2019

LifeBridge Organ 

and Tissue Sharing 

Case Study 

Feedback Report

nonprofit

www.nist.gov/baldrige
Baldrige Performance Excellence Program

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) • United States Department of Commerce

July 2019

To order copies of this publication or obtain other Baldrige Program products and services, contact 

Baldrige Performance Excellence Program

Administration Building, Room A600, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020

www.nist.gov/baldrige | 301.975.2036 | baldrige@nist.gov

The Baldrige Program welcomes your comments on the case study and other Baldrige products and services. 

Please direct your comments to the address above.

The Baldrige Program is very grateful to an actual organ procurement organization that allowed its own Baldrige-based award application 

to be the basis for this case study. From that real application, names and data have been fictionalized, and elements have been intentionally 

edited to be less mature, less beneficial, and missing in order for this case study to score lower than the real application. Such editing 

was done so that Baldrige examiners being trained using the case study can more easily identify opportunities for improvement and 

general feedback. 

The LifeBridge Organ and Tissue Sharing Case Study Feedback Report is a fictional Baldrige Award feedback report developed by a 

team of experienced Baldrige examiners who evaluated the LifeBridge Organ and Tissue Sharing Case Study against the 2019–2020 

Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence, conducting an Independent Review and a Consensus Review. The fictitious case study 

organization is intended to be a regional organ and tissue procurement organization for people living in a federally assigned territory 

within the made-up states of North and South Takoma. There is no connection between the fictitious LifeBridge Organ and Tissue 

Sharing and any other organization, named either LifeBridge Organ and Tissue Sharing or otherwise. The names of several national and 

government organizations are included to promote the realism of the case study as a training tool, but all data and content about them 

have been fictionalized, as appropriate; all other organizations cited in the case study are fictitious or have been fictionalized.

LifeBridge Organ and Tissue Sharing scored in band 4 for process items and band 3 for results items. An organization in band 4 for 

process items demonstrates effective, systematic approaches generally responsive to the overall Criteria questions. Deployment may 

vary in some areas or work units. Key processes benefit from fact-based evaluation and improvement, and approaches are being 

aligned with overall organizational needs. For an organization that scores in band 3 for results items, results address areas of importance 

to the basic Criteria questions and accomplishment of the organization’s mission, with good performance being achieved. 

Comparative and trend data are available for some of these important results areas, and some trends are beneficial. 

BALDRIGE EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK®, BALDRIGE CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE®, BALDRIGE PERFORMANCE 

EXCELLENCE PROGRAM®, BALDRIGE COLLABORATIVE ASSESSMENT®, BALDRIGE EXAMINER®, BALDRIGE EXCELLENCE BUILDER®, 

PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE®, THE QUEST FOR EXCELLENCE®, and the MALCOLM BALDRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY AWARD® medal 

and depictions or representations thereof are federally registered trademarks and service marks of the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. The unauthorized use of these trademarks and service marks is prohibited.

NIST, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, manages the Baldrige Program. NIST has a 100-plus-year track record of 

serving U.S. industry, science, and the public with the mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing 

measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. NIST carries 

out its mission in three cooperative programs, including the Baldrige Program. The other two are the NIST laboratories, conducting 

research that advances the nation’s technology infrastructure and is needed by U.S. industry to continually improve products and 

services; and the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a nationwide network of local centers offering technical and 

business assistance to small manufacturers.

Suggested citation: Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. 2019. 2019 Baldrige Case Study Feedback Report: LifeBridge 

Organ and Tissue Sharing. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

https://www.nist.gov/baldrige.
October 1, 2019

Marie Jamerson

Chief Executive Officer

LifeBridge Organ and Tissue Sharing

444000 Georgie Boulevard, Suite 100

Columbia, NT 01011

Dear Mrs. Jamerson:

Congratulations for taking the Baldrige challenge this year! We commend you for your commitment to 

performance excellence as demonstrated by your applying for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 

Award (MBNQA), the nation’s highest award for organizational excellence.

The enclosed feedback report, which was prepared for your organization by members of the volunteer 

Board of Examiners in response to your application, describes areas identified as strengths and 

opportunities for possible improvement and shows your organization’s scoring. The report contains the 

examiners’ observations about your organization, but it is not intended to prescribe a specific course of 

action. In some cases, the comments do not cover all areas to address within a Criteria item; instead, the 

examiner team collectively identifies your most significant strengths and your most important 

opportunities for improvement. Please refer to the “Preparing to Read Your Feedback Report” 

introductory section for suggestions about how to use the information contained in your feedback 

report.

We are eager to ensure that the comments in the report are clear to you so that you can incorporate the 

feedback into your planning process to continue to improve your organization. As direct communication 

between examiners and applicants is not permitted, please contact me at (301) 975-2361 if you wish to 

clarify the meaning of any comment in your report. We will contact the examiners for clarification and 

convey their intentions to you.

The feedback report is not your only source of ideas about organizational improvement and excellence. 

Current and previous Baldrige Award recipients can be potential resources for your organization’s 

efforts in any performance dimension addressed by the Criteria. Information on contacting Baldrige 

Award recipients is located at the end of your feedback report. The 2019 award recipients and any 

organizations recognized for category best practices as well as previous recipients will share their best 

practices at our annual Quest for Excellence® Conference, March 24–27, 2020. Current and previous 

award recipients also participate in the Baldrige Fall Conference held each year. 

In addition to the Baldrige Award and our annual conference, we offer several other products and 

services to assist your organization in your improvement efforts. Both the Baldrige Site Visit Experience 

and Baldrige Collaborative Assessment can give you detailed insight into what examiners look for and 

evidence found during assessments, as well as a tailored, collaborative approach to help you identify 
and prioritize opportunities. Information about these offerings can be found on our website at 

www.nist.gov/baldrige or by contacting us at baldrige@nist.gov or (301) 975-2036.

In approximately 60 days, you will receive a survey from the Judges Panel of the MBNQA. As an 

applicant, you are uniquely qualified to provide an effective evaluation of the materials and processes 

that we use in administering the Baldrige Program. 

Thank you for participating in the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award process this year. Best 

wishes for continued progress in your organization’s quest for excellence.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Fangmeyer, Director 

Baldrige Performance Excellence Program

Enclosures
LifeBridge Organ and 

Tissue Sharing

[This partial feedback report contains key factors; key themes; and items 2.2, 6.1, 7.3, and 7.4.]
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 4

Preparing to read your feedback report . . .

Your feedback report contains Baldrige examiners’ observations based on their understanding 

of your organization. The examiner team has provided comments on your organization’s 

strengths and opportunities for improvement relative to the Baldrige Criteria. The feedback is 

not intended to be comprehensive or prescriptive. It will tell you where examiners think you 

have important strengths to celebrate and where they think key improvement opportunities 

exist. The feedback will not necessarily cover every question in the Criteria, nor will it say 

specifically how you should address these opportunities. You will decide what is most 

important to your organization and how best to address the opportunities.

If your organization has not applied in the recent past, you may notice a change in the way 

feedback comments are now structured in the report. In response to applicant feedback, the 

Baldrige Program now asks examiners to express the main point of the comment in the first 

sentence, followed by relevant examples, in many cases resulting in more concise, focused 

comments. In addition, the program has included Criteria item references with each comment 

to assist you in understanding the source of the feedback. Each 2019 feedback report also 

includes a graph in Appendix A that shows your organization’s scoring profile compared to the 

median scores for all 2019 applicants at Consensus Review.

Applicant organizations understand and respond to feedback comments in different ways. To 

make the feedback most useful to you, we’ve gathered the following tips and practices from 

previous applicants for you to consider.

• Take a deep breath and approach your Baldrige feedback with an open mind. You applied to 

get the feedback. Read it, take time to digest it, and read it again. 

• Before reading each comment, review the Criteria questions that correspond to each of the 

Criteria item references (which now precede each comment); doing this may help you

understand the basis of the examiners’ evaluation. The 2019–2020 Baldrige Excellence 

Framework containing the Business/Nonprofit Criteria for Performance Excellence can be 

purchased at http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/business_nonprofit_criteria.cfm.

Baldrige ... clearly impacted our ability to achieve better strategies. We’re a company that helps 

create and execute strategies for others. Yet [the Baldrige framework] helped us to take our own 

strategy to a new and impactful level.

C. Richard Panico, President and CEO

Integrated Project Management Company, Inc.

2018 Baldrige Award Recipient
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 5

• Especially note comments in boldface type. These comments indicate observations that the 

examiner team found particularly important—strengths or opportunities for improvement 

that the team felt had substantial impact on your organization’s performance practices, 

capabilities, or results and, therefore, had more influence on the team’s scoring of that 

particular item. 

• You know your organization better than the examiners know it. If the examiners have 

misread your application or misunderstood information contained in it, don’t discount the 

whole feedback report. Consider the other comments, and focus on the most important 

ones.

• Celebrate your strengths and build on them to achieve world-class performance and a 

competitive advantage. You’ve worked hard and should congratulate yourselves.

• Use your strength comments as a foundation to improve the things you do well. Sharing 

those things you do well with the rest of your organization can speed organizational 

learning. 

• Prioritize your opportunities for improvement. You can’t do everything at once. Think about 

what’s most important for your organization at this time, and decide which things to work 

on first. 

• Use the feedback as input to your strategic planning process. Focus on the strengths and 

opportunities for improvement that have an impact on your strategic goals and objectives.

One of the beauties of the Baldrige framework is how it saved us from ourselves by 

forcing the really hard questions about organizational systems and what is most 

essential. . . . Everything flows of course [from] our leadership system.

Sue Dunn, President and CEO

Donor Alliance

2018 Baldrige Award Recipient
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 6

KEY THEMES

Key Themes—Process Items

LifeBridge Organ and Tissue Sharing (LOTS) scored in band 4 for process items (1.1–6.2) in the 

Consensus Review of written applications for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. For 

an explanation of the process scoring bands, please refer to Figure 6a, Process Scoring Band 

Descriptors.

An organization in band 4 for process items typically demonstrates effective, systematic 

approaches generally responsive to the overall Criteria questions. Deployment may vary in 

some areas or work units. Key processes benefit from fact-based evaluation and improvement, 

and approaches are being aligned with overall organizational needs.

a. The most important strengths or outstanding practices (of potential value to other 

organizations) identified in LOTS’s response to process items are as follows:

• Leaders manage LOTS from a systems perspective of its interdependent operations. 

Several approaches are integrated with the Strategic Planning Process (SPP), the 

Performance Measurement System (PMS), and other important processes. For example, 

integration of the SPP and PMS with the Communication Process, the voice of the 

customer, and the Corporate Compliance Program creates a focus on customers to 

support their satisfaction and engagement. Leveraging the PMS within the Operational 

Management Process (OMP) allows LOTS to synthesize daily information to monitor and 

manage key processes. The Workforce Performance Measurement System cascades 

performance goals to individual employees using scorecards that are integrated with the 

Performance Evaluation Process (PEP). In addition, aligning the workplace environment 

with workforce needs and engagement factors, as well as with the Learning and 

Development System, builds on LOTS’s core competency of a mission-driven workforce 

and strengthens its strategic advantage of a supportive culture. These aligned and 

integrated systems function in harmony to help LOTS deliver on its mission to save and 

improve lives.

• Strengthening LOTS’s core competency of a mission-driven workforce, LOTS has 

implemented multiple approaches that demonstrate that it values its employees. 

Beginning at the top, the Leadership Team (LT) models ethical behavior and uses 

multiple touchpoints to communicate with the workforce. Workforce members’ 

engagement in the success of LOTS is supported through the cascading of strategic goals 

and by addressing their needs via various benefit-plan options and promoting a safe 

operating environment. Additionally, LOTS has designed the Learning and Development 

System to improve workforce learning and then uses multidisciplinary meetings and 

Rounding for Outcomes (RFO) to capture and disseminate valuable workforce 

knowledge. All these workforce-focused approaches highlight LOTS's philosophy: “We 

take care of ‘Our People’ so they can take care of others.”
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 7

• Multiple approaches for identifying and integrating data and information to manage 

LOTS’s performance support its vision that organs and tissues will always be available. 

Steps 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the SPP involve collection and analysis of data from within and 

outside of LOTS’s industry, and those data are then integrated with the PMS. Data from 

approaches for determining customer satisfaction and engagement, as well as from the 

customer complaint process, integrate the voice of the customer with the SPP, the PMS, 

and the Communication Process. These and other data and information are made 

available to the workforce, suppliers, partners, and customers in a timely manner. These 

approaches also provide data to manage cost and efficiency, which minimizes customer 

losses in regard to the gift of donation.

b. The most significant opportunities, concerns, or vulnerabilities identified in LOTS’s 

response to process items are as follows:

• Systematic, fact-based evaluation of processes, a key component of organizational 

learning, is not apparent for processes in multiple areas. For example, LOTS does not 

offer evidence of continuous improvement to its existing approaches for leading the 

organization, developing and deploying its strategy, or operating key work processes 

daily. In addition, improvements are not evident in LOTS’s methods for interacting with 

its customers and workforce. In alignment with its core values of quality and 

improvement, implementing systematic reviews of its processes across all Criteria 

categories may help LOTS better foster donations as it tries to meet needs for organs 

and tissue that currently outpace availability.

• It is not clear how LOTS identifies and pursues intelligent risk or strives to make 

significant and innovative changes to its processes, programs, and services. For example, 

LOTS’s approaches for cultivating innovation and intelligent risk taking are not evident 

within leadership processes; nor are methods identified for how strategic opportunities 

are assessed to determine which are intelligent risks as part of incorporating innovation 

into strategy development. Additionally, how LOTS reinforces intelligent risk taking with 

the workforce or pursues opportunities for innovation in managing its work processes is 

not clear. As LOTS tries to ensure continued success within its designated service area 

working with technically advanced customers, such as transplant centers and tissue 

processors, methods to strategically identify intelligent risks and their pursuit may lead 

to breakthrough improvements.

• Systematic approaches are not evident or are unclear in many areas of importance to 

LOTS’s success. In particular, action plans, workforce plans, measures and performance 

projections, and a method to address gaps between the projected performance of LOTS

and that of comparable organizations are not evident. Approaches to ensure that the 

action plan measurement system fully reinforces organizational alignment and to track 

progress in achieving strategic objectives and action plans also are not evident. For 

example, the Topline Scorecard measures shown in Figure 4.1-2focus predominantly on 

the Organ Work System, and no measures are included for the accomplishment of 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 8

action plans related to improving stakeholder satisfaction. It is also unclear whether 

LOTS’s approaches to ensuring the security and cybersecurity of data and information 

are systematic and address all physical and electronic data, as well as data theft and 

loss. Additionally, it is not evident how LOTS ensures that customers and key 

stakeholders understand and fulfill their security and cybersecurity roles and 

responsibilities. Without systematic approaches in such areas to fully leverage its 

strategic advantage of embracing the Baldrige framework, LOTS may limit its ability to 

save and improve lives. 

Key Themes—Results Items

LOTS scored in band 3 for results items (7.1–7.5). For an explanation of the results scoring

bands, please refer to Figure 6b, Results Scoring Band Descriptors.

For an organization in band 3 for results items, results typically address areas of importance to 

the basic Criteria questions and accomplishment of the organization’s mission, with good 

performance being achieved. Comparative and trend data are available for some of these 

important results areas, and some trends are beneficial.

c. Considering LOTS’s key business/organization factors, the most significant strengths 

found in response to results items are as follows:

• Some work process effectiveness, customer-focused, workforce-focused, and leadership 

results demonstrate good-to-excellent performance against relevant comparisons. 

Among process effectiveness measures, results for Missed Organ Referrals (Figure 

7.1-15) have been near zero since 2016, comparing favorably to Allograft Resources 

best-in-class results. Results for organ and tissue authorization (Figures 7.1-17 and 

7.1-18) and for Organ Donor Yield (Figure 7.1-19) are in the top quartile of peer results. 

For customer-focused measures, hospital partner satisfaction regarding organs and 

tissue (Figures 7.1-1A and 7.1-2A) was at best-in-class levels between 2016 and 2019; 

total tissue and skin donors (Figures 7.1-4 and 7.1-14), as well as Local Lungs 

Transplanted (Figure 7.1-9), were in the top quartile. For customer satisfaction and 

engagement, LOTS reports good-to-excellent results levels for the Organ Work System: 

satisfaction with the key requirements of competence and information (Figures 7.2-1A 

and 7.2-1B, respectively), and results for overall engagement (Figure 7.2-1) were at the 

best-in-class benchmark in 2018. Some workforce engagement results are in the top 

quartile, while workforce development results for Training Expenditures (Figure 7.3-17) 

outperformed top-quartile comparisons from 2016 to 2018; those for Leader 

Development Satisfaction (Figure 7.3-18) were better than the top-quartile comparison 

in 2018. Furthermore, measures of LOTS’s overall financial position (Figures 7.5-1 

through 7.5-3) show good performance from 2016 to 2018 relative to the top quartile. 

These results demonstrate LOTS’s commitment to delivering value and results. 

• LOTS reports good performance for a few measures that are important to its mission. 

The overall satisfaction of organ transplant customers was at or near 5.0 on a 5-point 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 9

scale for administrators, coordinators, and physicians in 2018 (Figure 7.2-1C). Results for 

clinical staff in Radiation Exposure (Figure 7.3-8) demonstrate sustained levels near zero 

that are significantly better than the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(DHSS) limit. In addition, results for Regulatory and Legal Compliance Key Measures 

(Figure 7.4-3) show performance at the highest possible level of achievement. These 

results leverage LOTS’s strategic opportunity related to customer satisfaction, reinforce 

its strategic advantage of a supportive culture for the workforce, and reflect its core 

value of quality.

d. Considering LOTS’s key business/organization factors, the most significant opportunities, 

vulnerabilities, and/or gaps (related to data, comparisons, linkages) found in response to 

results items are as follows:

• Results are missing for measures of key processes and for some measures related to 

customers, the workforce, leadership, governance, and finances and strategy. For 

example, some results for key work process effectiveness, safety and emergency 

preparedness, and supply network management are absent; customer-focused results 

related to aspects of the customer life cycle of pre-donation, procurement, allocation, 

and post-donation are not reported. Results are also missing for the key workforce 

driver of “relationship with co-workers”; for the workforce capability and capacity 

measure of skills and competencies by job description or staffing ratios; and for the 

workforce climate factors of health, security, and accessibility. No results are reported 

for the leadership approaches of RFO or for leaders’ communication/engagement with 

partners and customers, the number of deviations from audits, the number of 

substantiated corporate compliance hotline issues, or recycling and reduction in energy 

consumption. Nor does LOTS report data reflecting the strategic challenge and 

opportunity of increasing registry enrollment or reflecting modified action plans based 

on performance projection gaps. Tracking and trending of key performance measures 

may strengthen LOTS’s efforts to “find the heroes” and maximize the very limited 

donation opportunities. 

• Adverse trends are reported for many measures related to work processes, customers, 

the workforce, and governance. For example, organs, hearts, and livers transplanted 

(Figures 7.1-5, 7.1-8, and 7.1-10), as well as total bone and skin donors (Figures 7.1-13 

and 7.1-14) demonstrate adverse trends since 2016. Customer satisfaction and 

engagement measures with flat or adverse trends include Transplant Center 

Satisfaction—Organ (Figure 7.2-1A) for the key requirement of competence, as well as 

overall Tissue Processor Satisfaction (Figure 7.2-2C) for the key requirement of 

information. In addition, tissue customer complaints and dissatisfaction (Figures 7.2-3 

and Figure 7.2-3B) show unfavorable levels and mixed trends. In addition, flat or adverse 

trends are evident in results for ethnic diversity among new hires (Figure 7.3-4A); for 

overall retention (Figure 7.3-13), and for overall job satisfaction (Figure 7.3-14). Other 

examples are governance results from 2016 to 2018 in all four areas of the Board SelfAssessment (Figure 7.4-2), including adverse trends for strategic and financial oversight 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 10

and mixed trends for the other areas. Addressing these results may help LOTS maximize 

donations. 

• Some work process, customer dissatisfaction, leadership, and financial and market 

results are unfavorable relative to relevant comparisons or are missing comparisons. 

Sample results for key work and support processes include those for measures of local 

organs transplanted by population, local hearts transplanted, local livers transplanted, 

and total bone donors (Figures 7.1-5, 7.1-8, 7.1-10, and 7.1-13, respectively). For the 

Organ Work System, results for Observed vs. Expected by Organ (Figure 7.1-19A) are 

lower than the expected results for kidneys, heart, and pancreas; for the Tissue Work 

System, results for Skin Yield (Figure 7.1-23) are not favorable in comparison to Allograft 

Resources best-in-class results. Results for satisfaction with leader communication 

(Figure 7.4-1) are below the Excel Employee Engagement benchmark from 2016 through 

2018. Additionally, Gross Revenue—Organ Work System, Days in Accounts Receivable, 

and Days Cash on Hand (Figures 7.5-2A, 7.5-5, and 7.5-9, respectively) were below the 

top-quartile comparisons from 2016 to 2018, and Market Share Growth—Allograft 

Resources Partners (Figure 7.5-13) shows performance below the comparison from 

2016 to 2018. Improving these results may help LOTS distinguish itself for its 

performance amid industry changes.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 11

DETAILS OF STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

The numbers and letters preceding each comment indicate the Criteria item questions to 

which the comment refers. Not every Criteria question will have a corresponding comment; 

rather, these comments were deemed the most significant by a team of examiners. 

[Items 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 are not included in this report.]

Category 2 Strategy

2.2 Strategy Implementation

Your score in this Criteria item for the Consensus Review is in the 50–65 percentage range. 

(Please refer to Figure 5a, Process Scoring Guidelines.)

STRENGTHS

• a(2) In support its core competency of a mission-driven workforce and its value of 

teamwork, LOTS systematically deploys its strategy to its workforce, aligning goals with 

individual performance and improving the approach from a reactive push from 

leadership to a proactive process with staff input. In Step 7 of the SPP (Figure 2.1-1), 

strategic goals are cascaded through the Communication Process (Figure 1.1-3), and key 

outcomes are tracked through a web-based program that aligns goals with individual 

performance. 

• a(3,4) LOTS has a systematic approach to ensuring that workforce, financial, and other 

resources are available to support the achievement of action plans. Step 5 of the SPP 

includes a review of workforce capability and capacity, and the monthly budgeting 

process ensures that financial resources are available to support current or modified 

action plans.

• b LOTS systematically establishes, deploys, and integrates modified action plans when 

necessary, supporting the organization in responding to the strategic challenge of 

industry changes. Metrics are evaluated during work system meetings, LT meetings, and 

ongoing strategic discussions. If actual measures are not performing to expected 

targets, plans are modified, and if performance lags for three months, a “red-box” 

discussion occurs. Any corrective actions are monitored through cascading scorecards, 

the PEP, and RFO.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• a(1,4,5,6) Action plans, workforce plans, measures, and performance projections, as 

well as a method to address gaps in projected performance against comparable 

organizations, are not evident for LOTS’s strategic objectives, goals, and targets (Figure 

2.1-3). Without a clear understanding of these elements, as well as how they align with 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 12

and support the strategic objectives, LOTS may miss the opportunity to effectively 

accomplish its action plans.

• a(5) It is not clear how LOTS’s action plan measurement system reinforces 

organizational alignment, as not all of LOTS’s strategic goals (Figure 2.1-3) appear to be 

addressed by the Top-Line Scorecard (Figure 4.1-2). For example, the scorecard measures 

appear to focus on the Organ Work System, with no measures related to the 

accomplishment of action plans related to improvement of stakeholder satisfaction. 

Including such measures may allow LOTS to better address its strategic challenges related 

to increasing the registry and retaining the workforce.

• a(2,3,4,5),b The changes described in LOTS’s approaches to strategic implementation 

do not appear to constitute systematic evaluation and improvement or organizational 

learning, including innovation. Systematically improving its approaches to strategic 

implementation may enable LOTS to accelerate its accomplishments of its action plans 

and strategic objectives.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 13

[Items 3.1 through 5.2 are not included in this report.]

Category 6 Operations 

6.1 Work Processes 

Your score in this Criteria item for the Consensus Review is in the 50–65 percentage range. 

(Please refer to Figure 5a, Process Scoring Guidelines.)

STRENGTHS

• b(1) The OMP, which is used to ensure that work processes meet key process 

requirements, is deployed to both work systems, is integrated with the SPP and PMS, and 

uses the Corrective Action Preventive Action deviation system for learning and 

improvement. Ongoing evaluation of key work process measures occurs through the 

PMS. Alignment and integration of performance measures begin in the SPP and continue 

through the OMP to ensure that all data and information needs are met to effectively 

manage performance outcomes.

• a(1) LOTS’s integration of the voice of the customer as the mechanism to determine 

key product and work process requirements helps leverage the business strategic 

advantage of stakeholder satisfaction. Examples include formal and informal surveys, 

feedback reports, and informal interactions. A cycle of improvement resulted in an 

information card for physicians and nurses to use in donation discussions, particularly 

donation after cardiac death.

• a(3),b(3) LOTS systematically designs and improves products and work processes 

through the OMP (Figure 6.1-1), which is integrated with other key processes as 

opportunities are identified through the SPP (Figure 2.1-1) and the PMS (Figure 4.1-1). 

Improvements are initiated using PDSA methodology. This approach to designing and 

improving work processes may help LOTS proactively identify improvement opportunities 

and rapidly respond to changes in requirements or performance.

• c LOTS’s systematic approach to manage the supply network for the organ and tissue 

work systems helps ensure that services provided by referral partners meet customer 

needs. The Standardized Identification and Referral Process is used to ensure quality 

from referral to establishing donor suitability, approaching the family, and securing 

donation. In addition, metrics for referral suppliers are tracked and reviewed quarterly 

on the Hospital Services scorecard.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

• b(2) It is unclear how LOTS uses the OMP to determine key support processes and 

their requirements and determines that these processes are meeting key business 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 14

requirements during daily operations. Without a systematic approach in this area, key 

services and work processes may be at risk.

• d A process for pursuing opportunities for innovation in work processes is not evident, 

as LOTS’s improvement teams appear to focus on driving continuous improvement in 

work processes. An approach that goes beyond continuous improvement to innovation 

management may enable LOTS to effectively pursue its identified strategic 

opportunities, such as increasing registry enrollment, by driving breakthrough 

improvement.

• a(3) It is unclear how new technology, risk consideration, and the potential need for 

agility, which are cited in a list, are incorporated into the design of products and work 

processes in step 4 of the OMP. Focused efforts to integrate these aspects into process 

design may help LOTS continue to deliver services that exceed customer expectations.

• c It is unclear how LOTS ensures that suppliers other than referral partners, such as 

Guardian Ambulance, Columbia Cremation, Transplant Technologies, and Wright 

Brothers Charters, meet operational needs and customer requirements. Approaches 

that go beyond communication and the tracking of performance may help ensure that 

suppliers contribute to the accomplishment of organizational objectives established 

through the SPP, PMS, and OMP.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 15

[Items 6.2, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5 are not included in this report.] 

Category 7 Results

7.3 Workforce Results

Your score in this Criteria item for the Consensus Review is in the 30–45 percentage range. 

(Please refer to Figure 5b, Results Scoring Guidelines.)

STRENGTHS

• a(2) In support of the key driver of employee benefits, some workforce climate 

results, including satisfaction with benefits, show mostly sustained good levels that are 

better than the comparisons shown. For example, LOTS’s days away, restricted, or 

transferred (DART) rate was better than the U.S. Department of Labor comparison from 

2016 to 2018 (Figure 7.3-7), and Radiation Exposure (Figure 7.3-8) shows sustained levels 

near zero, significantly better than the Department of Health and Human Services limit. In 

addition, satisfaction with benefits (Figure 7.3-15) shows sustained levels better than or 

equal to the health care industry top-quartile comparison from 2016 to 2018. 

• a(3) Some workforce engagement results exhibit good relative performance against 

the Excel Employee Engagement top quartile, demonstrating the core competency of a 

mission-driven workforce. For example, Connection to the Mission (Figure 7.3-11) is better 

than the comparison, with the gap widening, and Overall Job Satisfaction (Figure 7.3-14) 

was slightly better than the comparison from 2016 to 2018.

• a(4) Reinforcing the strategic advantage of a supportive culture, LOTS demonstrates 

good levels, with good performance relative to comparisons, for some workforce 

development results. Training Expenditures (Figure 7.3-17) shows performance better than 

the Association for Organ Procurement Organizations (AOPO) top-quartile from 2016 to 

2018; results for Leader Development Satisfaction (Figure 7.3-18) were better than the topquartile in 2018.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

• a Results are missing for some measures of workforce-focused performance; namely, 

for the key driver of relationship with coworkers; for the workforce capability and capacity 

measure of skills and competencies by job description or staffing ratios; and for workforce 

climate processes, such as RFO or the health, security, and accessibility factors shown in 

Figure 5.1-5. Monitoring these results may help LOTS correlate workforce measures with 

any adverse trends in overall satisfaction measures.

• a(1) LOTS shows flat or adverse trends in areas of performance that are key to the 

achievement of a steady and diverse workforce. For example, overall retention (Figure 

7.3-13) and overall job satisfaction (Figure 7.3-14) decreased from 2016 to 2018, as did the 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 16

ethnic diversity of new hires (Figure 7.3-4A). In addition, internal measures of consistent 

staffing levels, Organ Donors per OPC (Figure 7.3-2) and Tissue Donors per TOP (Figure 

7.3-3), show adverse or mixed trends. Improving trends in these areas may help LOTS

address the strategic challenge of workforce retention.

• a The workforce-focused performance results given are not segmented by the groups 

noted in Figure P.1-4. For example, workforce engagement results are not segmented by 

department, gender, tenure, or job type. Segmentation of results such as overall job 

satisfaction (Figure 7.3-14) and retention (Figure 7.3-13) may enable LOTS to monitor 

differences among these groups and make improvements to support the strategic 

advantage of a supportive culture and address the challenge of retention.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 17

7.4 Leadership and Governance Results

Your score in this Criteria item for the Consensus Review is in the 30–45 percentage range. 

(Please refer to Figure 5b, Results Scoring Guidelines.)

STRENGTHS

• a(3,4,5) Several law and regulation, ethics, and society results show good 

performance levels and beneficial trends. For example, results for Regulatory and Legal 

Compliance Key Measures (Figure 7.4-3) are at the highest possible level. Other examples 

include five consecutive “unqualified opinion” determinations for LOTS’s external financial 

audit (Figure 7.4-4); BOD Trust of CEO (Figure 7.4-7), which reached nearly 3.00 on a 3-point 

scale in 2017; and the percentage of action plans completed (Figure 7.5-14), which has been 

sustained above 85% for four years. These results may help LOTS retain the Designated 

Service Area based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services standards. 

• a(2) Governance results for Board Self-Assessment (Figure 7.4-2) show performance 

better than the BoardInfo benchmarks in all four key areas for 2016–2018. This good 

relative performance against comparisons may reinforce the culture of a strong drive to 

meet the mission.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

• a(1,3,4,5) Some results related to LOTS’s approaches to leadership, law and 

regulation, ethics, and societal well-being and support are missing. For example, LOTS

does not report results for RFO or for leaders’ communication/engagement with partners 

and customers, for the number of deviation forms resulting from audits (1.2b[1]), for the 

number of substantiated corporate compliance hotline issues, or for recycling and 

reduction in energy consumption. Monitoring results in these areas may address the 

societal-responsibility-related strategic challenge of increasing registry.

• a(1) Results for satisfaction with leader communication (Figure 7.4-1) show poor 

relative performance against the Excel Employee Engagement benchmark from 2016 

through 2018 and lack segmentation by relevant workforce segments. Segmenting these 

results may help identify specific actions to improve the performance of leader 

communication and address the workforce strategic challenge of retention.

• a(2,4) Some governance results related to BOD requirements and to compliance show 

adverse or mixed trends. The BOD’s self-assessment of strategic oversight and financial 

oversight shows declines from 2016 to 2018, and the other areas of self-assessment show 

mixed trends (Figure 7.4-2). In addition, Reported Corporate Compliance Hotline Issues 

(Figure 7.4-6) shows an increase from 0 or 1 in 2014–2018 to 4 in 2019 year-to-date. 

Continuing to monitor these trends may allow LOTS to proactively identify and mitigate 

potential issues in these areas.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 18

APPENDIX A

The spider, or radar, chart that follows depicts your organization’s performance as represented 

by scores for each item. This performance is presented in contrast to the median scores for all 

2019 applicants at Consensus Review. You will note that each ring of the chart corresponds to a 

scoring range.

Each point in red represents the scoring range your organization achieved for the 

corresponding item. The points in blue represent the median scoring ranges for all 2019

applicants at Consensus Review. Seeing where your performance is similar or dissimilar to the 

median of all applicants may help you initially determine or prioritize areas for improvement 

efforts and strengths to leverage. 

[The spider chart will be added when 2019 data are available.]
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 19

APPENDIX B

By submitting a Baldrige Award application, you have differentiated yourself from most U.S. 

organizations. The Board of Examiners has evaluated your application for the Malcolm Baldrige 

National Quality Award. Strict confidentiality is observed at all times and in every aspect of the 

application review and feedback. 

This feedback report contains the examiners’ findings, including a summary of the key themes 

of the evaluation, a detailed listing of strengths and opportunities for improvement, and scoring 

information. Background information on the examination process is provided below.

APPLICATION REVIEW

Independent Review

Following receipt of the award applications, the award process evaluation cycle (shown in 

Figure 1) begins with Independent Review, in which members of the Board of Examiners are 

assigned to each of the applications. Examiners are assigned based on their areas of expertise 

and with attention to avoiding potential conflicts of interest. Each application is evaluated 

independently by the examiners, who write observations relating to the scoring system 

described beginning on page 29 of the 2019–2020 Baldrige Excellence Framework. 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 20

Figure 1—Award Process Evaluation Cycle
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 21

Consensus Review

In Consensus Review (see Figure 2), a team of examiners, led by a senior or master examiner, 

conducts a series of reviews, first managed virtually through a secure database called BOSS and 

eventually concluded through a focused conference call. The purpose of this series of reviews is 

for the team to reach consensus on comments and scores that capture the team’s collective 

view of the applicant’s strengths and opportunities for improvement. The team documents its 

comments and scores in a Consensus Scorebook. 

Step 1

Consensus Planning

Step 2

Consensus Review in 

BOSS

Step 3

Consensus Call

Step 4

Post–Consensus–Call 

Activities

• Clarify the 

timeline for the 

team to complete 

its work.

• Assign 

category/item 

discussion leaders.

• Discuss key 

business/ 

organization 

factors.

• Review all 

Independent 

Review 

evaluations—

draft consensus 

comments and 

propose scores. 

• Develop 

comments and 

scores for the 

team to review.

• Address 

feedback, 

incorporate 

inputs, and 

propose a 

resolution of 

differences on 

each worksheet.

• Review updated 

comments and 

scores.

• Discuss 

comments, 

scores, and all key 

themes.

• Achieve 

consensus on 

comments and 

scores.

• Revise comments 

and scores to 

reflect consensus 

decisions.

• Prepare final 

Consensus 

Scorebook.

• Prepare feedback 

report.

Figure 2—Consensus Review

Site Visit Review

After Consensus Review, the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 

selects applicants to receive site visits based on the scoring profiles. If an applicant is not 

selected for Site Visit Review, the final Consensus Scorebook receives a technical review by a

highly experienced examiner and becomes the feedback report.

. 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 22

Site visits are conducted for the highest-scoring applicants to clarify any uncertainty or 

confusion the examiners may have regarding the written application and to verify that the 

information in the application is correct (see Figure 3 for the Site Visit Review process). After 

the site visit, the team of examiners prepares a final Site Visit Scorebook. 

Step 1

Team Preparation

Step 2

Site Visit

Step 3

Post–Site–Visit Activities

• Review consensus 

findings.

• Develop site visit issues.

• Plan site visit.

• Make/receive 

presentations.

• Conduct interviews.

• Record observations.

• Review documents.

• Resolve issues.

• Summarize findings.

• Finalize comments.

• Prepare final Site Visit 

Scorebook.

• Prepare feedback report.

Figure 3—Site Visit Review

Applications and Site Visit Scorebooks for all applicants receiving site visits are forwarded to the 

Judges Panel for review (see Figure 4). The judges recommend which applicants should receive 

the Baldrige Award and identify any non-award recipient organizations demonstrating one or 

more Category Best Practices. The judges discuss applications in each of the six award sectors

separately, and then they vote to keep or eliminate each applicant. Next, the judges decide 

whether each of the top applicants should be recommended as an award recipient based on an 

“absolute” standard: the overall excellence of the applicant and the appropriateness of the 

applicant as a national role model. For each organization not recommended to receive the 

Baldrige Award, the judges have further discussion to determine if the organization 

demonstrates any Category Best Practices. The process is repeated for each award sector.

Step 1

Judges Panel Review

Step 2

Evaluation by Category

Step 3

Assessment of Top 

Organizations

• Applications

• Consensus Scorebooks

• Site Visit Scorebooks

• Manufacturing

• Service

• Small business

• Education

• Health care

• Nonprofit

• Overall strengths/ 

opportunities for 

improvement

• Appropriateness as 

national model of 

performance 

excellence

Figure 4—Judges’ Review
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 23

Judges do not participate in discussions or vote on applications from organizations in which 

they have a competing or conflicting interest or in which they have a private or special interest, 

such as an employment or a client relationship, a financial interest, or a personal or family 

relationship. All conflicts are reviewed and discussed so that judges are aware of their own and 

others’ limitations on access to information and participation in discussions and voting. 

Following the judges’ review and recommendation of award recipients, the Site Visit Review

team leader edits the final Site Visit Scorebook, which becomes the feedback report.

SCORING

The scoring system used to score each item is designed to differentiate the applicants in the 

various stages of review and to facilitate feedback. As seen in the Process Scoring Guidelines 

and Results Scoring Guidelines (Figures 5a and 5b, respectively), the scoring of responses to 

Criteria items is based on two evaluation dimensions: process and results. The four factors used 

to evaluate process (categories 1–6) are approach (A), deployment (D), learning (L), and 

integration (I), and the four factors used to evaluate results (items 7.1–7.5) are levels (Le), 

trends (T), comparisons (C), and integration (I).

In the feedback report, the applicant receives a percentage range score for each item. The 

range is based on the scoring guidelines, which describe the characteristics typically associated 

with specific percentage ranges.

As shown in Figures 6a and 6b, the applicant’s overall scores for process items and results items 

each fall into one of eight scoring bands. Each band score has a corresponding descriptor of 

attributes associated with that band. Figures 6a and 6b show the percentage of applicants 

scoring in each band at Consensus Review.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 24

Figure 5a—Process Scoring Guidelines (For Use with Categories 1–6)

SCORE DESCRIPTION

0% or 5%

• No SYSTEMATIC APPROACH to item questions is evident; information is ANECDOTAL. (A)

• Little or no DEPLOYMENT of any SYSTEMATIC APPROACH is evident. (D)

• An improvement orientation is not evident; improvement is achieved by reacting 

to problems. (L)

• No organizational ALIGNMENT is evident; individual areas or work units operate independently. 

(I)

10%, 15%, 

20%, or 25%

• The beginning of a SYSTEMATIC APPROACH to the BASIC question in the item is evident. (A)

• The APPROACH is in the early stages of DEPLOYMENT in most areas or work units, inhibiting 

progress in achieving the BASIC question in the item. (D)

• Early stages of a transition from reacting to problems to a general improvement orientation 

are evident. (L)

• The APPROACH is ALIGNED with other areas or work units largely through joint problem solving. 

(I)

30%, 35%, 

40%, or 45%

• An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, responsive to the BASIC question in the item, is 

evident. (A)

• The APPROACH is DEPLOYED, although some areas or work units are in early stages of 

DEPLOYMENT. (D)

• The beginning of a SYSTEMATIC APPROACH to evaluation and improvement of KEY PROCESSES is 

evident. (L)

• The APPROACH is in the early stages of ALIGNMENT with the basic organizational needs identified 

in response to the Organizational Profile and other process items. (I)

50%, 55%, 

60%, or 65%

• An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, responsive to the OVERALL questions in the item, is evident. 

(A)

• The APPROACH is WELL DEPLOYED, although DEPLOYMENT may vary in some areas or work units. (D)

• A fact-based, SYSTEMATIC evaluation and improvement PROCESS and some organizational 

LEARNING, including INNOVATION, are in place for improving the efficiency and EFFECTIVENESS of KEY 

PROCESSES. (L)

• The APPROACH is ALIGNED with your overall organizational needs as identified in response to the 

Organizational Profile and other process items. (I)

70%, 75%, 

80%, or 85%

• An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, responsive to MULTIPLE questions in the item, is evident. (A)

• The APPROACH is well DEPLOYED, with no significant gaps. (D)

• Fact-based, SYSTEMATIC evaluation and improvement and organizational LEARNING, including 

INNOVATION, are KEY management tools; there is clear evidence of refinement as a result of 

organizational-level ANALYSIS and sharing. (L)

• The APPROACH is INTEGRATED with your current and future organizational needs as identified in 

response to the Organizational Profile and other process items. (I)

90%, 95%, or 

100%

• An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, fully responsive to the MULTIPLE questions in the item, is 

evident. (A)

• The APPROACH is fully DEPLOYED without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or work 

units. (D)

• Fact-based, SYSTEMATIC evaluation and improvement and organizational LEARNING through 

INNOVATION are KEY organization-wide tools; refinement and INNOVATION, backed by ANALYSIS and 

sharing, are evident throughout the organization. (L)

• The APPROACH is well INTEGRATED with your current and future organizational needs as 

identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other process items. (I)
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 25

Figure 5b—Results Scoring Guidelines (For Use with Category 7)

SCORE DESCRIPTION

0% or 5%

• There are no organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS, or the RESULTS reported are poor. 

(Le)

• TREND data either are not reported or show mainly adverse TRENDS. (T)

• Comparative information is not reported. (C)

• RESULTS are not reported for any areas of importance to the accomplishment of 

your organization’s MISSION. (I)

10%, 15%, 

20%, or 25%

• A few organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS are reported, responsive to the BASIC

QUESTION In the item, and early good PERFORMANCE LEVELS are evident. (Le)

• Some TREND data are reported, with some adverse TRENDS evident. (T)

• Little or no comparative information is reported. (C)

• RESULTS are reported for a few areas of importance to the accomplishment of your 

organization’s MISSION. (I)

30%, 35%, 

40%, or 45%

• Good organizational PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported, responsive to the BASIC

QUESTION in the item. (Le)

• Some TREND data are reported, and most of the TRENDS presented are beneficial. (T)

• Early stages of obtaining comparative information are evident. (C)

• RESULTS are reported for many areas of importance to the accomplishment of your 

organization’s MISSION. (I)

50%, 55%, 

60%, or 65%

• Good organizational PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported, responsive to the OVERALL

QUESTIONS in the item. (Le)

• Beneficial TRENDS are evident in areas of importance to the accomplishment of your 

organization’s MISSION. (T)

• Some current PERFORMANCE LEVELS have been evaluated against relevant 

comparisons and/or BENCHMARKS and show areas of good relative PERFORMANCE. (C)

• Organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS are reported for most KEY CUSTOMER, market, 

and PROCESS requirements. (I)

70%, 75%, 

80%, or 85%

• Good-to-excellent organizational PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported, responsive to 

MULTIPLE QUESTIONS in the item. (Le)

• Beneficial TRENDS have been sustained over time in most areas of importance to the 

accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (T)

• Many to most TRENDS and current PERFORMANCE LEVELS have been evaluated against 

relevant comparisons and/or BENCHMARKS and show areas of leadership and very 

good relative PERFORMANCE. (C)

• Organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS are reported for most KEY CUSTOMER, market, 

PROCESS, and ACTION PLAN requirements. (I)

90%, 95%, 

or 100%

• Excellent organizational PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported that are fully responsive 

to the MULTIPLE QUESTIONS in the item. (Le)

• Beneficial TRENDS have been sustained over time in all areas of importance to the 

accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (T)

• Industry and BENCHMARK leadership is demonstrated in many areas. (C)

• Organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS and PROJECTIONS are reported for most KEY 

CUSTOMER, market, PROCESS, and ACTION PLAN requirements. (I)
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 26

1 Percentages are based on scores from the Consensus Review.

Figure 6a–Process Scoring Band Descriptors 

Band

Score

Band

Number

% 

Applicants 

in Band1

PROCESS Scoring Band Descriptors

0–150 1

The organization demonstrates early stages of developing and 

implementing approaches to the basic Criteria questions, with deployment 

lagging and inhibiting progress. Improvement efforts are a combination of 

problem solving and an early general improvement orientation. 

151–200 2

The organization demonstrates effective, systematic approaches responsive 

to the basic questions in the Criteria, but some areas or work units are in 

the early stages of deployment. The organization has developed a general 

improvement orientation that is forward-looking. 

201–260 3

The organization demonstrates effective, systematic approaches responsive 

to the basic questions in most Criteria items, although there are still some 

areas or work units in the early stages of deployment. Key processes are 

beginning to be systematically evaluated and improved. 

261–320 4

The organization demonstrates effective, systematic approaches responsive 

to the overall questions in the Criteria, but deployment may vary in some 

areas or work units. Key processes benefit from fact-based evaluation and 

improvement, and approaches are being aligned with overall organizational 

needs. 

321–370 5

The organization demonstrates effective, systematic, well-deployed 

approaches responsive to the overall questions in most Criteria items. The 

organization demonstrates a fact-based, systematic evaluation and 

improvement process and organizational learning, including some 

innovation, that result in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of key 

processes. 

371–430 6

The organization demonstrates refined approaches responsive to the 

multiple questions in the Criteria. These approaches are characterized by

the use of key measures and good deployment in most areas. Organizational 

learning, including innovation and sharing of best practices, is a key 

management tool, and integration of approaches with current and future 

organizational needs is evident. 

431–480 7

The organization demonstrates refined approaches responsive to the 

multiple questions in most Criteria items. It also demonstrates innovation, 

excellent deployment, and good-to-excellent use of measures in most areas. 

Good-to-excellent integration is evident, with organizational analysis, 

learning through innovation, and sharing of best practices as key 

management strategies. 

481–550 8

The organization demonstrates outstanding approaches focused on 

innovation. Approaches are fully deployed and demonstrate excellent, 

sustained use of measures. There is excellent integration of approaches with 

organizational needs. Organizational analysis, learning through innovation, 

and sharing of best practices are pervasive.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 27

1 Percentages are based on scores from the Consensus Review.

2

“Industry” refers to other organizations performing substantially the same functions, thereby facilitating 

direct comparisons.

Figure 6b—Results Scoring Band Descriptors

Figure 

6a—Band

Score

Band

Number

% 

Applicants 

in Band1

RESULTS Scoring Band Descriptors

0–125 1

A few results are reported responsive to the basic Criteria questions, but 

they generally lack trend and comparative data. 

126–170 2

Results are reported for several areas responsive to the basic Criteria 

questions and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission. Some of 

these results demonstrate good performance levels. The use of 

comparative and trend data is in the early stages.

171–210 3

Results address areas of importance to the basic Criteria questions and 

accomplishment of the organization’s mission, with good performance 

being achieved. Comparative and trend data are available for some of 

these important results areas, and some beneficial trends are evident. 

211–255 4

Results address some key customer/stakeholder, market, and process 

requirements, and they demonstrate good relative performance against 

relevant comparisons. There are no patterns of adverse trends or poor 

performance in areas of importance to the overall Criteria questions and 

the accomplishment of the organization’s mission. 

256–300 5

Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market, and process 

requirements, and they demonstrate areas of strength against relevant 

comparisons and/or benchmarks. Beneficial trends and/or good 

performance are reported for most areas of importance to the overall 

Criteria questions and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission. 

301–345 6

Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market, and process 

requirements, as well as many action plan requirements. Results 

demonstrate beneficial trends in most areas of importance to the Criteria 

questions and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission, and the 

organization is an industry2leader in some results areas.

346–390 7

Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market, process, and 

action plan requirements. Results demonstrate excellent organizational 

performance levels and some industry2leadership. Results demonstrate 

sustained beneficial trends in most areas of importance to the multiple 

Criteria questions and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission.

391–450 8

Results fully address key customer/stakeholder, market, process, and 

action plan requirements and include projections of future performance. 

Results demonstrate excellent organizational performance levels, as well 

as national and world leadership. Results demonstrate sustained 

beneficial trends in all areas of importance to the multiple Criteria 

questions and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission. 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2019 Feedback Report 28

2019 BALDRIGE AWARD APPLICANTS

Sector Total Number of Award 

Applications

Number of Award 

Applicants 

Recommended for Site 

Visit

Health Care 16

Nonprofit 5

Education 1

Business–Small Business 3

Business–Service 1

Business–Manufacturing 0

Total 26

BALDRIGE AWARD RECIPIENT CONTACT INFORMATION 1988–2018

Baldrige Award winners generously share information with numerous organizations from all sectors. 

To contact an award winner, please see https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/award-recipients, which 

includes links to contact information as well as profiles of the winners.
The ratio of the Baldrige Program’s benefits 

for the U.S. economy to its costs is estimated

at 820 to 1.

110 Baldrige Award winners serve as national

role models.

2010–2018 award applicants represent 

641,693 jobs,

3,072 work sites, over $166 billion in 

revenue/budgets, and about 451 million 

customers served.

352 Baldrige examiners volunteered 

roughly $7.9 million in

services in 2018.

State Baldrige-based examiners 

volunteered around $29 million in

services in 2017.

What People Are Saying

I have always envisioned 

Stellar to be a company that 

is built to last. . . . And if you ask 

how we can ensure that we are 

built to last, I would say the 

answer is Baldrige.

Celeste Ford

CEO and Founder

Stellar Solutions

Palo Alto, CA

Baldrige Award recipient

We believe that government 

can be great. We believe that 

local government can be great. 

And we believe that the 

Baldrige framework is ideally 

suited to help local government 

go from here to here

[low to high].

Darin Atteberry

City Manager

City of Fort Collins

Fort Collins, CO 

Baldrige Award recipient

CONNECT WITH BALDRIGE

@BaldrigeProgram #Baldrige