EFQM Site-Visit Card

EFQM Shares what works For the past twenty years we have shared what works between our member organisations as a way to help them implement their strategies: a mission which is as important as ever. Through our network of members comprising private and public organisations of every size and sector, many active around the world, EFQM applies its know-how and extracts outstanding approaches by engaging with executives and front-line managers. About this document The EFQM User Guides are designed to help member organisations by giving examples of common approaches, techniques and methods which support the practical deployment of the EFQM Excellence Model. We have developed them in response to feedback from a number of our members; using their knowledge and experience to identify approaches commonly used within our member organisations. The EFQM Excellence Model is non-prescriptive and there are many different approaches that can help you on your journey towards excellence the challenge is finding the one that works best within your organisation. The aim of this guide is to give you a number of ideas to help inspire, based on the experience of others. This document is not intended to be a definitive version or to describe all the approaches possible within this area. This document will be adapted and updated to incorporate new ideas and learning as EFQM continues to share what works. This document is only for use within EFQM members. 2010 EFQM

Contents
Enablers ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Overview of the EFQM Master Assessor ............................................................................................. 3 Positive and negative indicators....................................................................................................... 4-6 Further information and Feedback ..................................................................................................... 7

Enablers
Attributes Element Approach Sound:
approach has a clear rationale approach has defined processes approach focuses on stakeholder needs refinements have been embedded in the approach over time

Seek evidence in order to get confidence that ...

... there is a reason to support the choice of the approaches in place what was the rationale behind choosing and/or adapting a specific approach, for instance by means of research or benchmarking; ... an approach is well described/documented in a way appropriate for those needing to understand it as a process, e.g. is it visualised, did the way of working change over time, how and why was it automated etc.; ... an approach is focussed on the expectations of everyone involved in the execution of it; (both strategic and operational e.g. those who benefit from and also those who use the approaches); ... the approach already shows signs of maturity or is a proven practice, e.g. because the changes made to it became smaller over time, or the approach has been shown to work also in abnormal or difficult circumstances. ... one or a set of approaches are designed to deliver the desired results (now and in the future), ... there is a visible/logical link with the strategy, and the approach supports one or more objective; ... the people choosing an approach are aligning it with one or more facets of the strategy, while also considering dependencies from and/or impact on other approaches. ... a view exists on the extent to which an approach has been used and is put into practice. This may relate to different levels within an organisations hierarchy; different locations; the number of actual implementations based on an approach; the number of employees actively involved or the various products or services being offered; ... there is an awareness of the further potential for deployment in depth or breadth; ... some facts & figures exist to show how often an approach is used, how the use has varied over time and why. ... there is a plan and timing for the actual deployment (is it a simple or complex project ?); ... the implementation of this plan on time (maybe too slow or too fast ?); ... example(s) exist where the circumstances required temporary or definitive evolutions, small or big. ... there is a view for a specific approach on the effectiveness (achieving the desired output) and efficiency (how much resource, time, money is consumed); ... these two aspects are used as a measure in one way or another, and are linked to each other; ... there is a way to know how frequently this should be done, what period is a good fit for measuring. ... actions resulting in better understanding are undertaken in the field of knowledge needed for a particular approach (this within the organisation, sector, but also outside); ... there is knowledge resulting from these learning activities and comparisons that include e.g if the selected approach in use can be considered as outdated, normal, better or best in class; ... there is an awareness of the potential for further improvement (incremental or radical breakthrough) ... the measurement and learning from above lead to real improvements and are visible in the results, it is clear that without the measurement and learning the performance would be lower; ... which innovative ideas and big or small changes have already or will make a difference; ... there is a way to select and only act on the best ideas and proposals, not on all of them, e.g. based on the understanding of the limitations in time, resource and capabilities when translating ideas to practice.

Integrated:
approach supports strategy approach is linked to other approaches as appropriate

Deployment

Implemented:
approach is implemented in relevant areas

Systematic:
approach is deployed in a timely, structured way and with the ability to manage changes in the environment if needed regular measurement of the effectiveness and efficiency of the approach and its deployment are carried out Measures selected are appropriate Learning is used to identify internal and external good practices and improvement opportunities Creativity is used to generate new or changed approaches output from measurement and learning is analysed and used to identify, prioritise, plan and implement improvements Output from creativity is evaluated, prioritised and used

Assessment and Refinement

Measurement:

Learning & Creativity:

Innovation & Improvement:

Results
Element Relevance & Usability Attributes Scope & Relevance:
* * The scope of the Results presented: Addresses the needs and expectations of relevant stakeholders Is consistent with the strategy and policies of the organisation The most important results are identified and prioritised as Key results Relationships between relevant results are understood Results are timely, reliable and accurate

`
... the organisation is clear about what it needs to measure/achieve/manage to deploy its strategy and understand its impact on stakeholders perceptions, see how the selection and prioritisation of results is decided upon ... the prioritised measures/results presented and used are meaningful within the context of Strategy ... when using the results to understand the footprint and performance of the organisation, what is the way to make a difference between the essential, not so essential and non-important results to look at ... what kind of understandable and useful insights exist on how the various results are related to each other, e.g. which weak or strong influences exist, is a relationship linear or of another type, is there a time delay etc. ... if both the effectiveness and efficiency aspects exist, if there is awareness of how these correlate/inter-relate ... what is on time, too soon or too late for a specific result ... to what extent for a specific result there is a view on the consistency, completeness or any other quality aspects of the data and information used as source ... if the precision of the information used and needed are in line or very different from each other ... what the reason for a specific segmentation is when analysing performance/achievements in a specific field ... when seeing the differences per segment if this leads to actionable conclusions and insights ... if the segmentations used create a strongly discriminating analysis, help to show sharp and significant differences ... what the evolution over time demonstrates, is the performance improving, stabilising or degrading? ... if this trend is in line with the desired trend and in line with strategic objectives ... a specific trend is stronger, comparable or weaker than other relevant trends in the sector, how steep or fast

Integrity:

Segmentation:
Results are appropriately segmented

Performance

Trends:
trends are positive and/or there is sustained good performance

Targets:
are set for key results are appropriate are achieved

Comparisons:
are made for key results are appropriate are favourable

Causes:
the relationship between Results achieved and their Enablers is understood based on the evidence presented, there is confidence that positive performance will be sustained in the future

... for a specific key result, in one way or another, a desired level to be achieved exists and is understood. This can be a specific %age higher or lower, but also in a band between two levels ... when this desired future performance level for a specific result is clear, what is or was the rationale behind agreeing to that specific level, why not a bit or a lot higher or lower? ... how close in reality these desired levels of performance are (almost) achieved or surpassed, or not at all, and how that leads again to adapting the targets for the future ... if there is (starting with the most important results) an awareness of similar measures used by others, within or outside of the sector or organisation ... to what extent the information to compare with is valid, can be trusted, is easy to use etc. ... what can be demonstrated, what does the comparison say about a specific measure, is it a bit or much better, maybe even the best, or just in the same range, or a bit/ a lot worse, and how this impacts target setting ... if out of the comparison further credibility and/or confidence can be allocated to specific achievements Note: competitor and industry averages may be used but for strong role model organisations, these will also show comparisons with best-in-class or worldclass, they can show they are the benchmark, they perform at a level others would like to be. what the insights gained are concerning cause-effect, e.g. what change in one or more approaches has made a significant difference, which ones not so, or which result would never have been achieved without one or more specific actions, projects, initiatives etc. for on-going changes and/or deployment of a specific approach in what field(s) a sign of improvement is expected, or why a fall-back to previous or lower levels of performance is very unlikely to happen; for which results there is a high level of trust and strong ability to convince others that the gains achieved in performance will be kept, what is the probability it will further improve or stabilise. how much certainty exists in predicted performance, why would it be a surprise if a target is not achieved?

OVERVIEW OF THE EFQM MASTER ASSESSOR COMPETENCIES

The table below provides a summary of the Master level for the Assessor Competencies.

# 1

Competency Area Technical on EFQM Model

Master Competency description

Can help others in understanding the Fundamental Concepts & Criteria. Which means the candidate is able to explain and transfer the thinking embedded into the EFQM model and the Fundamental Concepts, is able to answer challenging questions on these topics, and knows benefits of real life excellence in practice ... examples. Can help others in the understanding and application of RADAR. Which means the candidate is able to quickly identify the right RADAR elements and see weaknesses in scoring profiles made by other team members, and can influence during consensus a consistent scoring profile, and can resolve the differences in a team, e.g. by focusing on 1 specific RADAR element or attribute. Can make valuable use of Key Information and understand Strategies. Which means the candidate is able to grab the contextual (market), strategic and financial dynamics of the organization being assessed, e.g. can explain business models for different sectors, or can participate in a conversation on the financial aspects and clarify the scope of an assessment project.

Technical on RADAR

Business

Teamwork & Professionalism

Can act as a Team Leader, Deputy Leader or Criterion owner. Which means the candidate is able to apply consciously Belbin team roles (or a similar concept) to identify and act upon opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of a Team. He/she can finish Tasks in the team on time and as expected, or acts constructively when a task is unclear or too hard to achieve. This also includes the candidate is able to create, use and update time plans both on the macro and micro level, he/she is able to apply project management concepts and tools fit for the specific context of an assessment mission.

Communications, Interpersonal & Interviewing

Can communicate effectively with a variety of people and in a diversity of circumstances. Which means the candidate has active listening capabilities and avoids to be judgemental, has insight in his/her personal communication style and adopts it consciously according to the circumstances, e.g. by taking into account cultural diversity. Can contribute to a valued overall and balanced picture through Analysis. Which means the candidate is able to see how many different information sources give an overall picture (connecting the dots), and can keep an open mind for surprising or different things even if at first sight they look familiar.

Analytical

Report Writing & Presentation

Can create and present feedback that is perceived valuable and unique. Which means the candidate is able to produce understandable statements and presentation material for variable levels, with content adapted to the expectations and level of thinking of a specific target audience.

LIST OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE INDICATORS

Core Competency
1. Understands the EFQM Excellence Model its structure, content, dynamics and linkages to the Fundamental Concepts.

Positive Indicators
Identifies linkage between Fundamental Concepts and Model Criteria/Criterion Parts. Shows understanding of the meaning and relevant content of each Criterion Part. Identifies linkages between Enablers and corresponding Results, and between linked Enablers. Shows clear understanding of the meaning of the RADAR elements and attributes. Uses RADAR understanding to produce relevant and factual analysis Consistently scores correctly, producing appropriate scores. Shows clear understanding of the Key Information provided. Uses the Key Information in order to provide relevant and useful analysis.

Negative Indicators
Examples of confused understanding of FC/Model linkages. Incorrect understanding of Model structure and/or content. Confused or little understanding of Model linkages.

2.

Understands and effectively applies RADAR in order to produce accurate, fact based and value adding analysis. Understands the Key Information about the organisation being assessed and uses it effectively to produce relevant, value adding analysis. Contributes effectively as an assessment team member conducting themselves at all times both professionally and with integrity.

Examples of confused understanding of the RADAR elements. Analysis is neither factual nor RADAR based. Scores are inappropriate to the analysis and/or are inconsistent.

3.

Examples of lack or confused understanding of one or more key areas of information. Fails to use Key Information during analysis work Provides analysis that is not relevant or useful to the organisation being assessed. Tries to promote self rather than the interests of the team. Shows lack of respect for team colleagues not listening, interrupting, poor time keeping, and disregarding team decisions. Fails to contribute in team exercises and discussions. Aggressive or confrontational approach to team disagreements. Demonstrates lack of professionalism in failing to complete work as requested, failing to apologise or take personal responsibility for shortcomings. Poor English language skills either written or oral, or both. Is rude or overbearing towards fellow participants, the tutors or the site visit exercise interviewee role player. Demonstrates confused questioning techniques during the site visit exercise, and during the training generally. Inability to identify and understand relevant information and data. Contradictory or muddled analysis. Unable to cope with new or changed information and data. Unable to formulate analysis at the macro (high) level.

4.

Encourages an environment of openness and trust. Demonstrates respect for colleagues by inviting and recognising their contributions, listening, respecting team decisions, good time keeping. Demonstrates skill in dealing with conflicts and disagreements within the team. Behaves professionally throughout the training - completing precourse work, training exercises and tests on time and as requested. Communicates clearly both orally and in writing. Demonstrates empathy and understanding with others, particularly those from different cultures or backgrounds to their own. Uses effective questioning techniques, both during team and plenary discussions and in the site visit mock interview exercise. Demonstrates understanding of information and data and ability to retain and see connections between it. Shows ability to priories the importance of information and data and to use it to make a clear, logical and penetrating analysis Demonstrates ability to take on board new or changed information and data and to review analysis in the light of this. Demonstrates ability to analysis at both macro and micro level. Puts emphasis on delivering value adding feedback Produces written feedback that is clear, accurate and value adding Delivers feedback that may not be welcome with tact and empathy.

5.

Communicates clearly and accurately in both spoken and written English, and demonstrates effective interpersonal and interviewing skills. Assimilates and understands relevant information and data related to the organisation being assessed, using it to produce clear, accurate and insightful analysis at both macro (big picture) and micro (detail) levels. Produces and delivers clear, accurate and value adding feedback, both in written and oral form.

6.

7.

Produces feedback that is not value adding Produces feedback that is consultative or judgemental (personal likes or dislikes) in character. Produces unclear, inaccurate or tactlessly presented feedback.

APPENDIX H - EFQM ASSESSOR TRAINING PERFORMANCE RECORD FOR(Page 1 of 2) Core Competency

1. Understands the EFQM Excellence Model its structure, content, dynamics and linkages to the Fundamental Concepts. Understands and effectively applies RADAR in order to produce accurate, fact based and value adding analysis. Understands the Key Information about the organisation being assessed and uses it effectively to produce relevant, value adding analysis. Contributes effectively as an assessment team member conducting themselves at all times both professionally and with integrity. Communicates clearly and accurately in both spoken and written English, and demonstrates effective interpersonal and interviewing skills. Assimilates and understands relevant information and data related to the organisation being assessed, using it to produce clear, accurate and insightful analysis at both macro (big picture) and micro (detail) levels. Produces and delivers clear, accurate and value adding feedback, both in written and oral form.

Summary of observed performance

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Performance Review
Circle (or otherwise identify) the relevant R/Y/G or A/B/C/D performance rating

Pre-course Key Information

Precourse Key Themes R/Y/G

Precourse Analysis

Precourse Scoring

Pre-course Model/ RADAR Exercise R/Y/G

Model/ RADAR exercise

Key Information Exercise

Key Themes Initial Exercise R/Y/G

Assessment Basics Exercise

Team Working Exercise R/Y/G

Site Visits Exercise

Evening Test Exercise A /B /C /D

Providing Feedback Exercise

Key Themes Final Exercise R/Y/G

R/Y/G

R/Y/G

R/Y/G

R/Y/G

R/Y/G

R/Y/G

R/Y/G

R/Y/G

APPENDIX H - EFQM ASSESSOR TRAINING PERFORMANCE RECORD FOR(Page 2 of 2)

Final Outcome (circle or otherwise identify -one only): Pass

Suggested next development stages:

Fail

Further Development Needed

Notes from Participant (if any)

Summary of any actions necessary to address a specific Further development needed issue before a Pass may be entered onto the database:

I hereby agree to abide to the EFQM Code of Practice for Excellence Assessors and the EFQM Assessor Register. I am willing for my contact details to be published. Signed (Tutor): Name: Date: / / Signed (Participant): Name: Date: / /

Further information and feedback

For more information on the EFQM Excellence Model 2010, you can:

Visit our website www.efqm.org for regularly updated information and a list of frequently asked questions (FAQ List); Attend one of the EFQM Training Courses to learn how to assess using the Model or practically apply the concepts of excellence within your organisation; Contact your EFQM Account Manager for further information on self-assessment tools, case studies and other opportunities to get involved.

Improving this guide

This document is designed to evolve with feedback from our Members, Assessors and other stakeholders, based on their practical experiences of applying the EFQM Excellence Model 2010. After reading this guide, if you are eager to contribute your ideas on how we can improve this document, you can do so by writing to us at info@efqm.org.

Get involved
The EFQM is a Membership organisation. We rely on input, ideas and suggestions from you to create a vibrant community. Through EFQM, there are numerous opportunities for you to engage in interactive discussions or activities on this or other topics. For more information, please contact us at info@efqm.org.

Contributions
The present workbook was developed by Mark Webster from Mark Webster Consulting.

EFQM Avenue des Olympiades 2 1140 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 775 35 11 Fax: +32 2 775 35 96 info@efqm.org www.efqm.org

EFQM 2010 No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (be this electronically, mechanically, through photocopy, or recording or otherwise) without either the prior written permission of, or a licence permitting restricted copying, and use for a third party, from the publisher.