Upload
faith-leblanc
View
218
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Model Refreshing Review
INTRODUCTION
Content
Explain the Process used
Talk about changes at different levels
Question and Answer session
What next?
Why Refresh The Model?
Introduction in 1999 said would need to check improvements introduced after Award cycles
Responses from members to the question “How often should the Model be refreshed” – every 2 years
Some key issues have become more prominent in members/users organisations since the 1999 update
Project Scope
Very specific scope for project: Fundamental Concepts - Review expression of
fundamental concepts & current examples Criteria Definitions - Ensuring definitions are
full & written in an understandable manner Sub-Criteria - Checking for applicability,
relevance & appropriateness Guidance Points - Checking for applicability,
relevance and appropriateness Criteria Weightings - Check that weightings
assigned the criterion in 1989 are still appropriate
RADAR – Consideration of expanding the meaning & application of RADAR
Model Refreshing Project - Inputs
From customers directly through the Management Practices Survey
Communication to all NPOs telling them about the project and asking how they would like to be involved and for any inputs
Comparison work with other Models Licensed Trainers given invitation to
contribute General inputs gathered over last two
years Inputs from EFQM projects and people
Model Refreshing Project – Review Group
Roger Cliffe – previous project, link to Exec Committee, User input, experienced assessor
Xavier Tort- Martorell – Academic input, training EMP.TQM students
Richard Parker – NPO input and experienced award Manager
Walter Ludwig – User input and experienced assessor, NPO input
Nikos Avlonas – User input, experienced assessor, academic input
Mark Webster – previous project link, user, experienced trainer and assessor
Manfred Jung – link to German sustainability project, experienced assessor and trainer
Diane Dibley – EFQM Project Manager
Model Refreshing Project – Process (1)
Inputs sorted and filed in working “Inputs” document
Review team have agreed work plan & criteria for including inputs:
Fits with Project Is Evolution not Revolution Changes relate to Fundamental Concepts
(enhance relationship between Model and Concepts)
Inputs are evidence/referenced based (new academic or experiential)
Model Refreshing Project – Process (2)
Drafted & circulated proposals Circulated drafts to NPO’s for paper
review and input Planned communications including –
Ongoing NPO communications, Member mailings, EFQM Magazine and Barcelona Conference, Internet
Approval for implementing proposals given by the EFQM Executive Committee
Model Refreshing Review
CHANGES
Fundamental Concepts of Excellence
Titles stay same except Public Responsibility becomes Corporate Social Responsibility
Short expression of the concept – 1 sentence
More detail about what the concept would look like in an organisation
Bullet point benefits list updated
Re-enforce concepts as basis for the EFQM Excellence Model
EFQM Excellence Model - Criteria Definitions
NO CHANGES TO MODEL CRITERIA
Definitions have been updated Enhanced old content Added new Reflecting concepts
EFQM Excellence Model – Criterion Parts
Still 32
Changes to words not meaning
1 addition and 1 combination
Leadership
1a – Develop Mission, Vision & Values…
1b - are personally involved…
1c - are involved with…
1d - motivate, support & recognise..
1a Develop Mission, Vision, Values & Ethics …
1b no change
1c interact with…1d reinforce a culture of
Excellence with the organisation’s people
1e identify and champion organisational change
Refreshed
Current
Policy & Strategy
2a – are based on …stakeholders
2b – based on information from measurement research, learning & other creativity…
2c – are developed reviewed & updated
2d - are deployed through a framework…
2e – communicated & implemented
2a – No change
2b – based on information from… & external related activities
2c- No change
2d - are communicated and deployed through a framework of key processes
Refreshed
Current
Guidance Points
Many changes to guidance points Addition - pick up themes Clarification Removal of duplication
Training and guidance to re-enforce the message that these are guidance points NOT a standard
RADAR
The text supporting RADAR has been enhanced to clarifying meaning
Results – quantifying some, many, most – ¼, ½, ¾ Trends for 100% no longer need to be 5
years but 3
Model Refreshing Review
THEMES FOR UPDATES
Corporate Social Responsibility
CSR
3e Caring for People
4a Key Partnerships
4b Managing Finances
4c Management of resources
5c – e
Society as future customers
9a & b Financial Results
8 a & b Society Results
CSR Concept
2a Seeking stakeholders input
2c Balancing needs of stakeholders & the environment
1a Developing Ethics & Public responsibilities
1c Interacting with stakeholders
1d.Encouraging equal opportunities
Market and Market Segment
Market & Market Segment
1a Organisations Mission & Vision
5c developing products for current & future markets
5d marketing products
2a Identifying & collecting information
2b Competitors performance
2c Reaffirming market position
6a Customer Perceptions
6b Indicators e.g loyalty
3b Acquiring & matching skills to match required market
8 a Society Image
Customer Focus
Concept
9 Market Share
Governance
Governance
1b process for effective Governance
4b establishing and implementing core governance process at all levels
2a gathering needs & expectations from stakeholders
2b gathering other inputs for development of policy & strategy
9 Reporting Financial outcomes
Non conformances
CSR Concept
Management by Process & Facts
Concept
Next Steps
Changes incorporated in 2004 Awards
English brochure – Introducing Excellence, Concepts, Model – beginning January
Other materials and translations through the year
Training already updated – Assessor Training and Assessing for Excellence