View Free Sample Policies & Procedures
View free policies procedures examples from all manuals. No obligation, no credit card!
It was recently announced by the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) that the Baldrige National Quality Program shall henceforth be known as the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. NIST, which administers the Baldrige Program, has decided not to rename the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, or MBNQA, for now.)
What’s the significance of the name change? What’s the difference, if any, between “quality” and “performance excellence”?
There are several interpretations of the term “performance excellence” posted on LinkedIn. Compare these with what Winder and Judd said about “quality” a few years back in the Quality Digest magazine. There’s an entertaining article on defining performance excellence that ACCA (the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) published a little over a year ago.
Perhaps more importantly, there’s NIST’s explanation for the name change. They express the belief that the definition of “quality” has changed over the last couple of decades. It appears the term “performance excellence” suggests a more holistic approach than does “quality”. (And maybe NIST just thought it was time to freshen up the award, to bring it back into the business world’s consciousness.)
What do you think? Is there any substance to NIST’s argument? Which term — quality or performance excellence — means more to your organization? And is the Baldrige program more useful than, say, ISO 9001?
to me performance excellence consist (pe) of several stages , say pe level 1 or level pe 3 , or 6 . being level 1 or 3 or 6 etc showing the quality of performance excellence. If we back to mbcfpe is showing clearly . that the stage of the quality of performance excellence is showing with the score.
Quality became a ‘yoke of stone’ that pulled business down when many quality initiatives were first implemented. Performance first, Operational Excellence second, and consistency with the things that matter third, plus the freedom to let systemic input and less significant actions occur puts quality in the right perspective.
Processes that went down to the step-by-step minutiae that drove people crazy, and reviews that pulled managers through ‘broken glass’ served only to devalue the benefits of sound value-stream mapping. Likewise, 6-sigma programs that squandered human capital, and created bloated bureaucracies have been slashed by recent economic realities, while effective management of 6-sigma initiatives that impact the customer have the ability to be transforming.
So the change to Performance is appropriate if quality can blend with operations, instead of being intrusive. In hind-sight it seems so obvious.
Consider the transition in automobiles from the 60’s to the 70’s when muscle cars gave way to mandated environmental regulation, the cars became sub-standard transportation that almost no one wanted, but the air began to clear. A decade or two later, better formulations of gasoline ‘nudged the ball’ towards the environment’s favor, and engineering excellence gave us engines that used fuel efficiently and gave us back performance, without the mandated, performance hogging, environmental add-ons. Further, reduced weight and aerodynamics have led the way to newer light-weight materials and designs that slice through the air, and appeal to the senses. This is the example of quality blending with operations to create Performance Excellence.
Quality seems more important. If a company spends a lot of money and time making products that are faulty or fail sooner than alternatives, then they tend to lose in the long run.
It seems like a waste of resources, too, which is of concern to those who value the finite world we live on.