International Team Excellence Award: Criteria for Improving Performance, The

The Team pre-eminence Award Evaluation Criteria can be used by dint of virtually any team involved with an improvement throw Recent updates to this internationally accepted framework make it an plane better tool for guiding your teams' processe and improving their results

In the past 20 years, 746 teams from the United States and other countries from around the world have participated in the International Team transcendence Award competition. Countless other teams have used the evaluation criteria to guide their improvement efforts.

The proces of choosing the winning teams is directed through the International Team Excellence Award (ITEA) Committee, chaired by dint of Michael Levenhagen of Oshkosh traffic Corporation. The first step in the common program year's process involved an annual review of the evaluation criteria (see the sidebar, "2005-06 Proces Timeline").

The criteria consider four lock opener aspects of any improvement project: selection of the throw and delineation of its object analysis of the current situation, disentanglement of an action plan for change, and implementation of the change and reporting arises Additionally, a fifth criterion involves evaluation of the team's actual presentation to the panel of judges

Although these core areas provide a consistent framework for teams, the detailed evaluation points are not static. After the 2005 World discourse on Quality and Improvement in Seattle, WA, the ITEA Committee established the criteria review subcommittee consisting of Jim Bianchetta, Bianchetta Resources; Barry Bickley, Bank of America; solicit Miller, Dentsply Caulk; and Ray Emery Scitor Corporation.

The team exhausted several weeks sifting through numerous remind ofed criteria changes. The final revised criteria (see the side bar, "Evaluation Criteria 2005-06") contain a certain number of corrections (primarily formatting and punctuation changes), clarifications, and rearrangements, as well as additions and deletions.

Scoring Revisions

Two scoring approaches are used in the proces The justices work with a four-point scoring a whole which has ratings of "not covered" "unclear," "meet criteria," and "exceed criteria." Three points are available for the 27 items associated with criteria single three, and four. On the other hand, four and individual half points are available for criteria sum of two units and five. Although this previously was the case for criteria sum of two units it represents a change in the rating proces for criteria five, giving it a greater weight. Overall, this brings the total possible score to 126 points.

The four ratings are defined as tread in the steps ofs including the updated description for the "exceed criteria rating:"

* Not overspreaded - Totally missing (zero points).

* Unclear-Touched on but not clear (one point for items 1 3 and 4; l points for items 2 and 5)

* appropriates Criteria - Criteria are addressed (two points for items 1 3 and 4; three points for items 2 and S)

* transcends Criteria-The team's approach goes beyond meeting the criteria and provides additional clarity indicating increased accuracy in the team's analysis, actions, and/or conclusions. Integration with other criteria items is apparent and enhances the team's overall arises A best practice or part model approach. (Three points for items 1 3 and 4; 45 points for items 2 and 5)

The "exceed criteria" rating was revised to provide clearer guidelines to the two the teams and the justices This new narrative is designed to mirror the philosophy that to propel a score from "meets criteria" to "exceed criteria" the team emergencys to add depth and breadth to its explanation and exhibit integration with the remaining criteria.

Item Revisions

Criteria 1: throw out Selection and Purpose

Item "1C" deals with stakeholders and the emblem and degree of impact upon those stakeholders. This item now asks teams to dig a little deeper and share the proces used to identify their stakeholders; the teams are asked to explain by what mode stakeholders were determined instead of simply describing what stakeholders were selected

Criteria 2: general Situation Analysis

Item "2A. c" previously askinged that teams provide "examples of any other actions taken to identify possible bottom causes." Feedback from teams and justices indicated that this was redundant to item "2A. a." Additionally, the review committee realized that stakeholder input/involvement was included from one extremity to the other of the criteria but was not addressed in this bottom cause analysis step. Clarification is provided in the modified guidelines to indicate that stakeholder involvement may be by the agency of direct participation in the root-cause identification proces or by means of the team taking the stakeholders' interests into account during its analysis.

Criteria 3: Solution Development

In order to maintain consistency with the other criteria items that separated methods/tools from data analysis, item "3A. a" now addresses the [i]modus operandi[/i]s and tools used to unravel the solutions and item "3A. b" addresses the team's analysis of data.

The previous criteria for item "3C a" petitioned an explanation of the tools used to identify the solution(s), benefits of the solution(s), and ensues of the solution(s), but it did not entreaty a specific description of the team's solution(s). When teams strictly followed the criteria and didn't elaborate upon their solutions, the judges became confused; therefore, the criteria now specifies that the solution(s) be explained.