Key Factors – Baldrige Based Evaluation
When conducting a Baldrige Based evaluation, Key Factors are as critical to the evaluation as the criteria. I’ll freely admit that it took me several years as an examiner before I began to truly appreciate that – so they are worth a bit of discussion now.
Key Factors are broken out into two sections. P1 – who the applicant is and what they do, P2 – the environment in which the applicant operates. The temptation is to create the Key Factors just by cutting a pasting from the Org Profile – but if that is all we are doing – what value does that add to the process? More importantly, if it’s their first application, the applicant may not fully understand the questions the Org. Profile.
The Org Profile for most organizations often contain some flowery language and describe some areas in great detail others with not enough. Our job is to distill the critical factors into discrete easy to understand language, lists, tables etc. By summarizing, re-writing, re-grouping the Key Factors instead of just copying and pasting – we gain a deeper understanding of the business and increase our business acumen, which is needed to weigh the importance of a comment.
At least half of the evaluations I have done, I have been the results examiner (or both category and results) – and that has colored my thought process – but I think of P1 as the segmentation section. I’m looking for lists of Products/services or product lines/services, ideally ranked if appropriate based on relative importance. Suppose they operate from multiple locations – a list of their locations. Suppose they have different divisions or units – a list of the units. Suppose their staff is a mix of professionals, interns, and blue-collar workers – that list/breakdown. Or as appropriate on-site v. remote workers. If there are significant equipment needs to operate the business – a breakdown of the major assets – i.e., a delivery business – how many vehicles and what type are in their fleet. Suppose regulations drive what they can do (and what they must do) – a list of the regulatory agencies and requirements. Again, with relative importance – i.e., an understanding of whether a violation shuts them down, yields jail time, or just a sternly worded letter?
What helps me most as an examiner, and what I believe helps the applicant most – both in building culture and getting a meaningful feedback report – is if the key factors for P1 boil down to a series of short, well-defined, ordered lists.
While those lists may come from the Org Profile – they have to be tested against the rest of the application, and we need clarification before we evaluate the rest of the application. For example: if the applicant has four customer classes: A, B, C, and D – and we never see D mentioned in any of the process or results categories – we need to ask about that difference in our business overview call. It may be that D was a customer class 20 years ago (VHS Tape Renters, for example) – but it is not longer – and we need to know that upfront. Conversely, D may be a common customer class that they never think about – and thus doesn’t have a method for gathering the voice of the customer, or communicating to them, etc. And we need to know that, for we have uncovered a potential opportunity. This sometimes happens when the applicant is focused on the customer classes that complain the loudest, have the most growth potential, etc., and don’t give equal thought to the quiet, constant customer class.
As we create these key factors – we need to use the applicant’s terms – and read the rest of the application for consistency with those terms. As examiners, we talk about Mission, Vision, and Values. If the applicant calls them Mandate, Dreams and Manners, we need to use those terms in the Key Factors – the interviews – and the comments. If they list someone as a stakeholder you would think of as a customer, or vice-versa – we need to use their own definition throughout the application consistently and, if not – clarify our (or their) misunderstanding right upfront before we begin drafting comments.
The area that often requires we discuss amongst ourselves and with the applicant make sure we have the same understanding is usually core competencies v. values v. culture, so give those some extra thought as you read the Org profile and process items.
So if P1 is about segmentation – with a list of customers, we should see plastered all over category 3 and a workforce profile plastered all over category 5 and a framework that should be apparent in the knowledge management described in categories 4 and 6… P2 is all about strategy.
It helps to distill P1 first and then look at P2. P1 is the snapshot of who the applicant is and what they do – AND – embedded in the vision (whatever they call it) – who they want to be and what they want to do. If P1 defines where they are and where they want to be – P2 describes the terrain between the two points. You should see some items you distilled in P1 embedded in P2 as they describe their opportunities, challenges, competitors, sources of information, and their process improvement system.
We are all highly trained and experienced professionals and have studied the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence. Any one of us can give feedback to the applicant about how well they meet the criteria. But feedback written IN THE CONTEXT of their key factors is MEANINGFUL feedback.
I believe the time spent to distill the key factors upfront will allow our feedback report to rise from something that will allow the applicant to improve their results (incremental improvement) to achieve breakthrough performance (innovation). I am encouraging you to really work at teasing out the true so-whats, not just from the Org Profile but from the entire application. If done before we start writing comments – it becomes clear early on – which comments are worth writing.
