Item Worksheet – Item 2.1 - StarChapter



Objectives: To learn about the Baldrige Criteria and apply them in the evaluation of an applicant (case study)To understand how to complete an Item WorksheetTo practice writing good commentsTo practice using the Scoring Guidelines to determine Item scoresMaterials Needed:Instructions (in this file)Examples of completed Item Worksheets (in this file)Example of partially completed Score Summary Worksheet (in this file)MAAPE Application Evaluation Process2019 - 2020 Baldrige Excellence FrameworkLifebridge Case StudyFor the eight Items listed below:Examiner Scratch Pad for Process ItemsExaminer Scratch Pad for Results Items Process Item Worksheets and Results Item Worksheets in the Independent Review ScorebookScore Summary Worksheet in the Independent Review Scorebook Time Estimate:The average time to allow for this exercise is 22 hours.Outputs (bring to Examiner Training):Completed Item Worksheets in the Independent Review Scorebook for the following Items:1.1 Senior Leadership2.2 Strategy Implementation3.2 Customer Engagement4.2 Information and Knowledge Management5.1 Workforce Environment6.2 Operational Effectiveness7.1 Product and Process Results7.2 Customer ResultsInstructionsReview Steps 3 – 8 of the MAAPE Application Evaluation ProcessReview the examples of completed Item Worksheets provided in this fileProcess Item 2.1 Customer EngagementResults Item 7.5 Customer ResultsComplete Steps 3 – 8 of the MAAPE Application Evaluation Process for the following Criteria Items:1.1 Senior Leadership2.2 Strategy Implementation3.2 Customer Engagement4.2 Information and Knowledge Management5.1 Workforce Environment6.2 Operational Effectiveness7.1 Product and Process Results7.2 Customer Results In other words, you should complete all sections of the Item Worksheet – Key Factors, a total of 6 - 10 Strength and Opportunities for Improvement comments, and the score – for each of these Items.Enter the score from each Item Worksheet into the Score Summary Sheet on the last page of the Independent Review Scorebook. EXAMPLE OF COMPLETED PROCESS ITEM WORKSHEET FOR LIFEBRIDGE CASE STUDYItem Worksheet – Item 2.1Please refer to Steps 3 – 8 in the MAAPE Application Evaluation Process for guidance in completing this worksheet.Indicate the 4–6 most important key business/organization factors relevant to this Item.Product Offerings Main offering: facilitation of organ/tissue donation, through two work systems: organ and tissue. Delivery for both requires coordination of partners, collaborators, key suppliers via Partnership Model (P.1-2).MVVC Mission: We save and improve lives Vision: Organs and tissues are always available.Core Competency Mission-driven workforce. Care/compassion delivered by “human touch.” Staff actions/behaviors linked to creating positive donation experience for donor family (collaborators.)Competitive Position No traditional organ procurement competitors, regulated “monopoly.”Strategic Challenges Business - industry changes, operational - authorization, societal responsibility - increase registry, workforce - retentionStrategic Advantages Business - Stakeholder satisfaction, strong financial position (7.5 text); operational - facilities and equipment; societal responsibility - Baldrige business model; workforce - supportive cultureStrategic Opportunities Registry enrollment and customer satisfactionStrengths and Opportunities for Improvement:Indicate the relative importance/strength of the comment by bolding the text for especially significant findings.STRENGTHS (Tab to move to the next column; tab from the final column to begin the next comment.)Item Ref.STRENGTHSa(1)The applicant’s approach to strategic planning (Figure 2.1-1) is well-defined. Three key stages – strategy development, strategy implementation, and strategy discussions – facilitate continuous planning and development of strategic objectives and targets for both short- and longer-term time horizons. In addition to the LT and BOD, the process involves customers, frontline staff, key partners, and suppliers.a(3)The applicant collects and analyzes a variety of data from within and outside of its industry for use in strategic planning (Step 2, Figure 2.1-1). The data, which include an environmental scan, performance results, a SWOT analysis, BoD input, customer and stakeholder feedback and preferences, and regulatory requirements, are used in Step 3 to identify and validate strategic advantages and challenges, and strategic objectives and in Step 4 to develop performance projections.OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT (Tab to move to the next column; tab from the final column to begin the next comment.)Item Ref.OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT a(1)It does not appear that the applicant’s SPP (Figure 2.1-1) addresses the potential need for transformational change and prioritization of change initiatives. The process steps outlined do not describe how or when the need for such change is identified or how priorities for change are set. Developing approaches to address these gaps may help the applicant to accomplish its strategic objectives and overcome its strategic challenges.a(2)While operational improvements are considered in the SPP, it is not clear how the planning process stimulates and incorporates innovation. While the applicant states that it identifies and validates strategic opportunities in Steps 3 and 8 of the SPP, it does not describe how it identifies those opportunities or decides which ones are intelligent risks to pursue. Greater focus on innovation in strategy development may enable the applicant to uncover additional strategic opportunities and innovative methods to address them.a(4)The applicant’s approach for deciding which key processes will be accomplished by its workforce or by external suppliers and partners is not clear. For example, the applicant does not specify when in the SPP (Figure 2.1-1) these decisions are made, how they are made, or how the OMP is used to evaluate supplier and partner skills and expertise. A more systematic approach to these decisions may help leverage supplier and partner relationships and enable the applicant to keep up with industry changes, one of its strategic challenges. bIt does not appear that the applicant uses a systematic approach to identify its strategic objectives (SOs). It is not clear how SOs are selected to achieve balance across its organizational and stakeholder needs and address its strategic advantages and challenges. It is also not clear that there is a specific timetable for accomplishment of SOs. A well-defined approach for selecting SOs may enable the applicant to focus its strategic efforts and enhance stakeholder relationships. a/bAlthough the applicant indicates that the SPP has undergone cycles of improvement, it does not describe the evaluation process it uses. For example, it is not clear who contributes to the evaluation, what information is considered, or how often it occurs. Developing a systematic process to evaluate the SPP may enable the applicant to identify process improvements that would otherwise not be evident. Item 2.1 Score:50%EXAMPLE OF COMPLETED RESULTS ITEM WORKSHEETFOR LIFEBRIDGE CASE STUDYItem Worksheet – Item 7.5Please refer to Steps 3 – 8 in the MAAPE Application Evaluation Process for guidance in completing this worksheet.Indicate the 4–6 most important key business/organization factors relevant to this Item.Product Offerings Main offering: Facilitation of organ/tissue donation, through two work systems: organ and tissue. Delivery for both requires coordination of partners, collaborators, key suppliers via Partnership Model (Figure P.1-2).Competitive Position No traditional organ procurement competitors, regulated “monopoly.” Must meet CMS national standards. CMS could award DSA to another OPO. Constraints of limited service area reinforce importance of maximizing donation for each donor.Decided to focus on ability to improve and rely on mission-driven workforce (CC) to achieve cost effectiveness and efficiencies to place itself in strong financial position (SA) to manage future parative Data Figure 4.1-4. National benchmarks available through multiple sources; lead time before availability can be many months. Comparative data more limited for tissue operations; tissue processors provide monthly feedback for select results in scorecards. Relies on sharing comparative data with other OPOs. AOPO, OPTN/SRTR, Tissue processors, Board Info, DHSS, US DoLStrategic Challenges Business—industry changes, operational—authorization, societal responsibility—increase registry, workforce—retention (Figure P.2-1)Strategic Objectives Maximize donation and optimize stakeholder relationshipsStrengths and Opportunities for Improvement:Indicate the relative importance/strength of the comment by bolding the text for especially significant findings.STRENGTHS (Tab to move to the next column; tab from the final column to begin the next comment.)Item Ref.STRENGTHSa(1)Many of the financial results presented have sustained top quartile levels of performance over three years. These include Consolidated Results of Operations, Total Gross Revenue, Operating Margin, Net Margin, Current Ratio of Assets versus Liabilities, and Total Assets (Figures 7.5-1 through 7.5-4, 7.5-7, and 7.5-10). In addition, two key cost indicators, Organ Donor Cost Comparison and Average OAC Comparison - All Organs (Figures 7.5-11 and 7.5-12), show good performance relative to benchmark comparisons.bResults for overall achievement of its strategic objectives and initiatives, Focus on Action: Accomplishment of APs (Figure 7.5-14), demonstrate sustained high levels of performance. These results indicate the effectiveness of the applicant’s strategy development and implementation processes.OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT (Tab to move to the next column; tab from the final column to begin the next comment.)Item Ref.OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT a(1)Results are unfavorable for most of the key financial indicators listed in Figure 4.1-3. Specifically, Days Cash on Hand has worsened (Figure 7.5-9), and in the last year lags top quartile performance. In addition, results for Consolidated Results of Operations (Figure 7.5-1), Operating Reserves (Figure 7.5-8), Days in Accounts Receivable (Figure 7.5-5), and Average OAC Comparison – All Organs (Figure 7.5-12) demonstrate flat to slightly worsening trends over three years. Taking action to improve these results may enable the applicant to achieve the strong financial position needed to manage future challenges.a(2)Although the trend is generally favorable, the applicant’s market share for tissues (Figure 7.5-13) currently lags Allograph Partners’ best in class partner. In addition, these results are not segmented; segmentation might help the applicant to identify opportunities that would enable it to close the gap with the market share leader.aSome key financial and marketplace measures demonstrate unfavorable performance relative to comparisons. For example, trends for the key financial measures of Gross Revenue - OWS, Days in Accounts Receivable, and Days Cash on Hand (Figures 7.5-2A, 7.5-5, and 7.5-9) are unfavorable, and levels for Market Share Growth – Allograft Resources Partners (Figure 7.5-13) are underperforming the comparison from 2016 to 2018. Improving performance in these areas may enhance the applicant’s ability to fund its operations.aWith the exception of results for gross revenue (Figures 7.5-2, 7.5-2A, and 7.5-2B), the applicant’s financial and market results are not segmented. Segmentation (e.g., by work system or product) may provide insights that would enable the applicant to enhance its strategic advantage of a strong financial position and enhance its marketplace performance.Item 7.5 Score:50%EXAMPLE SCORE SUMMARY WORKSHEET WITH SCORES FOR ITEMS 2.1 and 7.5Score Summary Worksheet To enter data in this form, double-click the worksheet. Enter the Item percentage scores in column B. Do not enter data in any other column. The worksheet should automatically calculate the appropriate scores based on the information you enter. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download