A colleague at work raised an interesting concept. If the Quality Team talks the talk of quality, then it should walk the walk. I can buy into that all day long. Her challenge was that it we monitor the organization with its Quality Management Implementation, and we monitor specific indicators for quality and customer satisfaction, then it is appropriate for the Quality Team do to the same for its own department. The Quality Team should develop its own internal Balanced Scorecard. Now that seems like an interesting idea but with certain challenges.
At CMPT we have a Scorecard metric that we publish each year in our CMPT Annual Report (visit www.cmpt.ca). In essence we monitor numbers of compliments, complaints, contracts, and consultations and presentations. Each is gathered and weighted (lost contracts and complaints weigh much heavier than new or retained contracts and complements) and summed and then put to the assessment score. See the figure.
Malcolm Baldrige may not consider this a perfect Balanced Scorecard, but it works for us.
But to get back to the notion that a division within a company should monitor its own scorecard is appealing because it reminds us that our customers, are the users of our services, and we need to be able to indicate to them that we are doing what we say and say what we are doing. So the question is not should we monitor, but which components should we incorporate and follow.
Again, more on this topic later.
An organization's business goals, quality objectives and quality policy are all interrelated and must work in synergy to achieve overall business improvement. While many organizations believe in quality and have adopted quality management systems (QMS) one of the dilemmas faced is the absence of market-oriented checks. It is worthwhile to devote considerable attention in developing tangible measurements. Anthony & Young (2003) emphasize program evaluation focuses on recommendations to expand, contract, redirect, or discontinue a program in contrast to operational analysis that examines processes by assessing their efficiency and effectiveness. Schacter (2002) declares there are three basis steps to developing a performance framework model for program evaluation. The steps for a Quality Program include: dissection of a program to understand it completely providing a detailed analysis of what goals the program aims to achieve, the objectives in place to achieve those goals and the aligned strategies to meet the goals. The technical aspect of the second step is to develop a logic model that makes up the practice of performance evaluation by evaluating inputs, outputs, efficiency and outcomes. Lastly, judicious performance indicators are developed from the logic model that provides verification of accountability and are expressions of what is most important in a quality program to allow sustainability. Performance evaluation provides evidence towards the justification of a program’s eligibility to subsist amongst other competing programs.ReplyDelete
I believe it is a topic worth further dialogue…
More to come…