BALDRIGE SCORING SYSTEM

Baldrige Scoring Guidelines and other Scoring System Guides and Tools
The scoring of responses to Criteria Items (Items) and Award applicant feedback are based on two evaluation dimensions: (1) Process and (2) Results. Criteria users need to
furnish information relating to these dimensions. Specific factors for these dimensions are described below. Links to all Scoring Guidelines versions are provided on this page.

Process Scoring

Results Scoring

Process refers to the methods your organization uses and improves to address the
Item requirements in Categories 16. The four factors used to evaluate process are
Approach, Deployment, Learning, and Integration (ADLI).

Results refers to your organizations outputs and outcomes in achieving the

requirements in Items 7.17.6 (Category 7). The four factors used to evaluate results
are Levels, Trends, Comparisons, and Integration (LeTCI).

Approach refers to:

Levels refers to:

- your current level of performance

- the methods used to accomplish the process

- the appropriateness of the methods to the Item requirements and the organizations
operating environment
- the effectiveness of your use of the methods
- the degree to which the approach is repeatable and based on reliable data and
information (i.e., systematic)

Trends refers to
- the rate of your performance improvements or the sustainability of good performance
(i.e., the slope of trend data)
- the breadth (i.e., the extent of deployment) of your performance results

Deployment refers to the extent to which

- your approach is applied in addressing Item requirements relevant and important to
your organization
- your approach is applied consistently
- your approach is used (executed) by all appropriate work units
Learning refers to
- refining your approach through cycles of evaluation and improvement
- encouraging breakthrough change to your approach through innovation
- sharing refinements and innovations with other relevant work units and processes
in your organization
Integration refers to the extent to which

Comparisons refers to
- your performance relative to appropriate comparisons, such as competitors or
organizations similar to yours
- your performance relative to benchmarks or industry leaders
Integration refers to the extent to which
- your results measures (often through segmentation) address important customer,
product, market, process, and action plan performance requirements identified in
your Organizational Profile and in Process Items
- your results include valid indicators of future performance
- your results are harmonized across processes and work units to support
organization-wide goals

- your approach is aligned with your organizational needs identified in the

Organizational Profile and other Process Items
- your measures, information, and improvement systems are complementary across
processes and work units
- your plans, processes, results, analyses, learning, and actions are harmonized
across processes and work units to support organization-wide goals

open in browser PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

2012 Baldrige Scoring Guidelines

Previous Versions
Business

Health Care

Education

Process

Results

Process

Results

Process

Results

2009 - 2010
2008
2007
2006
2005

2009 - 2010
2008
2007
2006
2005

2009 - 2010
2008
2007
2006
2005

2009 - 2010
2008
2007
2006
2005

2009 - 2010
2008
2007
2006
2005

2009 - 2010
2008
2007
2006
2005

Has the Baldrige Award gone out of business?

For the first time in the 25 year history of the award, in 2013 there are no Baldrige business applicants
and Criteria degradation and impracticality are looking more and more like the primary causes

open in browser PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

To put this in perspective, not one of the 20 million for-profit businesses in the United States applied for the Baldrige Award this year.
Even worse, the number of applicants has declined 73% for Health Care and 80% for Education since 2010
Source: NIST Baldrige Website

2013 Baldrige Scoring Guidelines Improvements Needed

Reduce the total number of words in the Scoring Guidelines by more than half to make them more practical and effective. For
example, is anyone going to read the 400 words in the Results Scoring Guidelines and remember what they read each time they score? . . .
not everyone for sure. If the objective is to assess trends, comparisons, segmentation and whether the right results are being presented, there
is no need for more than 200 words.
Add a "Segmentation" scoring dimension to the Results Scoring Guidelines to reflect the popularity of this type of feedback comment
Delete the "Levels" scoring dimension from the Results Scoring Guidelines . . . it is redundant with the Comparisons dimension in that you
can't assign a score for Levels unless you have some relative basis for doing so . . . this is long overdue
Remove all reference to non-results (e.g., projections) from the Results Scoring Guidelines. The outcry when 'projections' were first
introduced was unanimous among the many users I encountered including judges . . . yet they still remain.
Remove the word "align" from the Scoring Guidelines and replace it with "integration" as appropriate.
open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

The terminology "Multiple Requirements", "Overall Requirements" and "Basic Requirements" are confusing to most users and
contributes to assessment variation. Guidance that the "requirements" don't really mean "requirements" doesn't help either. Advice to take a
holistic view and not hold applicants accountable to the "requirements" . . . well, you get the picture.
Results are quantitative by nature. So, why use judgmental terms (e.g., important, poor, good, good relative, very good, good to
excellent, excellent, or my personal long-time favorite early good)? They are not needed. They introduce variation into the assessment. Get
rid of them.
How is "fully deployed without significant gaps" different from "fully deployed with significant gaps" . . . one of several examples where the
Scoring Guidelines can be improved through more careful wording selection, simplification, and word count reduction. "Sustained over time" is
another.
Improve the coherency of the Results Scoring Guidelines language including the use of 'few, little, little to no, limited, limited or
no, some, many, many to most, most, majority, fully, or my personal favorite mainly. Examples: Is majority closer to many or is it
closer to most? Is 'majority' a simple majority? Is 'mainly' more or less than 'majority'? Is 'majority' between 'many' and 'many to most' or
between 'many to most' and 'most? How does 'many' relate to 'mainly'? . . . this act needs to be cleaned up folks.
Why does the "accomplishment of Mission" verbiage switch from the Trend scoring dimension to the Integration Scoring dimension in the
middle scoring range?
Eliminate confounded terminology. For example, how should the terms important, high priority, and key be used in scoring results?
For example, which of them is most important? Which should be given the highest priority? Are they all key terms? This variation in
terminology is unnecessary, confusing, and contributes to scoring variation if not error.
The Results Scoring Guidelines reference customers directly but not other key stakeholders such as workforce, suppliers, and
community.
Baldrige Results Scoring Guidelines Quiz
Q: Which American document has approximately 150 more words than the other? a) the Baldrige Results Scoring Guidelines or b) Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address"?
A: The Results Scoring Guidelines have 400 words. The Gettysburg Address has 256.
Q: Which of these three terms are not used to assess results? a) 'early good', b) 'on time good', or c) 'late good'
A: If you thought this was a trick question, unfortunately you're wrong. 'Early good' is used in the 0 to 5% scoring range. Silly me. I thought getting good results early would have
scored higher.
Q: Results are quantitative by nature. However qualitative and/or judgmental guideline terms are used to assess them in all scoring bands. Is this: TRUE? or FALSE?
A: TRUE. The judgmental terms "poor", "good", "good relative", "very good", "good to excellent", "excellent", and my personal favorite "early good" are used to assess the
quantitative results. For 2011, the terms "good for nothing", "good enough", and "too good to be true" will be added . . . not true. Also not true is that because some people do
not understand what "early good" means, "on-time good", and "late good" will also be added.
Q: "World class" was once part of the Results Scoring Guidelines: TRUE? or FALSE?

open in browser PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

A: TRUE. The early guidelines required winners to demonstrate 'world class' results to score in the highest scoring range.
Q: Which of the following terms are not used to assess the quantity of results? "no", "any", "few", "little", "little or no", "limited", "limited or no", "some", "some to many",
"mainly", "many", "many to most", "majority", "most to fully", or "fully"
A: Believe it or not, "some to many" and "most to fully" are not in the scoring guidelines. "Mainly"???
Q: Not one Examiner knows how to interpret the relative meaning of these results assessment terms: "important", "high priority", and "k ey". TRUE? or FALSE?
A: I don't know how many but I do know that there is at least one who has never been able to figure it out (LOL).

Baldrige improvement accelerated and made practical with tools and resources from the most experienced source
Criteria
made
Practical

Baldrige
Framework

Core Values

Scoring System

Feedback
Reports

All 44
Case Studies

Baldrige
Glossary

Tools:

Criteria
Templates

Winners
Applications

25th Baldrige
Anniversary
Special

Guides to
Improvement

Metrics Benchmarks

Best Systems &

Processes

Scoring
Guidelines

Core
Competencies:

One Stop
Services

Training,
Workshops

Seminars,
Speaking,
Presenting

Assessment Including No
Writing Option

Consulting

Site Visit
Preparation

Application
Development

Special Focus:

Baldrige
Model

Education

Health Care

Public Sector

Business Private Sector

Nonprofit

Baldrige
International

Baldrige Store:

All Things
Baldrige

Guide to a
Well-Written
Application

Site Visit
Preparation
Guide

Guide to
Effectively
Presenting
Results

All Guides
Bundle

Best Process
Models and
Implementation

Information
Capture and
Organization

Essentials:

Questions or feedback: Email: PaulSteel@Comcast.net

MISSION: Accelerating organizational improvement beyond the capabilities of all Business Excellence approaches combined. Paul

Special limited time offers:

Purchase the "Baldrige Guide to a Well-Written Application", "Baldrige Site Visit Preparation Guide", or the "Special 2-Guide Bundle" and
receive the "Guide to Effective Baldrige Results Presentation" and automatic chart generation software free
open in browser PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

Download special MS Word versions of the 2012 Baldrige Criteria in a more practical format approved by more than 20 national award programs

2012 Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence - basic versions

See the hundreds of Criteria requirements that have been deleted from the previous versions

Baldrige Scoring System

open in browser PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com