturity levels Added strategic advantages as a term to the Glossary

WSQA Return Examiner Criteria Changes Customer Focus/ Engagement Organizational Core Competencies Sustainability and Social Responsibilities 14

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Customer Focus/ Engagement Customer commitment to your brand and offerings Characterized by loyalty and willingness to make an effort to do business with you, willingness to do business with you 15

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Core Competencies Areas of greatest expertise Strategically important Provide market place advantage May involve technologies, unique offerings, market place niche, business acumen 16

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Sustainability Organization’s ability to address business needs and agility and strategy to address the future Considers external and internal factors Considers impact on society and well being of environment, social and economic systems 17

WSQA Return Examiner Conflict of interest issues WSQA seeks to avoid conflict of interest to protect process integrity Conflicts are frequent! First step in assignment process: determine any conflicts

WSQA Return Examiner Code of Ethical Conduct Why are ethics of utmost importance to WSQA and this process?

WSQA Return Examiner WSQA Full and Lite Process Comparison table 20

5. WSQA Process Objective: Review key steps in the process. Review key process opportunities.

Stages of the Assessment Process

WSQA Return Examiner Preparing for independent review Read the criteria Read the application Familiarize yourself with the online tool All information on the WSQA website: webinars and manuals Check in with Team Lead on Key Factors and after entering category 1 and associated results

WSQA Return Examiner Independent review 1.Select the most relevant Key Factors (from list) 2.Read the criteria for the category 3.Read (and annotate) the relevant section of the application 4.Identify and record the applicant’s processes 5.Record observations. Note missing responses and significant observations 6.Recommend a scoring range for the category

WSQA Return Examiner Independent review steps - process 1.Review related criteria 2.Read the category under review, take notes 3.Select relevant key factors from list 4.Identify & record processes 5.Record observations on ADLI: Approach Deployment Learning Integration 6.Identify any significant or missing responses

WSQA Return Examiner Record observations on “ADLI” “Approach” refers to Methods used to accomplish the process How appropriate the methods are to the item requirements The effectiveness of their use The degree to which the process is repeatable and is based on reliable data and information (i.e., systematic)

WSQA Return Examiner Record observations on “ADLI” “Deployment” refers to the extent to which The approach is applied in addressing relevant and important item requirements It is applied consistently It is used by all appropriate work units

WSQA Return Examiner Record observations on “ADLI” “Learning” refers to Refining the approach through cycles of evaluation and improvement Encouraging breakthrough change to your approach (innovation) Sharing refinements and innovations with other relevant work units and processes

WSQA Return Examiner Record observations on “ADLI” “Integration” refers to the harmonization of Plans Processes Information Resource decisions Actions Results Analyses to support key, organization-wide goals

WSQA Return Examiner Record observations on “ADLI” Questions to ask in analyzing “Integration” Do the individual components of a performance management system operate as a fully interconnected unit? Is the approach aligned with the organizational needs identified in the Organizational Profile?

WSQA Return Examiner Process diagnosis: key concepts Integration examples: Alignment of objectives and action plans with strategic challenges AND mission, vision, values Alignment of product/service delivery methods with KEY customer requirements Alignment of key process measures with KEY customer requirements

WSQA Return Examiner Process diagnosis: key concepts 1. Approach 3. Learning 4. Integration 2. Deployment PROCESS

WSQA Return Examiner Building the ADLI worksheet ItemProcessKF’sADLI 1.1a(2)Foster/ require legal & ethical behavior #, #, # Annual overview of obligations, online training, post-course survey + Covers staff, board, partners, volunteers + Daily Huddle addresses concerns quickly - None seen + Addresses HIPAA, patient confiden- tiality How would you score this single response?

WSQA Return Examiner Independent review steps - results 1.Review the Criteria to identify required results 2.Review the relevant process in the application to identify KEY results important to the applicant (use KF’s, application, your diagnosis) 3.Review the Results in the application What IS there? What ISN’T there that should be? 4.Evaluate & score on the basis of LeTCI

WSQA Return Examiner Results evaluation: key concepts Levels Numbers that position results on a meaningful measurement scale Permit evaluation relative to Past performance Projections Goals Appropriate comparisons

WSQA Return Examiner Results evaluation: key concepts Trends Numbers that indicate direction and rate of change Provide a time sequence of performance Require at least three data points Criteria call for trend data on Product, service performance Customer, workforce satisfaction Financial performance Market performance Operational performance (cycle time, productivity)

WSQA Return Examiner Results evaluation: key concepts Comparisons External requirements External benchmarks Similar OR different organizations with similar characteristics

WSQA Return Examiner Results evaluation: key concepts Integration Results align with key factors, e.g., Strategic challenges, Workforce requirements Vision, mission, values Results presented for Key processes Key products, services Strategic accomplishments What examples can you think of? Strong integration? Not-so-strong integration?

WSQA Return Examiner Results evaluation: key concepts Strong integration: results presented for Key areas addressing strategic challenges, Key competitive advantages Key customer requirements Not-so-strong integration: Results missing for the above Results presented that the Examiner can’t match to process items or Organizational Profile

WSQA Return Examiner “Key” results Refers to elements or factors most critical to achieving the intended outcome In terms of results, look for Those responsive to the Criteria requirements Those most important to the organization’s success Those results that are essential elements for the organization to pursue or monitor in order to achieve its desired outcome

Break time!

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Stages of the Assessment Process

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 WSQA Consensus: Step-by-step

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 WSQA Consensus: Step-by-step

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 WSQA Consensus: Step-by-step

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Stage 2 Consensus Webinar Comments from all Independent reviews Ensure comments reflect scoring. - what is preventing applicant from moving to next level? Is this explained in the comments 46

WSQA Return Examiner Consensus preparation and call(s) Each Examiner responds with agreement, suggestions for changes, or disagreement, stating rationales Category Lead facilitates consensus Team Lead and/or PEPD mentor leads final scoring discussion Can take anywhere from 4-8 hours (depending on what?)

WSQA Return Examiner Consensus and conclusion If using online tool during consensus, changes may be made in real time If not, Category Leads update comments & scores after call according to consensus decisions Category Lead notifies Team Lead and Scorebook Editor when done Scorebook Editor compiles consensus scorebook with final edits, notifies WSQA Consensus scorebook should be finalized ASAP

WSQA Return Examiner Comment, scoring considerations “Benefit of the doubt” Give credit for what’s in the application Don’t penalize for incidental exceptions Not every process must show complete “DLI” Not every results example must include “TCI”

WSQA Return Examiner Comment, scoring considerations For LITE, only one score for entire results Category 7 Propose a score for results related to your categories Be prepared to reach team consensus for all of Category 7 Using scoring language can help the applicant understand comments and score

WSQA Return Examiner Examiner training Completing the stage 1 grid Using the gaps and notes tab Comment writing Consensus Meetings Scoring consistency Integration Learning Comparative Data Considerations for small organizations Opportunities

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Baldrige National Quality Program National Examiner Questions 2009 Harry Hertz Responses

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Further clarification of “performance projections” vs “goals” Inclusion of goals in results category – why are they not included in the evaluation? Why are projections expected for all measures in all scoring ranges? Why are projections not in the Results Criteria? Question 1

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Why don’t we align results items with process items? Currently 1.1 is aligned with 7.6 instead of being aligned with 7.1. Question 2 Question 3 l Without comparisons, how do you interpret levels? Without a point of reference, how can an Examiner understand a “level”?

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Question 4 l How are key themes assessed (from applicant’s perspective)? Question 5 l How do we evaluate applicants that are part of a larger system? For example an applicant might say that they use a process established by the system for which they are a part.

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Why don’t we ask applicants to define/describe their work system(s), e.g., in 6.1.a.1, “What is/are your work system(s)?” Question 6 Question7 l Clarify the difference between work systems and work processes. There appears to be overlap and the category is labeled process management.

WSQA Return Examiner 2009 Core Competencies

WSQA Return Examiner Information resources WSQA comment guideline handout Your back-up, team lead, PEPD mentor Reference materials in Baldrige web site WSQA Website

WSQA Return Examiner What we’ve covered today WSQA overview Baldrige criteria changes WSQA ethics review WSQA Lite versus Full process WSQA process review Questions from National Training

WSQA Return Examiner THANK YOU!! Your support and participation as Examiners helps us all by helping WSQA fulfill its mission!