Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 16
philosophy. The departments and areas submit an annual report to the Leadership Team
that summarizes its performance, including relevant LEARNing Board measures, during
the previous academic year.
Measures developed by Coyote for their LEARNing Board are shown below. The
Associated Outcomes, encoded in the second column, are defined specifically for each of
Measure
Associated Outcomes
(see LEARNing Board
Outcomes below)
Funder/Financial View
State Revenues
F1
Tuition and Fees Revenue
F2
Grant and Foundation Funding
F3, F4
Direct Costs
F5
Student/Participant View
Enrollment
S1
Student Goal Attainment
S2
Passing Rates on Licensure and
S2
Student Success at Transfer Institutions
S2
Graduate Placement Rate
S2
Graduate Hourly Wage
S2
New Mexico State Competency
S2
Student Persistence
S3
Course Completion Rate
S3
% Technology Delivered Offerings
S3
Responsiveness to Requests for Courses
S3
% of Citizens Participating in Programs
S1
Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 17
High Value Content of Curricula
P1
Cycle Time for Curricula Development
P1
Implementation of Individualized Learning
P2
Learner Involvement in Active Learning
P2
Innovation and Resource View
Faculty/Staff Satisfaction Surveys
R1
Faculty/Staff Retention
R1
ESL Expertise
R2
Training and Development in Key Areas
Availability
Investment in Technology to Support
Learning Programs
Internal Stakeholder Input
Area of Focus
Type of Input
Method
Source
Faculty and Staff
Needs and
requirements,
capabilities
• Faculty/Staff Satisfaction Survey
• Capabilities matrix
• Performance data
Business Support Services Team,
Human Resource Subteam
Faculty
Needs and
rerquirements
• Structured interview
Collective Bargaining Unit
• Legal Risk Assessment Report 1999
technology for future use
LEARNing Board Outcomes
Internal Process view
F1
Maintain level of state funding
P1
Increase the design and development of high
Basic Skills Improvement
P2
Attainment of Program Competencies
P2
ESL/Remedial Preparation for College
Access for Underserved Groups
P3
Student Satisfaction with Student Services
P4
Student Satisfaction with Support
Processes
Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 18
impact programs
F2
Increase total revenue from
tuition and fees
P2
Increase instructional effectiveness
F3
Increase donations to the
P3
Increase access to programs
Innovation and Resource View
S1
Increase credit enrollment and
non-credit participation
R1
Increase faculty/staff retention
S2
have
the skills they need to be effective
S3
Increase course offerings
meeting student/participant
needs
R3
Increase the percentage of faculty/staff who
have
the tools to optimize productivity
S4
Increase the value/impact of
R2
Increase the percentage of faculty/staff who
CASE II. TRIVIEW BANK: IDENTIFYING KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The complete TriView Bank case study, a fictitious example of a Baldrige application, can be
found in the Baldrige Materials folder on the Student Companion Site. Review the
Organizational Profile and then the response to Category 7 of the Baldrige criteria (Results).
7.1 Product and Process Outcomes
Relevant Key Factors
1. Core competencies include “Legendary Service”: understanding and exceeding customer expectations;
“Operational Excellence”: demonstrating process and performance discipline; and “Agility”: making and
implementing decisions quickly. The applicant is developing a core competency in mergers and acquisitions.
Foundation
Increase grant funding
P4
Increase effectiveness of student services
Increase fiscal efficiency
P5
Increase the effectiveness of support process
Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 19
(CM).
3. Supplier communication/management mechanisms include monthly and semiannual meetings, contracts,
purchase orders, partnership agreements, and participation in strategic planning, TNB TOE process and
Strengths
++
Strength
Item Ref.
Sustained improvement for the percentage of strategic action plans accomplished, as well as for the
impact of the plans (Figure 7.1-19), illustrate the organization’s improving capability to meet its most
important strategic objectives. These results equal or surpass those of their respective top-quartile
comparisons.
c
Results from the ERP Audit of Practice Drill Activities (Figure 7.1-18) that show consistent
improvement support the applicant’s core competency of agility, particularly its ability to make
decisions quickly. Results improved over the period shown in all ten areas, including practice
drill outcomes, training of associates, and follow-up resulting from reviews.
b(2)
Opportunities for Improvement
—
Opportunity for Improvement
Item Ref.
Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 20
Some results related to key customer requirements do not demonstrate favorable comparisons and/or
sustained improvement. For example, Satisfaction with Advocacy (Figure 7.1-8) shows variable
7.2 Customer-Focused Outcomes
Strengths
++
Strength
Item Ref.
Several results reflect the applicant’s focus on customer satisfaction and loyalty. The number of
products per household (a key reflection of customer engagement and progress toward gaining a
dominant “share of the wallet”) has increased 25% since 1995 (7.2a[2]). In addition, from 2009 through
a(2)
Opportunities for Improvement
—
Opportunity for Improvement
Item Ref.
The applicant’s results do not yet reflect the impact of its response to customer satisfaction declines
after the Widmark acquisition. Overall satisfaction levels declined in the second half of 2010 (Figures
Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 21
Comparative data are not provided for several customer-focused performance results, such as Overall
Satisfaction by Customer Groups/Divisions (Figure 7.2-2), Satisfaction with Problem Resolution by
7.3 Workforce-Focused Outcomes
Strengths
++
Strength
Item Ref.
Results for workforce climate and workforce satisfaction demonstrate favorable comparisons. For the
periods shown, the OSHA Total Recordable Rate (TRR; Figure 7.3-8), the number of workers’
compensation claims (Figure 7.3-9), and associates’ satisfaction with workplace security (Figure 7.3-10)
outperform the comparison or benchmark given. Absenteeism (Figure 7.3-7) is consistently less than
half the industry average.
a(2), (3)
Opportunities for Improvement
—
Opportunity for Improvement
Item Ref.
The applicant provides limited results for workforce capability, capacity, or development— areas
that may impact its emerging core competency of mergers and acquisitions. For example, reported
results do not indicate the effectiveness of workforce development approaches in addressing
Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 22
Workforce-focused outcomes include no segmented data to address the diversity of the applicant’s
workforce (Figure P.1-2a) and limited data on its identified workforce groups (Figure P.1-2b). For
7.4 Leadership and Governance Outcomes
Strengths
++
Strength
Item Ref.
Several results for societal responsibilities and support of key communities show sustained beneficial
trends. For example, over the past five years, volunteers hours (Figure 7.4-9) more than doubled,
currently greatly exceeding the top 10% benchmark, and charitable contributions (Figure 7.4-10)
increased significantly. Other examples are environmental performance results (Figure 7.4-11) and
online banking (Figure 7.4-12).
a(5)
Results for several indicators of ethical behavior and stakeholder trust in senior leadership may indicate
Opportunities for Improvement
—
Opportunity for Improvement
Item Ref.
X
Limited results are provided for senior leaders’ communication and engagement with the workforce.
Results for encouragement of two-way communication (Figure 7.4-2) include only attendance
measures, and no results are provided for PMDP deployment, Trust Team involvement, rounding, job
shadowing, or associates receiving health benefits for community service.
a(1)
Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 23
Leadership and governance outcomes include no segmented data and limited comparative
data. For example, comparisons are not provided for regulatory and legal compliance (Figure
7.5 Financial and Market Outcomes
Strengths
++
Strength
Item Ref.
Several results Illustrate the applicant’s ability to sustain its earnings performance relative to the
industry. Overall Return on Equity ROE (Figure 7.5-1) exceeded the top-quartile comparisons during
In market share, the applicant outperforms regional and equals best-in-class comparisons. Market
share of assets and by loans (Figures 7.5-7 and 7.5-8) has exceeded the top-quartile regional
comparisons since 2007 and, helped considerably by the Widmark acquisition, recently increased to
a(2)
Opportunities for Improvement
—
Opportunity for Improvement
Item Ref.
Several financial results demonstrate adverse trends that reflect the economic crisis and the
Widmark acquisition. The Liquidity Ratio (Figure 7.5-3) has been declining since 2005, with
2010 levels at the Lower Control Limit (LCL) and recent performance below the top-quartile
CAB comparison. The Nonperforming Asset Ratio (Figure 7.5-4) has followed a similar
adverse trend, surpassing the Upper Control Limit (UCL) in 2010.
a(1)
Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 24
Most market outcomes are not segmented. For example, no data are provided for the market segments
1. After carefully analyzing the measures used in tracking their performance results in comparison with
their vital organizational factors and strategic challenges, some gaps in their performance measurement
system may be identified.
For example, an OFI under Category 7.1, Product and Process Outcomes, shows a lack of segmentation.
As stated: Product and process outcomes include limited segmented data. For example, results for
Breaches in Data Security, Convenience through Extended Hours, and Teller Wait Time (Figures 7.1-1
through 7.1-3) are not segmented by location, and those for Satisfaction with Advocacy (Figure 7.1-8)
are not segmented by customer group.
In Category 7.2, Customer-Focused Outcomes, it is observed: Comparative data are not provided for
In Category 7.4, Workforce-Focused Outcomes another gap was found: Leadership and governance
outcomes include no segmented data and limited comparative data. For example, comparisons are not
provided for regulatory and legal compliance (Figure 7.4-5), legal and ethical behavior (Figure 7.4-7),
environmental performance (Figure 7.4-11), or charitable contributions (Figure 7.4-10). These gaps
Measurement and Knowledge Management for Performance Excellence 25
Strategy and Performance Excellence 26
III. TRIVIEW BANK: MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS, AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
The complete TriView Bank case study, a fictitious example of a Baldrige application, can be found in the
Baldrige Materials folder on the Student Companion Site.
27
4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance
Strengths
++
Strength
Item Ref.
In support of growth and sustainability, the scorecard-based Performance Measurement System links
metrics to strategic and action planning (Figures 2.1-1 and 2.2-1) and the Enterprise Process Model
(EPM; Figure 6.1-2). The EMC identifies measures critical to “running the business” (Figure 4.1-1), and
Integration of data sources supports and enhances the TNBSC (Figure 4.1–2), the primary
resource for operational and strategic performance. To support operational and strategic decision
making, the applicant identifies and selects comparative data in the MSP (Figure
4.1-1). The EMC, Trust Teams, process teams, and departments determine benchmarks that
a(2)
By optimizing the use of performance projections, the applicant supports its core competency of agility.
The applicant projects performance using performance review findings, comparative and competitive
data, and extrapolated historical trends. The three alternate risk scenarios
c(2)
Opportunities for Improvement
—
Opportunity for Improvement
Item Ref.
It is not evident how the applicant systematically translates the results of supplemental reviews of key
data, such as SMARTER custom reports and reviews of performance measures by the EMC, into
learnings to enhance performance and ensure responsiveness. It also is unclear how results from these
analyses are used to enhance its ability to respond to challenges in the internal (e.g., Widmark
acquisition) and external environments.
b
It is not clear how the applicant systematically uses, leverages, and deploys findings from mechanisms
for sharing lessons learned and best practices (e.g., the intranet, morning office huddles) to all
Performance Measurement and Strategic Information Management 28
4.2 Management of Information, Knowledge, and Information Technology
Strengths
++
Strength
Item
Ref.
Through multiple approaches deployed to all associates (Figure 4.2-1), the applicant addresses key
properties of its data, information, hardware, and software, including key stakeholder requirements for
security, accuracy, timeliness, and responsiveness. Data protocols include specialized training for
associates, established tolerance levels, and quarterly audits of back-up processes, while hardware and
software approaches include redundant systems and help-desk availability for associates and customers.
a(1),
b(1)
The applicant’s multiple methods to make data and information readily available enable it to deal honestly
and transparently with all stakeholders. Approaches include the intranet for associates,
a(2)
Opportunities for Improvement
—
Opportunity for Improvement
Item Ref.
There is limited evidence of evaluation and refinement of processes for managing data, information,
and knowledge. For example, it is unclear how the applicant systematically reviews and refines the
methods delineated in Figure 4.2-1 to ensure data and system validation or how it evaluates the
effectiveness of transferring knowledge and information to associates via computer messaging and
quarterly strategic plan updates.
a(1, 3),
b(1)
Performance Measurement and Strategic Information Management 29
3. a. Specific advice for Category 4.1, that might help TriView Bank, would include:
• the need to develop an approach to systematically translate the results of supplemental reviews of key
data, such as SMARTER custom reports and reviews of performance measures by the EMC, into
learnings to enhance performance and ensure responsiveness. It should be made clear how results
from these analyses are used to enhance its ability to respond to challenges in the internal (e.g.,
Widmark acquisition) and external environments.
3. b. Specific advice for Category 4.2, that might help TriView, would include:
• need to develop a process of evaluation and refinement of processes for managing data, information,
and knowledge. For example, a systematic process for review and refinement of the methods
delineated in Figure 4.2–1 is needed to ensure data and system validation or evaluation of the
effectiveness of transferring knowledge and information to associates via computer messaging and
quarterly strategic plan updates takes place.
INSTRUCTOR RESERVE
None for this chapter.