Comparison of the Canadian and US Frameworks for Business Excellence

Transcription

1 Comparison of the Canadian and US Frameworks for Business Excellence The overall aim of any model for excellence is guidance on strategic improvement and the sustainability of improvement. The basic difference between numerous national models relates to language and culture rather than differences in overall aim. For example, the term teamwork has a different meaning in some cultures and is therefore, referred to within the context of such understanding. The Canadian criteria (Framework for Business Excellence: A Strategic Approach), and US criteria (Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence Framework: A Systems Perspective), are similar in that they cover the same areas and factors that need to be appreciated and implemented for achieving excellence through a strategic approach to quality improvement. Both models are commendable in that they assist people in grasping what to think about when moving forward with a strategic improvement journey. The issue is not to struggle with selecting a criteria, the issue is to ensure that the criteria adopted covers those elements important to the journey. All relevant areas, for such a journey, are covered in both sets of criteria. In regards to the Canadian and US models, the differences, small as they are, reflect the fact that Canada has a generally more reflective focus on approaches and methods as against a more extensive US focus on outcomes. This is not to suggest that the Canadian model does not focus on results. Like the US model, it has a section devoted to organizational results. However, it is fair to say that the Canadian model has a stronger emphasis on process. (For example, within each section a plan-do-check-act approach has been taken.) The Canadian model integrates a number of the factors noted in Baldrige that are shown separately either in a sub-section or as a section heading of the US model (for example, information and data management). An advantage for a Canadian organization in using the Canadian excellence model is that the Canadian national awards program is based on these criteria, as are a number of Provincial recognition programs within Canada. It is therefore helpful, for those looking for the highest recognition in Canada for their work on excellence through quality, to apply the same criteria that are used for Canada Awards for Excellence adjudication. Another advantage is that the National Quality Institute (NQI) has broken down the Canadian model (all sectors) into a four level implementation criteria, called the NQI Progressive Excellence Program (NQI PEP ). The NQI has applied this same progressive approach to other sectors, (for example, tourism, healthy workplace environments and education.) Those organizations not at the awards level and wishing to move forward are therefore able to use a progressive approach that is linked to the national criteria, which also leads, for those eligible, to national recognition. Copyright National Quality Institute 1

2 Key similarities Both criteria: Are based on comparable principles for excellence Cover an overall approach to excellence, as well as looking at methodologies Uses language that reinforces business excellence Has a similar rating and scoring process Calls for closed-loop continuous improvement to be applied Places the elements of the management system into a set of sub-systems, starting with leadership and culminating in overall organizational results Reinforces a system view Consolidates results into one section Covers the need for competitive comparisons and benchmarking Incorporates a focus on employee wellness and well-being Key differences - The Canadian model Canadian Framework for Business Excellence A Strategic Approach Overall Business Performance Leadership Planning Customer Focus People Focus Process Management Supplier/ Partner Focus Principles for Excellence Has six Drivers and one results section, permeated by principles for excellence that are within the fabric of well-managed organizations. The management of these Drivers leads to positive outcomes in overall business performance. Copyright National Quality Institute 2

3 Places more emphasis on improvement cycle within each section, by including specific elements on continuous improvement Gives supplier/partner management greater prominence, dealing with this in of a separate section Has a stronger focus on people issues in terms of overall scoring Integrates data measurement and analysis into relevant parts of the criteria, (for example, in Planning and also within Customer Focus sections) Has companion implementation criteria - the NQI PEP (Progressive Excellence Program) certification/recognition available for each level Ethical leadership and good governance is under cover of criterion within the Leadership section specifically responsibility to society and sharing accountability and responsibility (also referenced within the principles that permeate the criteria) Stresses evaluation of each section/driver for review of effectiveness Key differences - The US model Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence Framework: A Systems Perspective Organizational Profile: Environment, Relationships, and Challenges 2. Strategic Planning 5. Human Resource Focus 1. Leadership 7. Business Results 3. Customer & Market Focus 6. Process Management 4. Measurement, Analysis & Knowledge Management Copyright National Quality Institute 3

4 Referred to as seven sections Has a separate section dealing with data measurement and analysis Suppliers are covered in sub-section under Process Management Recent revision more strongly emphasizes importance of ethical leadership behaviour (under cover of Leadership sub-section social responsibility) and governance (under cover Leadership sub-section Organizational Governance) Has larger listing of supportive multi-practices General listing of key common content areas covered by both models These elements are listed to show that all major factors are considered in both models. The structure of the models differ, in that a number of elements are integrated throughout the Canadian model, as against some being shown under specific or separate categories in the US model, either under cover of one section heading or as a subsection. Key leadership and strategic linkage elements Mission/Vision/Core Values Balanced set of objectives and priorities Responsibility to society Stakeholder input in planning process Communication of plans/progress Resources for implementation of plans Business plan monitored and effectiveness reviewed Key customer elements Define markets and customers groups Determine current/future customer needs Information on loyalty, product/service value and competition Measures customer satisfaction Communication of value to customers of products/services Alignment on customer satisfaction Managing customer contact points and complaint management Copyright National Quality Institute 4

5 Key HR elements HR planning supports goals and objectives Recruitment and selection Reward and recognition Suggestions and ideas encouraged Education/development and evaluation of effectiveness Knowledge and experience captured Healthy workplace environment Measure employee satisfaction Key process elements Key value adding processes identified, designed and documented Stakeholder input incorporated into process development Process performance indicators Key processes monitored Sharing of highly effective practices Key processes are analyzed for improvement Key results elements Levels and trends in customer satisfaction, loyalty and retention Levels and trends of product/service performance Levels and trends in growth and market share Levels and trends in improvement activities Levels and trends in employee wellness/well-being and satisfaction Levels and trends in effectiveness of key production processes and service delivery Working relationships with external suppliers/partners Extent of responsibility to society Levels and trends in overall financial performance Awards adjudication Both models are used as the basis for adjudication of National Awards Programs (in Canada Canada Awards for Excellence, and in US Baldrige Awards). The review processes for adjudication are similar, involving an expert panel of evaluators who, review the submissions and conduct site visits for determining recipients for recognition. The scoring points allocation is similar see charts on the following page. Copyright National Quality Institute 5

6 Scoring points allocation Canadian model US model Leadership 100 Leadership 120 Planning 80 Strategic Planning 85 Customer Focus 90 Customer & Market Focus 85 People Focus 140 Human Resource Focus 85 Process Management 110 Process Management 85 Supplier/Partner Focus 60 Business Results 420 Business Results 450 Measurement, Analysis & 90 Knowledge Management Total points: Canada USA 1-Leadership 2-Planning 3-Customer Focus 4. People Focus 5-Process Management 6. Supplier & Partner Focus 7. Results Written by John Perry, Senior Vice President, NQI Comment Scoring for the Canadian Quality Criteria for Public Sector Excellence is in line with scoring for the Business Framework for further details contact the NQI Copyright National Quality Institute 6