Malcolm Baldrige

Baldrige National Quality Program
2007
The Baldrige Award Roadmap to Performance Excellence

Overview for the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission
Bangkok, Thailand, 16 October 2007
Dr. Luis Maria R. Calingo Fulbright Senior Specialist, Chulalongkorn University
2007
Outline of Lecture
Overview of the Baldrige National Quality Program History of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria for Performance Excellence Core Values and Concepts Criteria Categories and Items Evaluation System Open Forum
2007
Part 1 Overview of the Baldrige National Quality Program
2007
What Is the Baldrige National Quality Program?

A unit of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce Manages the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Operates as a public-private partnership Disseminates information Provides global leadership in promoting performance excellence
2007
What Is Performance Excellence?

An integrated approach to organizational performance management that results in: delivery of ever-improving value to customers and stakeholders, contributing to organizational sustainability; improvement of overall organizational effectiveness and capabilities; organizational and personal learning.
2007
What Is the History of the Program?

The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987, Public Law 100-107 Created Award program to: identify/recognize role model businesses establish criteria for evaluating improvement efforts disseminate/share best practices Expanded to health care and education (1998) Expanded to not-for-profit sector (2005)
2007
Who Can Apply for the Baldrige Award?

Since 1988 Manufacturing Service Small business (manufacturing or service) Added in 1998 Education Health care Added in 2007 Not-for-profits, including government agencies
2007
Program Participants
67 Award recipients (71 Awards) 1,139 Baldrige Award applications More than 4,400 trained Examiners Widespread participation Private sector contributions provide over 90% of Program support
2007
Award Recipients Contributions

Increase competitiveness of U.S. organizations Give presentations to all sectors Give presentations at The Quest for Excellence and the regional conferences Influence customers/suppliers Host seminars and workshops Write articles
2007
Award Recipients Results

The 2006 Award recipients report dramatic results from their investment in performance excellence.
2007
Premier Inc.
2007
MESA Products, Inc.
2007
North Mississippi Medical Center
2007
Some Baldrige Award Recipients in Manufacturing (26)

3M Dental Products Division (1997) AT&T Transmission Systems Business Unit (1992) Boeing Airlift & Tanker Programs (1998) Clarke American Checks, Inc. (2001) Milliken & Company (1989) Motorola CGISS (2002) Motorola, Inc. (1988) Solar Turbines Inc. (1998) Solectron Corporation (1991 and 1997) Texas Instruments Defense Systems & Electronics Group (1992) Westinghouse Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division (1988) Xerox Business Products & Systems (1989)
2007
Business Award Recipients in Service (15)

AT&T Consumer Communications Services (1994) AT&T Universal Card Services (1992) BI (1999) Boeing Aerospace Support (2003) Caterpillar Financial Services U.S. (2003) Dana Commercial Credit Corporation (1996) DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations (2005) Federal Express Corporation (1990) GTE Directories Corporation (1994) Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation (1997) Operations Management International, Inc. (2000) Premier Inc. (2006) The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC (1992 and 1999) Xerox Business Services (1997)
2007
Business Award Recipients in Small Business (17)

Ames Rubber Corporation (1993) Branch-Smith Printing Division (2002) Custom Research Inc. (1996) Globe Metallurgical Inc. (1988) Granite Rock Company (1992) Los Alamos National Bank (2000) Marlow Industries, Inc. (1991) MESA Products, Inc. (2006) Pals Sudden Service (2001) Park Place Lexus (2005) Stoner, Inc. (2003) Sunny Fresh Foods (1999) Texas Nameplate Co., Inc. (1998 & 2004) Trident Precision Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) Wainwright Industries, Inc. (1994) Wallace Co., Inc. (1990)
2007
Baldrige Award Recipients in Education (7) and Health Care (6)

Chugach School District (2001) Community Consolidated School District 15 (2003) Jenks Public Schools (2005) Kenneth W. Monfort College of Business (2004) Pearl River School District (2001) Richland College (2005) University of Wisconsin Stout (2001) Baptist Hospital, Inc. (2003) Bronson Methodist Hospital (2005) North Mississippi Medical Center (2006) Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Hamilton (2004) Saint Lukes Hospital of Kansas City (2003) SSM Health Care (2002)
2007
In Summary, What Has the Baldrige Program Achieved?

Created a national and international standard Produced role models Generated award programs Raised the competitiveness of American industry Established outreach and education systems
2007
Asia Pacific National Quality and Business Excellence Awards
2007
Part 2 History of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
2007
Origin of Baldrige National Quality Program

The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987, Public Law 100107 Operates as a public-private partnership Manages the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Provides global leadership in promoting performance excellence Disseminates information
2007
Findings Cited in the Enabling Legislation

U.S. product and process leadership challenged by foreign competition Nations productivity growth improved less than competitors over last 20 years. Strategic planning for quality and commitment to excellence are essential to economy and ability to effectively compete in global marketplace.
2007
Further Findings
Fundamental Change may be necessary. Management led quality programs Focus on the customer Worker involvement in quality Improved management understanding of factory floor Greater emphasis on statistical process control to reduce variation in outputs
2007
What is the Purpose of the Baldrige Program?

The award program was created to: establish criteria for evaluating improvement efforts objectively identify role model organizations recognize role model organizations disseminate/share best practices through feedback and conferences
2007
Who Are the Baldrige Partners?

Department of Department of Commerce Commerce ____________
Technology Technology Administration Administration Board of Board of Overseers Overseers
Foundation Foundation for the for the Malcolm Baldrige Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award National Quality Award
Baldrige Baldrige Award Award Recipients Recipients
National National Institute of Institute of Standards and Standards and Technology Technology
Cooperating Organizations Cooperating Organizations

Alliance for Performance Excellence Alliance for Performance Excellence Professional Societies Professional Societies Trade Associations Trade Associations State and Local Programs State and Local Programs
Contractor Contractor ASQ ASQ
Board of Examiners Board of Examiners Judges Judges Senior Examiners Senior Examiners Examiners Examiners
2007
Partners Government
United States Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology (responsibilities include product standards, laboratory research, and U.S. standard time) Baldrige National Quality Program
2007
Partners Contracted
American Society for Quality (ASQ) Law requires Director to be assisted in duties by not-for-profit leading quality organization under contract with NIST Manages application materials Manages logistics for volunteers (Examiners and Judges) Manages expense reimbursement
2007
Partners Private
Foundation for the MB National Quality Award Law allows private funds in support Board from prominent organizations Raises funds to endow (~$20mm) Pays for nongovernmental expenses
* Award ceremony * Examiner expense * K-12 site visit cost * Criteria printing * Award administration * Subsidies for SME
2007
Partners Volunteer
Board of Overseers Law requires advisory panel . Leaders in American organizations Meets at least annually (now two times) Reviews the work of contractors Suggests improvements to process Makes report to NIST Director each year
2007
Partners Volunteer
Board of Examiners Law requires Board of Examiners. NIST Director relies on intensive review by Examiners to applicant organizations. Verify accuracy through site visit review. Encompass all aspects of quality improvements and provision for future goals Provides applicant feedback for review by Panel of Judges
2007
Partners Volunteers
Panel of Judges Not named in the law Effectively highest-level Examiners Leaders in quality management field Determines cut-points for advancement Reviews site visit reports of Examiners Recommends role-model recipients to Director of NIST
2007
Partners Recipients
Baldrige Award Recipients Law requests specific guidance to help other organizations with detailed information about how winners changed cultures and achieved success. Publish application summary (nonproprietary information, no trade secrets). Share at Quest for Excellence and other venues where invited.
2007
Other Partners
Cooperating Organizations State and Local Programs Mirror programs with same criteria Flexible achievement levels Alliance for Performance Excellence Idea sharing among state award bodies Trade associations Professional societies (ASQ)
2007
Program Origin
President Reagan 1982-84 Task Force on Productivity suggests a government award without result. Afterward: American Productivity and Quality Center wants award. Florida Power and Light benchmarks Deming award winner Kensai Electric. Xerox finds less defects in Japan unit. Motorola focuses on structured approach.
2007
Program Origin
Legislation put together in 1986 National Science Foundation to manage NIST was not involved. NIST was interested in taking on role because quality movement has been driven by measurement. NIST Director Ray Kammer arranges for NIST to have lead in quality award effort.
2007
Program Origin
Legislation reintroduced spring 1987 Not going anywhere when Secretary of Commerce was assigned primary responsibility. Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige killed on July 25, 1987. Naming award for him adds clout. Going to pass legislation and fast! Desire for President Reagan to give award in 1988
2007
Program Origin
Legislation was passed but not funded. Dr. Curt Reimann (NIST quality guru) highest rank available, so given charge Reimann team goes 24/7 consulting many people 10-12 hours/day Dr. Reimann concurrently begins process of lining up examiners and creating award criteria Key meeting on December 11, 1987 of 30 industry invitees
2007
Program Requirements
Review structure based on measurement Independent review at multiple levels Initially 3 Examiners per team, but increased due to variability among Examiners Need consensus process led by Senior Examiners Law called for site visits, but not all needed site visits June 1988 practice run with Dana Corp. letting itself be guinea pig
2007
Dr. Curt Reimanns Concerns

Difficulty in preventing conflicts of interest Variation among Examiners in assessing applicant organizations The field did not have a knowledge structure. [Dr. Reimann described the Criteria as the knowledge structure.] The quality field had divergent viewpoints with strong personalities.
2007
Examples of Early Opinions

Quality gurus Joseph Juran and Armand Feigenbaum positive but not pushy both served on Board of Overseers Quality gurus W. Edwards Deming and Phil Crosby less supportive Business schools not interested in topic, despite Xeroxs forums for them The Conference Board had great network and was early sponsor of regional Quests for Excellence. ASQ and APQC involved early
2007
1988 Criteria Emphasis

How customer needs and quality function integrated with corporate planning and execution How leaders effect this Not the broad business as a system
2007
1988 Criteria Categories

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Leadership 150 pts. Information and Analysis 75 pts. Strategic Quality Planning 75 pts. Human Resource Planning 150 pts. Quality Assurance of Products and Services 150 pts. 6. Results from Quality Assurance of Products and Services 100 pts. 7. Customer Satisfaction 300 pts.
2007
1988 Initial Criteria

Stated Scoring Criteria built into 42 items much like multiple requirements no matrix for scoring item or overall bands Some trends in results expected within Category responses such as absenteeism or training rates No specific request for financial results or organizational strategic plans
2007
1988 Initial Application

Unformatted Abstract of the application highlighting important quality achievements and indicators of customer satisfaction, which predates 1989 Business Overview Limit of 75 pages plus multiple supplements per major quality system or product line up to 50 pages each Small business must have 25 employees and limited to 50 pages (no supplements)
2007
1988 Application Review

Application fee $1500 plus $1000 per supplement Unspecified site visit fee to cover expenses Early process had Examiners at Stage 1 (Independent Review) score only 13 key items comprising 510 of the 1000 points.
2007
Criteria Evolution
1988: 42 Items 2007: 18 Items 1988: Manufacturing Model 2007: Organizational Systems Model The Criteria Should Always Reflect the Leading Edge of Validated Management Practice. Arnold Weimerskirch
VP Corporate Quality, Honeywell Chair, Panel of Judges 1993-1994
2007
2001 Economic Impact Study

(www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report01-3.pdf)
The conservative estimate of the present value (in constant 2000 dollars) of social benefits associated with the Baldrige National Quality Program is $24.65 billion.. . .from an evaluation perspective for the economy as a whole, the benefit-to-cost ratio characterizing the Baldrige National Quality Program is conservatively 207-to-1.
Economic Evaluation of Baldrige, September 2001 Albert N. Link, UNC and John T. Scott, Dartmouth
2007
Number of Printed Criteria Distributed Baldrige National 1988-2006

250,000 200,000 150,000
HC
100,000 50,000 0
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Educ Bus
2007
Number of State, Regional, and Local Criteria Distributed, 1991-2005

90,000 81786 80,000 70765 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30500 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 24976 58565 48449 40866 35542 43294 65029 78490 70428 65463 84886
4625
This total does not include the number of Criteria distributed through the Internet . Data for any given year may not be complete. 2005 figures reflect data reported by 43 out of 45 state, regional, and local quality award programs.
2007
Part 3 Criteria for Performance Excellence
2007
The Criteria for Performance Excellence Core Values

A set of beliefs and behaviors found in high performing organizations which are embedded into the Criteria. They include:
Visionary Leadership Customer Driven Excellence Organizational and Personal Learning Valuing Employees and Partners Agility
Focus on the Future Managing by Innovation Management by Fact Social Responsibility Focus on Results and Creating Value Systems Perspective
2007
The Criteria for Performance Excellence
2007
The Criteria for Performance Excellence

Are the foundation of the Baldrige National Quality Program Define performance excellence Are globally recognized Can be used by diverse organizations
2007
CriteriaKey Characteristics
Focus on results Are nonprescriptive and adaptable Support a systems perspective Support goal-based diagnosis
2007
Category Point Values

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Leadership 120 Strategic Planning 85 Customer and Market Focus 85 Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management 90 Workforce Focus 85 Process Management 85 Results 450 TOTAL POINTS 1,000
2007
1. Leadership (120 pts.)

Addresses Senior Leaders Roles, Governance, and Citizenship 1.1 Senior Leadership (70 points) 1.2 Governance and Social Responsibilities (50)
2007
2. Strategic Planning (85 pts.)

Addresses Strategic and Action Planning and Deployment of Plans 2.1 Strategy Development (40 pts.) 2.2 Strategy Deployment (45 pts.)
2007
3. Customer and Market Focus (85 pts.)

Addresses How an Organization Seeks Knowledge, Satisfaction, and Loyalty of Customers 3.1 Customer and Market Knowledge (40 pts.) 3.2 Customer Relationships and Satisfaction (45)
2007
4. Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management (90 pts.)

Addresses Analysis, Review, and Improvement of Organizational Performance and Management of Data, Knowledge, and Information Resources 4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance (45 pts.) 4.2 Management of Information, Information Technology, and Knowledge (45 pts.)
2007
5. Workforce Focus (85 pts.)

Addresses How an Organization Engages, Develops, and Manages Its Workforce and Builds an Effective Workforce Environment 5.1 Workforce Engagement (45 pts.) 5.2 Workforce Environment (40 pts.)
2007
6. Process Management (85 pts.)

Addresses How an Organization Designs Its Work Systems, Prepares for Emergencies, and Manages and Improves Its Work Processes 6.1 Work Systems Design (35 pts.) 6.2 Work Process Management and Improvement (50 pts.)
2007
7. Results (450 pts.)

Addresses an Organizations Performance and Improvement in Key Areas and Includes Current Performance Levels, Trends, and Comparative Data 7.1 Product and Service Outcomes (100 pts.) 7.2 Customer-Focused Outcomes (70 pts.) 7.3 Financial and Market Outcomes (70 pts.) 7.4 Workforce-Focused Outcomes (70 pts.) 7.5 Process Effectiveness Outcomes (70 pts.) 7.6 Leadership Outcomes (70 pts.)
2007
The Scoring System

Scoring Guidelines Importance to the applicants organization Two dimensions Process Results
2007
How are Process Items Evaluated?

Approach (A) Deployment (D) Learning (L) Integration (I)
2007
Approach
Approach refers to:
Appropriateness of methods Do they fit the organizations circumstances, as described in the Organizational Profile? Effectiveness of the methods Do they work, or will we have measurements to demonstrate that they work? The degree to which the approach is repeatable and based on reliable data and information Are they orderly, repeatable, and data-based?
2007
Item 3.1 Approach
2007
Park Place Lexus - Approach

3.1a(2) Determine needs of customers Lexus is our primary source of formal information about clients and their needs and expectations. They utilize the Gallup CE11 survey based on a scientific model of factors that provide the greatest influence on clients purchasing behavior. Our Listening and Learning process shown in Figure 3.1A was designed to formalize our activities in receiving input from clientsThis process begins with providing a variety of access points to collect feedback from our various customer segments as shown in Figure 3.1BAs new features, such as upgraded technology in vehicles, service offerings and new financing options are added to our products, the Listening and Learning process is used to collect feedback on these new features
2007
Deployment
Deployment refers to the extent to which: the approach applied in addressing the Item requirements is relevant and important to the organization the approach is applied consistently This includes whether the Item collects and uses all data and information elements that the Criteria require for the Item. the approach is used by all appropriate work units Implemented in all applicable products, services, processes, locations, segments, etc.
2007
Park Place Lexus Deployment

3.1a(2) Determine needs of customers
We validate the results of the Lexus survey for our specific clients and ensure that we get information from former, current, and potential clients about how we run our businessFocus groups...are conducted to help us understand the impressions that clients have of our dealerships, products, and servicesWe ensure that these groups contain former, existing, and potential clients
2007
Learning
Learning refers to:
Refining the approach through cycles of evaluation and improvement Evidence of PDCA cycle, resulting in incremental improvements Encouraging breakthrough change to the approach through innovation Breakthrough improvements Sharing refinements and innovations with other work units and processes in your organization Knowledge management system in place
2007
Park Place Lexus Learning

Keeping listening and learning current Our Listening and Learning process includes a step to evaluate its own effectiveness. We use this evaluation step each month to ensure we continue to use the most effective approaches to listen to our clients.
2007
Integration
Integration refers to the extent to which:
The approach is aligned with the organizational needs identified in the Organizational Profile Measures, information, and improvement systems are complementary across processes and work units Plans, processes, results, analyses, learning, and actions, are harmonized across processes and work units to support organization-wide goals.
2007
Alignment
Consistency of plans, processes, information, resource decisions, actions, results, and analysis supporting key organization-wide goals.
2007
Scoring System and Guidelines

Each category and item is assigned a maximum point value. Scoring Guidelines describe percentage ranges of the point value based on the Evaluation Factors. The Examiner selects a scoring range that is most descriptive of the organizations achievement level for each Item. Within the range, the Examiner will assign the appropriate score.
2007
Scoring Guidelines
Process items are evaluated using four factors: A-D-L-I. Assessed to make determinations regarding the effectiveness and maturity of the processes Scoring ranges provide gradations of maturity for an applicant's processes.
2007
How Should We Report Results?

Expected Results Appropriate Comparisons Important Segmentation
2007
Expected Results
Responses to Process Criteria Questions (Categories 1-6) should provide: Process outputs and outcomes Performance measures used to manage and improve processes Key Product and Service Descriptions (Item 3.1) should provide: features important to customers
2007
Item 7.2 Expected Results
2007
Park Place Lexus Expected Results
2007
Park Place Lexus Expected Results
2007
Expected Results Park Lexus
2007
Item 7.6 Expected Results
2007
Appropriate Comparisons
Performance is examined relative to competitors and/or other organizations providing similar products and services. Include appropriate comparative data Being at national average is not good enough.
2007
Appropriate Comparisons
2007
DynMcDermott Appropriate Comparisons
2007
Important Segmentation
Segment your results . . .
2007
DynMcDermott Important Segmentation
2007
How are Data Evaluated?

Importance Performance Level/Relative Performance Rate of Improvement (Trend) Coverage
2007
How are Results Items Scored?
2007
Bronson Methodist Hospital Reporting Levels
2007
Bronson Methodist Hospital Reporting Comparisons
2007
Bronson Methodist Hospital Reporting Trends
2007
Bronson Methodist Hospital Appropriate Horizon for Trends
2007
Richland College Favorable Levels But No Trends
2007
Favorable Trends But No Comparisons
2007
1995 Average Category Scores

70 Percent Score 60 50 40 30 20
t s nt on en ult cti me s e fa em d Re t is An ag P ag ea a n n L & ce ic Ma an &S Ma eg on ti & at rm ss us nt ma Str rfo ce oc or F me Pe Pro Inf er op l ve tom us De C HR h ers ip is lys a g nin la n
Service Health Care Education
Categories
2007
2006 Average Category Scores

70
60
Percent Score
50
40
30
t s en cu ng s m nd ni s Fo er cu an ,a ge l e o d a is P c a F an ic ur lys ent et Le g k o a M ar a te es An gem ss M tr , a R t S d ce en an ro an an P r em M um me ur dge H s to ea wle us M o C Kn Categories
hip
l ts su e
Service Health Care

Education
Nonprofit
2007
How Can I Learn More About the Baldrige Program?

Visit the Web site at www.baldrige.nist.gov Contact the Secretariat of the Thailand Quality Award. Attend a Thailand Quality Award Winners Conference. Become an Assessor for the Thailand Quality Award.
2007
How Can I Learn More About Self-Assessment Tools?

Easy Insight (online tool) Getting Started brochure Why Apply? brochure Are We Making Progress? questionnaire Are We Making Progress as Leaders? questionnaire Criteria for Performance Excellence
2007
Breaking Barriers
May 6, 1954 Dr. Roger Bannister broke the thenimpossible four-minute-mile barrier (03:59.6). Within a year, at least 30 other runners broke the barrier.
2007
The Main Thing
August 7, 1954 Roger Bannister vs. John Landy
2007
About the Resource Person

Founding Dean, School of Business and Leadership, Dominican University of California, USA Previously Business Dean at John Carroll University (Ohio) and California State University at Long Beach, 2000-2007 Examiner, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, 1997present Developer and Instructor, ASQ Baldrige Award SelfAssessment Training for Education, 1998-2003 APO Technical Expert National Quality and Business Excellence Awards (since 1996) Indonesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam Infusion of Quality Management in Higher Education (since 1995) Philippines and Thailand MBA, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh, 1981, 1984; BSIE, MURP, University of the Philippines, 1971, 1976

Malcolm Baldrige

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malcolm Baldrige

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baldrige National Quality Program

The Baldrige Award Roadmap to Performance Excellence

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Part 1 Overview of the Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

What Is the Baldrige National Quality Program?

Baldrige National Quality Program

What Is Performance Excellence?

Baldrige National Quality Program

What Is the History of the Program?

Baldrige National Quality Program

Who Can Apply for the Baldrige Award?

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Award Recipients Contributions

Baldrige National Quality Program

Award Recipients Results

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

MESA Products, Inc.

Baldrige National Quality Program

North Mississippi Medical Center

Baldrige National Quality Program

Some Baldrige Award Recipients in Manufacturing (26)

Baldrige National Quality Program

Business Award Recipients in Service (15)

Baldrige National Quality Program

Business Award Recipients in Small Business (17)

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige Award Recipients in Education (7) and Health Care (6)

Baldrige National Quality Program

In Summary, What Has the Baldrige Program Achieved?

Baldrige National Quality Program

Asia Pacific National Quality and Business Excellence Awards

Baldrige National Quality Program

Part 2 History of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

Baldrige National Quality Program

Origin of Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Findings Cited in the Enabling Legislation

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

What is the Purpose of the Baldrige Program?

Baldrige National Quality Program

Who Are the Baldrige Partners?

Baldrige Baldrige Award Award Recipients Recipients

Cooperating Organizations Cooperating Organizations

Contractor Contractor ASQ ASQ

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program

Baldrige National Quality Program