1
Introduction to the “New”
ASQ ITEA Team Process Criteria
&
California Team Excellence Award Program
Presented By
Vern Goodwalt
Lean Enterprise Coach
The 3 Point Group
Ph: 951-386-6613 ~ Email: [email protected] ~ Web site: t3pg.com
2
What We Will Cover
• Program Overview
• Team Participation & Recognition
• Different Criteria for Problem Solving & Process
Improvement Teams
• Subject Matter of the Criteria’s 5 Sections and Point Values
• The Criteria’s Three Levels of Detail
• Criteria Scoring Methodology
• Using the Criteria as a Project Planning & Management
Framework
3
Program Overview
4
CTEA Program and ASQ ITEA Process
• Sense 1997 California Council for Excellence’s (CCE)
California Team Excellence Award (CTEA) Program is
an authorized showcase of the American Society for
Quality (ASQ) International Team Excellence Award
(ITEA) Process.
 The program criteria focus on post team assessment and
providing non-prescriptive feedback on Problem Solving
and Process Improvement team projects.
 The criteria relate to teams using LEAN approaches such
as; 5S, Plan-Do-Check-Act, and Six Sigma DMAIC, problem
solving and process improvement methodologies, plus 7
Wastes reductions, ASQ Quality Tools and other Lean
approaches.
5
CTEA Program
• The program criteria is a time proven Best Practice
for planning, management, and measuring the
performance of Problem Solving and Process
Improvement teams.
• The CTEA program provides a platform for
organizations of all type to showcase their problem
solving and process improvement teams.
• Teams present their project outcomes to a highly
trained team of judges that follow a systematic
assessment process that result in a non-prescriptive
but actionable feedback report.
6
CTEA Program
(Continued)
• This is a great product for team management,
continuous improvement and for teams to move to
their next level of performance.
• Application of the CTEA criteria follows a step by
step approach that fits well with 5S, Plan-Do-CheckAct, Six Sigma DMAIC methodologies, and other
LEAN approaches for problem solving and process
improvement events.
7
CTEA Program
(Continued
• The criteria also aligns well with the application of 7
Wastes, the root of unprofitable activity within the
organization and the application of the ASQ Quality
Tools for data analysis and performance metrics.
• The top CTEA team each year is given an
opportunity to participate in the final round of the
ASQ ITEA Program. Teams come from all over the
world to participate in the ITEA competition held at
the ASQ World Conference.
8
CTEA Program
(Continued
• Over the years, California teams have improved and
matured through participating in the CTEA program.
As a result, many of the CTEA teams have placed
high in the ITEA competition.
For example: Boeing C-17 of Long Beach teams have
placed at the Gold, Silver, and Bronze levels and HD
Supply of San Diego also placed at the Gold level.
9
CTEA Participation & Recognition
10
Types of CTEA Teams
• Each year at the CCE Annual Conference, CTEA
recognizes Problem Solving and Process
Improvement teams for their team projects.
11
CTEA Recognizes Teams at Two Levels
- Gold Nugget and Gold Rush • Gold Nugget Award Level - Full extent of the criteria
applied at the section, item, and item detail
question level (5 Sections, 37 Items & 47 item
questions to address).
• Gold Rush Award Level - Use of the criteria applied
at the section and item level (5 Sections & 16 item
questions to address).
12
Gold Nugget Award
• Teams address the full criteria at the section, item,
and item detail levels (47 questions).
 Submit a Power Point presentation (no PP slide limit) of
their team project.
 Speaker notes must be present for each slide to explain the
slide content.
 Applications and PP presentations must be submitted by
September 1.
 Teams are judged on their 30 minute live or DVD
presentation at various sites throughout California in
October of each year.
 Teams receive a presentation score and a comprehensive
actionable feedback report by mid December.
13
Gold Rush Award
• Teams only address the criteria at the section and
item level (16 questions).
 No live presentation is required and the slide presentation
is limited to 48 (3 per item question) Power Point slides for
directly addressing criteria questions.
 Speaker notes must be present for each slide to explain the
slide content.
 Applications can be submitted at any time during the year.
 Teams presentations are not scored but teams receive an
actionable feedback report within six weeks.
14
Criteria for Two Types of Teams
Problem Solving & Process Improvement
15
Types of Teams
• There are many types of teams (Lean, Improvement,
Six Sigma, Innovation, and Quality Circle, to name a
few).
 Regardless of the type of team you are or of any team
methodology your company may use, teams always focus
on one of two things - either Problem Solving or Process
Improvement.
16
Types of Teams
(Continued)
• Problem Solving teams have a “problem” to solve.
 Typically these teams will focus on identifying and
eliminating or overcoming “root causes.”
• Process Improvement teams have a new process to
develop or an existing process that needs to be
improved.
 Typically these teams will focus on identifying and
optimizing key process parameters to design or improve an
overall process.
17
Types of Teams
(Continued)
• Sometimes a team may get confused by the words
they use to describe their project.
 For example, they may say, “We had a problem: our
customers were demanding quicker turn-around time and
we needed to improve our processes.”
 This is clearly a case where a Process Improvement is
needed.
 There would be no expectation of a Root Cause unless
something had recently caused the turn-around time to
get suddenly worse.
18
Criteria Differences Only Occurred in
Sections 2 & 3
Problem Solving Team
SECTION 2 - Current Situation Analysis
Process Improvement Team
SECTION 2 - Current Situation Analysis
Current Situation Analysis focuses on how
the team analyzed the current situation.
Current Situation Analysis focuses on how
the team analyzed the current situation.
2A. Guiding question: How did the team
identify the potential root cause(s)?
2A. Guiding question: How did the team
identify the potential improvement
opportunity(ies)?
2B. Guiding question: How did the team
analyze information to identify the final
root cause(s)?
2B. Guiding question: How did the team
analyze information to identify the final
improvement opportunity(ies)?
19
Criteria Sections 2 & 3 Differences
(Continued)
Problem Solving
Process Improvement
SECTION 3 - Solution Development
SECTION 3 - Solution Development
Solution Development allows the team to
demonstrate how they logically moved
from the causes to their final choice.
Solution Development allows the team to
demonstrate how they logically moved
from the opportunities to their
improvement action(s).
3A. Guiding questions: How did the team
identify the possible solutions?
3A. Guiding questions: How did the team
identify the improvement actions?
3B. Guiding questions: How did the team
select/determine the final solution(s)
from the possibilities generated in 3A
above?
3B. Guiding questions: How did the team
select/determine the final improvement
action(s) from the possibilities generated
in 3A above?
3C. Guiding questions: How did the team
validate the final solution(s)?
3C. Guiding questions: How did the team
validate the final improvement action(s)?
20
Criteria Subject Matter of the 5 Sections and
Point Values
Note: Here we will be using the Problem Solving criteria.
21
Criteria Sections & Score Point Values
(Same for Both Problem Solving & Process Improvement Teams)
1. Project Selection Purpose
 9 items @ 3 points = 27 points possible
2. Current Situation Analysis
 6 items @ 4.5 points = 27 points possible
3. Solution Development
 9 items @ 3 points = 27 points possible
4. Projection Implementation and Results
 9 items @ 3 points = 27 points possible
5. Team/Project Management & Project Presentation
 4 items @ 4.5 points = 18 points possible
Total possible points 126
22
Section 1. Project Selection/Purpose
(9 items @ 3 points = 27 points possible)
• Project Selection/Purpose gives the team a chance
to talk about the importance of the project to the
organization, potential project stakeholders, and
the team itself. Section 1 is divided into three subsections:
 (1A) allows the team to discuss how the project was
selected.
 (1B) provides an opportunity for the team to demonstrate
the importance of the particular project to the
organization.
 (1C) gives the team a chance to discuss how potential
stakeholders were selected and how those stakeholders
23
might be impacted.
Section 2. Current Situation Analysis
(6 items @ 4.5 points = 27 points possible)
• Current Situation Analysis focuses on how the team
analyzed the current situation.
 This includes the processes, data, and information.
 This section also covers how stakeholders were involved.
• The second half of this section covers how the team
determined and validated their final root cause(s).
 If the organization uses a specific methodology as part of
the quality process, the team may want to consider
sharing how that methodology was applied to identify the
possible and final root causes.
24
Section 3. Solution Development
(9 items @ 3 points = 27 points possible)
• Solution Development allows the team to
demonstrate how they logically moved from the
causes to their final choice.
 Initially the team should share how they developed a set
of possible root causes. From there, the team should share
how they arrived at their specific solution(s) that would
meet the project objective(s).
 Finally, the team should share how they convinced
themselves and others that their proposals would be both
practical and acceptable to the organization.
25
Section 4 Project Implementation and
Results
(9 items @ 3 points = 27 points possible)
• Project Implementation and Results addresses how
the team sought and secured buy-in.
 In addition, this section gives the team the chance to
discuss the approaches they used to plan for and
implement their solution(s).
 Finally, this is where the team gets to present the results
that were achieved. This should be based on data
generated after implementation of the solution(s).
26
Section 5 Team/Project Management and
Project Presentation
(4 items @ 4.5 points = 18 points possible)
• Team Management and Project Presentation cover
the people-resource side of the project.
 This ranges from how the most appropriate team members
were chosen to how they were prepared for this special
assignment.
 Organizational assistance to assure project success is
covered here. Also covered is how effectively the team
communicated with themselves during the life of the
project.
 Finally, the judges will provide feedback on the overall
project presentation.
27
The Criteria’s Three Levels of Detail
28
Criteria Levels of Detail
Section – Item – Item Detail
3 Levels of detail example:
1, 2 &3 Levels of Criteria Detail
Level 1
Section 1 - Project Selection/Purpose (9 items @ 3 points = 27 points
possible)
Project Selection/Purpose gives the team a chance to talk about the
importance of the project to the organization, potential project
stakeholders, and the team itself.
Level 2 1A. Guiding Question: How was the project selected? Either the team or
management selected the project. In either case, the process used to select
the project must be clear and well stated. As with all team responses,
providing specific examples of techniques and data used will strengthen the
team’s presentation.
29
Section – Item – Item Detail
Level 3
(Continued)
1Aa. (1) Describe how data and/or tools were used to support the selection,
Two Part even if the project was assigned to the team, and
Questions
(2) Explain why these specific tools and/or data were used to select the
project.
1Ab. (1) Explain how the project was selected, and
(2) Explain why the project was selected: what discerned gap or observed
opportunity lead to the launching of this project?
NOTE: 1Aa addresses the tools and data used. The emphasis in 1Ab is on the
decisions made because of the tool usage/data analysis in 1Aa.
1Ac. Describe the potential stakeholders for the project and how they participated in
the selection process. If the stakeholders were not directly involved, then
describe how their interests were known and taken into account.
NOTE: this should reflect the history of the project. The actual/final stakeholders
may be different from the potential stakeholders at the time the project was
being defined. The goal here is to be sure that the project was being defined. The
goal here is to be sure that the project was not selected in a vacuum without an
understanding of the organizational environment.
Note: Italicized words in the blue boxes supply supplemental notes. These notes
30
are not part of the criteria, rather it is to help guide the team through the process.
Descriptors & Two Part Criteria
Identify - Describe - Explain
• The “descriptors” are terms such as “identify”
(what), “describe” (how), and “explain” (the why).
 The descriptors are in bold type, and they let the team
know the level of detail with which they must address
each item.
 When there is more than one descriptor, the criteria is a
two-part criterion. Each two-part criteria is clearly marked
with a (1) and a (2).
31
Descriptors & Two Part Scoring
Describe - Explain - Identify
Example:
 1Aa. (1) Describe how data and/or tools were used to
support the selection, even if the project was assigned
to the team, and
(2) Explain why these specific tools and/or data were
used to select the
1Ba. Identify the affected organizational goals, performance
measures, and/or strategies.
 Two-part items must be scored Unclear if a team Meets only
one part, regardless of how well the other part was
addressed.
32
Criteria Scoring Methodology
33
Team Scoring
• The judges evaluate how well the team’s
presentation addresses each criteria question.
• Judges will decide if the team Exceeds, Meets,
provides Unclear evidence, or did Not Cover the
item at all.
• Judging Option Score
Not Covered
Unclear
Meets Criteria
Exceeds Criteria
Score for Sections 1, 3, & 4
0
1
2
3
Score for Sections 2 & 5
0
1.5
3.0
4.5
34
Judges Option Scoring Bases
Not Covered - 0 Score
Totally missing; the team did not address the criteria requirement.
Unclear
1 ( or in 1.5 Sections 2 & 5) Score
Touched upon, but not clear. The judges did not have enough
information to determine if the team’s approach met, or could meet,
the criteria requirements.
Meets Criteria 2 (or 3 in Sections 2 & 5) Score
Sufficient information is provided to determine that the team’s
approach met the criteria requirements.
Exceeds Criteria
3 (or 4.5 in Sections 2 & 5) Score
The team’s approach goes beyond meeting the criteria and provides
additional clarity indicating increased depth, breadth and accuracy in
the team’s analysis, actions, and/or conclusions. Integration with
other criteria items is apparent and enhances the team’s overall
35
results. A “Best Practice” or “Role Model” approach.
Using the ITEA Criteria
as a
Project Planning & Management Framework
36
ITEA Based Project Planning & Management
Framework
Step 1. (Criteria Section 5) Team and Project
Management and Project Reporting
5A. How will the team members be selected and how will
they be involved throughout the project?
5B. How will the team be prepared to work together in
addressing the project?
5C. How will the team be managed in its performance to
ensure it is effective as a team?
5D. How often and how will the team prepare for project
progress reporting
intervals?
37
Project Planning & Management Framework
(Continued)
Step 2. (Criteria Section 1) Project Selection and
Purpose
1A. What methods will be used to choose the project?
1B. How will the project support/align with the organization’s
goals, performance measures, and/or strategies?
1C. Who are the potential internal and external stakeholders
and how might they be impacted by the project?
38
Project Planning & Management Framework
(Continued)
Step 3. (Criteria Section 2) Current Situation Analysis
2A. What approach/process will the team use to identify the
potential root causes and improvement opportunities?
2B. How will the team analyze information to identify the
final root causes and improvement opportunities, including
any appropriate validation?
39
Project Planning & Management Framework
(Continued)
Step 4. (Criteria Section 3) Solution Development
3A. What methods will be used to identify the possible
solutions/improvement actions?
3B. How will the final solutions and improvement actions be
determined?
3C. What final solutions, improvement actions, validation,
and expected benefits will be realized by implementing the
team’s solution?
40
Project Planning & Management Framework
(Continued)
Step 5. (Criteria Section 4) Project Implementation
and Results
4A. How will the team get buy-in/agreement to achieve the
solution’s implementation?
4B. What approaches will be used by the team to implement
its solutions and improvement actions, and to ensure the
results?
4C. What results are expected to be achieved?
See this approach to team project planning and management and other
team helps in Best Practices in Team Excellences, Chapter 5, page 93116, ASQ Quality Press 2012 by Vern Goodwalt and Laurie Broedling
To order go to:
http://asq.org/quality-press/display-item/index.html?item=H1421
Or, go to asq.org – key words “team excellence”
41
Q&A
42