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