Sunday, December 5, 2010

Saving the Baldrige – How to do it, if we have to?

I am a huge Baldrige fan.  My last two jobs were built around deploying the Baldrige criteria and I am certain I got my current job based on that experience (primarily).  I am convinced that it has done a lot of good not just to the American industry but to several companies across the world. 

What is happening and Why?
Is withdrawing Government grant a bad thing? Maybe not.  World over there is a strong move to remove government aid and subsidy in various forms.  Why should the Baldrige program be different?  If the program had followed what it preaches maybe it would have become self-reliant by now.  I am not being acidic here, just being a little blunt.  Don’t get me wrong – all I am saying is that the Baldrige program needs a dose of what it prescribes.

I have been actively using the Baldrige criteria and have some awareness on how it is run – and I am afraid, in all these years I have not yet heard of or seen a strategy document come out of the Baldrige program.  Apart from opening up the program to more categories there has been little change to the program (I mean the program, not the criteria).

I am not sure why the program needs government money.  It can collect fee from applicants and run the program like any other business.  I can understand government sparing money for research activities as part of the program, but program administration surely does not need government money.

What can we do about it and How?
Firstly, take the program international.  I work in India and am certain if reasonable fees are charged there will be several Indian companies keen to apply for the Baldrige.  The Deming prize is already an example of this.  100s of Indian companies use the Baldrige already – only the Baldrige program doesn’t know. 

Secondly, reduce costs.  Apply Six Sigma and Lean to administration processes and reduce costs.  Practice what you preach.  I understand the need to maintain quality and high standards but surely a disciplined application of Six Sigma and Lean principles can help the program.

Thirdly, develop a program for IT and ITES industry.  There is a huge global market for a Baldrige kind of product for the cash rich IT and ITES industry.  The competitive and offshore nature of the industry will ensure that there is an immediate market for the product.

Fourthly, develop a global communication approach about Baldrige and its benefits.  If possible fund or encourage books on companies that used Baldrige.  The program just does not reach out to potential markets.  If one applies Category 2 to the program, I am certain a good examiner won’t give more than 30%.

Summary – Practice what you preach.

ASQ’s Chief Strategy Officer Paul Borwaski, has raised the issue of potential withdrawal of government money in his latest blog post.  His concerns are genuine and anguish real.  I am in agreement with Paul when he says that those who are pushing for the cut have probably not even bothered to look at what the program does for the USA and world.  But then, if they haven’t bothered, what has the NIST and ASQ done to communicate the benefits over the years.  I am not saying it has done nothing – it surely has done a lot.  But like in Baldrige, results matter.  And in this case the people who matter doesn’t seem to know how good the Baldrige program is.  NIST and ASQ therefore need to improve their communication (to the right audience).

Also, if the government does pull the plug, why not call it the Juran award.  It’s high time we repay some part of our debt to the contributions of JMJ.  This may be our chance!

I repeat, I am not favoring the removal of grants.  I am only seeing some logic in reducing the grants.  And even more logic in the Baldrige program practicing what it preaches.

4 comments:

Guy W. Wallace said...

As they might say in some quarters: BINGO! Great post!

Dennis Arter said...

I think you and I are in general agreement: if Baldrige is valuable (and both of us agree that it is), it should stand on its own merit and without government support. While I like your suggestion of self-standing, I don't believe that model will have long-term survivability. I think in needs a home and ASQ might just be that home.

Anshuman Tiwari said...

Thanks Guy and Dennis. Appreciate that you read through.

KerrieAnne Christian said...

like your post - pretty much aligns with my view that it may be necessary to change programs such as Baldridge

- but I wouldn't like to see it lost altogether

it would be a great idea to take it offshore too