International Team Excellence Award: Criteria for Improving Performance, The

The Team Excellence Award Evaluation Criteria can be used by virtually any team involved with an improvement project. Recent updates to this internationally accepted framework make it an even better tool for guiding your teams' processes 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 Excellence Award competition. Countless other teams have used the evaluation criteria to guide their improvement efforts.

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

The criteria consider four key aspects of any improvement project: selection of the project and delineation of its purpose, analysis of the current situation, development of an action plan for change, and implementation of the change and reporting results. 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 Conference 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; Sue Miller, Dentsply Caulk; and Ray Emery, Scitor Corporation.

The team spent several weeks sifting through numerous suggested criteria changes. The final revised criteria (see the side bar, "Evaluation Criteria 2005-06") contain some corrections (primarily formatting and punctuation changes), clarifications, and rearrangements, as well as additions and deletions.

Scoring Revisions

Two scoring approaches are used in the process. The judges work with a four-point scoring system, which has ratings of "not covered," "unclear," "meets criteria," and "exceeds criteria." Three points are available for the 27 items associated with criteria one, three, and four. On the other hand, four and one half points are available for criteria two and five. Although this previously was the case for criteria two, it represents a change in the rating process for criteria five, giving it a greater weight. Overall, this brings the total possible score to 126 points.

The four ratings are defined as follows, including the updated description for the "exceeds criteria rating:"

* Not Covered - Totally missing (zero points).

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

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

* Exceeds 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 results. A best practice or role model approach. (Three points for items 1, 3, and 4; 4.5 points for items 2 and 5.)

The "exceeds criteria" rating was revised to provide clearer guidelines to both the teams and the judges. This new narrative is designed to reflect the philosophy that to move a score from "meets criteria" to "exceeds criteria" the team needs to add depth and breadth to its explanation and show integration with the remaining criteria.

Item Revisions

Criteria 1: Project Selection and Purpose

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

Criteria 2: Current Situation Analysis

Item "2A. c" previously requested that teams provide "examples of any other actions taken to identify possible root causes." Feedback from teams and judges indicated that this was redundant to item "2A. a." Additionally, the review committee realized that stakeholder input/involvement was included throughout the criteria but was not addressed in this root cause analysis step. Clarification is provided in the modified guidelines to indicate that stakeholder involvement may be by direct participation in the root-cause identification process or by 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 methods and tools used to develop the solutions and item "3A. b" addresses the team's analysis of data.

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

Criteria 4: Project Implementation and Results

Item "4A. b" was clarified so that teams describe both how resistance was identified or anticipated and how it was addressed. Additionally, the guidelines now mention that resistance can relate to the project, the solution(s), and/or the implementation plan.

Portions of item "4B. b" related to the use of stakeholder feedback were deleted because the review committee felt they were redundant to information requested in "4A. a;" however, the previous criteria did not request an explanation of the team's implementation plan, and this was incorporated into the revised criteria. Whereas teams' presentations often had a gap between the identification of the solution(s) and the project's results, the new criteria requests an explanation of how the team planned for the implementation of its solution(s), including action plan development, allocation of resources, and time management activities.

Item "4B. b" previously requested that teams explain any "procedure or system changes that were made," implying that these changes were made to "ensure the results." The phrase, "other changes," was added to expand the types of changes teams might encounter and report. Also, the criteria were clarified to state specifically that the procedure, system, or other changes were associated with implementing the solution and sustaining the results. These changes should ensure that the gains realized are sustained and that new procedures/processes will not revert to their prior approaches.

Criteria 5: Team Management and Project Presentation

Criteria 5 experienced the most profound changes and now focuses primarily on the team-its creation, preparation for success, and management routines, rather than its presentation. In the past, it was generally understood that some teams performed better because of the team members and how well they fit and worked together. The three new and enhanced Criteria S items acknowledge that successful teams have excellent members who are able to work collaboratively.

Item "5A" requests that teams describe how their members were selected and how they were involved in every step of the project. This information might include specific skills, capabilities, knowledge, or qualifications that were needed to make the team succeed.

Item "5B" is completely new and asks teams to share what they or their companies did to assure they were able to complete their projects successfully. This item focuses primarily on meeting individual and corporate development needs for both the building of a "team" and for the equipping of that team with the necessary tools and skills to understand and address the key project issues.

Another new item, "5C," gives the team the opportunity to share its management routines: how it maintained internal communications, how it leveraged the skills and involvement of all team members, and what general routines team members found effective.

Feedback From Teams

How do the International Team Excellence Award competition and evaluation criteria help organizations around the world? This key question will be addressed in an article, "Transforming Your Teams," set to appear in the November 2005 issue of News for a Change. The article will include feedback from teams that were involved in the process, including reasons why organizations decided to get involved and tangible and intangible benefits participating teams obtained.

Regardless of whether or not your team decides to participate in the competition, the evaluation criteria provide a useful model for internal assessment of your improvement efforts. For organizations that are launching new improvement programs, the criteria can be used as a step-by-step guide for projects -problem-solving efforts, lean and/or Six Sigma ventures, product/process redesigns, or a variety of other team-based endeavors. Contact Geetha Balagopal at GBalagopal@asq.org or visit http://wcqi.asq.org/index.html for more information.

Editor's Note: Thanks to Barry Bickley and Sue Miller for their assistance with this article.

Copyright Association for Quality and Participation Fall 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved