2021

education

Community College 

of the Northwest 

Case Study 

Feedback Report

www.nist.gov/baldrige
Baldrige Performance Excellence Program

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

July 2021

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 Community College of the Northwest Feedback Report is a fictitious Baldrige Award feedback report developed by a team of 

experienced Baldrige examiners who evaluated the corresponding case study against the 2020–2021 Baldrige Criteria for Performance 

Excellence. The fictitious case study organization is a U.S. community college that provides students access to higher education to 

prepare them for success in the workforce and to contribute positively to society. There is no connection between the fictitious 

Community College of the Northwest and any other organization, named either Community College of the Northwest 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. 

The Community College of the Northwest scored in band 4 for process items and band 4 for results items. 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. For an organization that scores in band 4 for results items, results typically address 

some key customer/stakeholder, market, and process requirements, and they demonstrate good relative performance against relevant 

comparisons. Beneficial trends and/or good performance are reported for many areas of importance to the overall Criteria questions 

and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission. 

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. 2021. 2021 Baldrige Case Study Feedback Report: Community College of the 

Northwest. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.nist.gov/baldrige.
 

 

Community College 

of the Northwest 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guided by the Education Criteria and Baldrige feedback received, we had well-defined work 

systems and clearly understood key processes with tracked metrics. At the beginning of the 

pandemic, the faculty and staff could quickly Zoom together to figure out how to transition to an 

online environment—which they accomplished in just two weeks.

Zoe Irvin, Executive Director for Planning, Research, and Organizational Development 

Howard Community College 

2019 Baldrige Award Recipient 

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, 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 2021 feedback report also includes a graph in 

Appendix A that shows your organization’s scoring profile compared to the median scores for 

all 2021 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 

prior 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 2021–2022 Baldrige Excellence 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Framework (Education) containing the Education Criteria for Performance Excellence can be 

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

• 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. 

Using the Baldrige framework has led to a lot of learning for us. ... Baldrige is systemic at 

our organization. We attribute everything we do to the framework and its Criteria. ... [and 

are] committed to the entire process, not just to parts of it. As a result, we can point to a 

couple of things that we didn’t expect as a result of using the Criteria. We have had 

significant efficiencies in business operations ... . Results have also led to more process and 

operational consistency and one of the highest completion and retention rates for students 

at a public education institution in the United States. 

Lindel Fields, Superintendent and CEO 

Tri County Tech 

2018 Baldrige Award Recipient 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KEY THEMES 

Key Themes–Process Items 

Community College of the Northwest (CCNW) scored in band 4 for process items (1.1–6.2) in 

the Consensus Review 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 CCNW’s response to process items are as follows: 

• Demonstrating a systems perspective, CCNW uses its Strategic Planning Process (SPP) to 

integrate organizational components into an interconnected ecosystem that delivers 

results. Built around a Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) continuous-improvement framework, 

the five steps of the SPP include engaging with key stakeholders, partners, suppliers, 

collaborators, and workforce members. For example, voice-of-the-customer (VOC) and 

market data are used to determine program and service offerings, with key 

performance metrics set and fully deployed throughout the applicant, and several cycles 

of improvement of the Performance Management System are completed during the 

SPP. Workforce skills, competencies, certifications, and staffing levels necessary to 

achieve organizational results are also considered and systematically determined 

through the SPP. In addition, senior leaders create an environment for success by 

integrating communication approaches and addressing innovation opportunities that 

may arise as part of the SPP. 

• CCNW embeds PDCA methodology into many process implementation loops, thus using 

it as a key improvement tool and creating opportunities for innovation. The PDCA-based 

Performance Management System (Figure 4.1.1) and Operational Performance Review 

(Figure 4.1-6) support the performance review framework. CCNW’s Organizational 

Knowledge Management Process (COKMP, Figure 4.2-2) allows it to build and manage 

organizational knowledge gleaned from the PDCA reviews, as well as transfer knowledge 

among workforce members. Many key organizational processes undergo PDCA cycles, 

including those for determination of programs and services, legal and ethical 

compliance, learning and development, and workforce capacity and capability. In 

addition, the President’s Team and unit leaders use PDCA in step 5 of the SPP to make 

improvements in strategies and key processes. Further, the Northwest Innovation 

Process (Figure 1.1-3) uses PDCA to conduct intelligent-risk analyses and manage 

innovation opportunities that may arise from PDCA-based reviews of processes. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• CCNW supports its vision to be the best in the nation by systematically monitoring 

organizational performance to drive fact-based decision making. Using strategic key 

performance indicators (S-KPIs) for longer-term action plans and unit-level, operational 

KPIs (O-KPIs), CCNW tracks its performance through its Performance Measurement 

System (PMS, Figure 4.1-1) to reinforce organizational alignment. The organization uses 

the Operational Performance Review (Figure 4.1-6) structure to determine teams, areas, 

and frequencies for reviews and uses the four-step B2P process to select comparative 

data and information. Additionally, CCNW’s Model of Data Quality and Availability 

(Figure 4.2-1) includes multiple approaches to systematically verify and ensure the 

quality of organizational data and information. 

• In support of its core competency of maintaining an expert, up-to-date workforce, 

CCNW uses systematic approaches to engage its workforce members, provide for their 

development, and address changing capacity and capability needs. For example, CCNW 

identifies key drivers of workforce engagement through annual environmental scans 

and assesses engagement levels using multiple methods, including three national 

surveys that allow for benchmarking to top-performing organizations. Additionally, 

CCNW systematically evaluates and improves its learning and development process, 

which includes professional development seminars and classes open to all faculty and 

staff levels. CCNW also requires employees to participate in an annual review of Culture 

Walk and successfully complete a competency test to ensure their currency on expected 

ethical and legal behavior. Further, CCNW addresses key changes and impacts to the 

workforce through workforce plans developed using Cap2 analysis during the SPP, and 

these are aligned to budget and action plans and reviewed throughout the year. 

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

response to process items are as follows: 

• Some gaps are apparent in CCNW’s use of its PDCA improvement approach to 

evaluation and improvement and in how it makes information available for 

improvement and innovation. For example, it is unclear how the processes used to 

evaluate Board and senior leader performance are evaluated for effectiveness. It is also 

not evident that the institution regularly evaluates and improves its overall approach to 

listening to potential students and other customers, as well as its processes for 

determining student/customer groups and market segments and determining 

educational program and service offerings. It is not clear how the organization transfers 

relevant knowledge for use in strategic planning and innovation processes. Several 

aspects of how the organization manages best practices are unclear, such as how best 

practices are identified for sharing at the annual Day of Sharing or for inclusion in The 

Northwest Way (TNW) portal. Further, CCNW does not appear to systematically analyze 

the success of or identify opportunities for improvement for its diversity-related 

processes for recruiting, hiring, and onboarding new workforce members. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• It is unclear how CCNW’s approaches consider the different needs and expectations of 

its various student and workforce segments. For example, it is unclear that the 

organization’s partnership with RBM reflects a well-ordered and repeatable approach to 

identifying future student and market segments, including identifying which groups and 

segments to pursue for future growth. It is also not evident how listening methods vary 

for different student groups, or that CCNW deploys its Relationship Management 

Process (RMP, Figure 3.1-2) to effectively understand varying student requirements. It is 

also unclear how key means of student support vary for different student groups or 

segments through the RMP or other approaches. Additionally, it is not clear how the 

organization considers various workforce segments (e.g., professional support staff vs. 

faculty members, full-time vs. part-time, those working at various locations such as labs) 

in determining drivers of workforce engagement, as well as in its approaches for 

managing workplace capability and capacity, the workplace environment, and 

benefits/policies. 

• Processes to sustain and grow a culture that inspires the workforce and students and 

treats them fairly are not apparent. Beyond the Culture Walk program, a systematic 

method for senior leaders to create a culture that fosters inclusion and develops future 

students and leaders to ensure inclusion of those of diverse backgrounds is not evident. 

Nor is it evident how senior leaders’ personal actions demonstrate a commitment to 

organizational values and accountability. Additionally, it is not clear how senior leaders 

effectively communicate with and engage the entire workforce, students, partners, and 

other stakeholders using the communications methods listed in Figure 1.1-2. A 

systematic approach to effectively respond to ethical breaches, such as potential Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or Title IX complaints and/or student 

harassment at remote worksites, also is not evident. In addition, in CCNW’s efforts to 

ensure fair treatment for different students and student groups, it is unclear how 

approaches for compliance with federal/state equal opportunity and antidiscrimination 

laws align with Just Culture guidelines and the institution’s Walk-It-Right ethics program. 

Further, a systematic approach is not evident for promoting equity and inclusion in 

processes for workforce performance management, performance development, and 

career development. 

• Addressing an apparent lack of systematic approaches to engage suppliers, partners, 

and the community may help CCNW create more value for them. For example, a process 

to balance the needs of all stakeholders in the SPP is not evident; nor is it clear that a 

systematic approach is in place to deploy action plans to key suppliers, partners, and 

collaborators. In addition, a systematic leadership approach is not evident for identifying 

key communities and determining areas for organizational involvement. Further, in the 

collection and analysis of data, it is unclear how CCNW engages its technological 

partners to assess changes and innovations in technology, including in planning to 

anticipate and prepare for disruptions of a technological nature. It is also not clear how 

CCNW deploys priorities from its performance reviews to its key suppliers, partners, and 

collaborators. Specifically, it is unclear how the leader of each priority captured in the 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action Plan Management System (APMS) deploys the priority to suppliers of student 

support services, such as providers of technology, laboratory support, the bookstore, 

and dining services. Moreover, it is unclear whether the organization’s Central 

Administrative Support (CAS) processes for managing the supply network include 

approaches to communicating performance expectations, measuring suppliers’ 

performance, providing feedback, or addressing suppliers’ poor performance. 

Key Themes–Results Items 

CCNW scored in band 4 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 4 for results items, results typically address some key 

customer/stakeholder, market, and process requirements, and they demonstrate good relative 

performance against relevant comparisons. Beneficial trends and/or good performance are 

reported for many areas of importance to the overall Criteria questions and the 

accomplishment of the organization’s mission. 

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

found in response to results items are as follows: 

• CCNW demonstrates good levels, trends, and comparisons in many results related to its 

strategic objectives of student access and success, reflecting its value of Students First. 

For example, supporting the strategic objectives of student access and success, results 

for enrollment, graduation rate, credit hours delivered, and number of students 

transferred (Figures 7.1-1, 7.1-3, 7.1-4, and 7.1-6) show a pre-pandemic beneficial trend 

and outperform key comparatives. In many instances, the organization has continued to 

outperform comparisons even in the midst of pandemic downturns in others’ 

performance, such as in results for degrees awarded (Figure 7.1-2) and continuing 

education hours (Figure 7.1-5). In support of CCNW’s value of Students First, RBM 

Overall Satisfaction (Figure 7.2-1) levels have continuously improved and outperform 

three peer institutions and equal the performance of a Baldrige Award winner in 2020. 

Similarly, CCNW’s results for RBM College Met Expectations (Figure 7.2-2) outperform 

those of all peers and meet the RBM top decile in 2020. Additionally, results for 

Satisfaction with Student Focus (Figure 7.2-4) have improved steadily from 2014 to 2019 

in four key measures; and results for Customer Satisfaction with Student Services 

(Figure 7.2-14) have increased for four student segments from 2017 to 2020. Further, 

results for Level of Student Engagement (Figure 7.2-20) exceed the Community College 

Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) top decile for all four dimensions measured. 

These performance levels may significantly contribute to CCNW’s market share 

penetration in its three-county service area, which outperforms the best service-area 

competitor (Figure 7.5-12). 

• Favorable financial results may assist CCNW in maintaining its strategic advantage of 

affordability and addressing its strategic challenge of decreased state funding. For 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

example, cost containment results indicate that CCNW is performing at or above the 

level of DASHER (Data Sharing Consortium for Higher Education Research) top peer 

(Figure 7.5-8), and CCNW also outperforms the DASHER top peer for percentage of 

expenditures for instruction and academic support (Figure 7.5-9), while maintaining a 

lower cost per enrollment than all three of its comparators (Figure 7.5-10). The 

organization’s shift to online textbooks has decreased the average cost and increased 

student savings (Figure 7.1-22), and CCNW’s integration of systems has resulted in 

support savings for food service and the bookstore (Figure 7.1-21). In addition, financial 

results for revenue and margin have remained stable or better than comparative 

benchmarks. For example, the Net Asset position (Figure 7.5-4) is better than the NCCBP 

comparison; revenue and expenditures outperform the IPEEx2 top quartile (Figure 7.2a), 

and the net margin has continued to improve from 2016 through 2019. Further, CCNW’s 

bond credit rating (Figure 7.5-6) continues to be strong. 

• CCNW’s leadership and workforce results demonstrate a focus on the future by creating 

an environment for success and ethical behavior. Senior leader (SL) results for 

communication, engagement, and support of organizational values (Figure 7.4-1), as 

well as scores for SL reinforcement of each of those values (Figure 7.4-2) demonstrate 

beneficial trends and outperform top-decile levels of comparisons. Results for 

stakeholder trust in the President’s Team demonstrate beneficial trends for the past 

three years and outperform the top decile in fiscal year (FY) 2020 for all four stakeholder 

groups. Additionally, CCNW invests more in workforce development than its peers and 

that investment garners favorable satisfaction ratings for effectiveness of leadership 

development programs; for example, CCNW results for Workforce Learning and 

Development Investment (Figure 7.3-13) exceed the DASHER comparison for all three 

workforce segments. In addition, participation rates of eligible employees and 

perceptions of effectiveness (Figure 7.3-15) and satisfaction with peer mentoring (Figure 

7.3-14) demonstrate general beneficial trends and good performance levels for faculty 

members and administrators. Further, most compliance and regulatory measures are at 

or near 100% for the last one to two years; and employee participation in ethics training 

has outperformed the top sister college in the system for four of the last five years. 

Results for workplace climate also are favorable; for example, perceived safety results 

related to service and professionalism (Figure 7.3-5) show beneficial trends, with all 

areas exceeding the national top decile. In addition, results of the Canter Q12 survey 

(Figure 7.3-6) show consistently good levels that exceed top-decile scores for overall 

workplace climate. 

d. Considering CCNW’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: 

• Missing results may prevent CCNW from fully understanding its progress in relation to 

its vision to be the best in the nation. For example, the organization lacks results 

demonstrating student learning and also does not present results for its efforts to close 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the student achievement gap, a strategic challenge, including results on student use of 

support services or interventions to promote equitable access. Also missing are results 

for the satisfaction and engagement of some suppliers and partners, including those for 

engagement of employers and advisory committee members, technology companies, 

the community (including the local chamber of commerce), and engagement of lab 

support providers. Additionally, some key workforce-related results are missing, such as 

workforce capability results related to academic credentials or appropriate skills, 

accessibility results (which may impact inclusion), and participation in and satisfaction 

with wellness programs (the applicant’s indicator of workplace health). Further, a 

number of expected leadership and governance results are missing, including measures 

of legal and regulatory compliance and accreditation performance. Other examples are 

missing measures of SL communications and engagement with students, Board selfassessments, and grievances and complaints, as well as measures addressing risk with 

educational programs. CCNW also has not provided many expected performance results 

for societal well-being and key community support, including measures related to 

students (graduate placements in programs of need, faculty and student events for 

community benefit), businesses (certification, advisory groups, and dual-credit 

programs), and community learning events. Results are also not reported for the socially 

important indicators of career-placement and readiness, retaining students in higherincome positions, and keeping students local. 

• Addressing missing segmentation in some key results may help CCNW in understanding 

its performance in relation to all key groups or areas. For example, no data are 

presented for student learning by different student population segments. Indicators of 

student success, such as annual (fall-to-fall) student persistence rates (Figure 7.1-9), 

graduation rates (Figure 7.1-3,3b), and number of students transferring to four-year 

institutions (Figure 7.1-6) are not segmented to provide results for CCNW’s certificate 

programs, workforce badges, or career preparation courses. Segmentation of results by 

student sub-groups is missing for measures of satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and 

engagement, such as RBM Overall Satisfaction (Figure 7.2-1), Satisfaction with Academic 

Services (Figure 7.2-3), Level of Student Engagement (Figure 7.2-20), and Percent 

Students Achieving Goals (Figure 7.2-23). Additionally, workforce-focused results do not 

show data for non-tenure-track, full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty members, 

particularly key indicators such as workforce capacity and capability, climate, 

engagement, and development. Most key leadership, governance, and societal wellbeing results also lack segmentation. For example, segmentation of results by student 

groups (career seeking vs. non-career seeking) and faculty groups (PT vs. FT) is lacking in 

Leadership Reinforcement of Values (Figure 7.4-2), Stakeholder Trust in Senior Leaders 

(Figure 7.4-10), Ethical Environment (Figure 7.4-11), and Perception of Walk It Right 

Ethics Program (Figure 7.4-12). Further, no results are provided on the net revenue 

related to credit/degree students who make up 70% of the student population or on 

affordability by market, educational offering, or student group (career seeking, transfer, 

non-degree, and dual-credit students). 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Several key results highlight areas where unfavorable levels, trends, or comparisons may 

limit CCNW’s ability to achieve its vision of being the best. For example, CCNW’s clock 

hours have consistently been below the DASHER top peer, the National Community 

College Benchmarking Project (NCCBP) 90th percentile, and the IPEEx2 top quartile 

(Figure 7.5-13), and CCNW’s market share for credit students has been flat over the last 

five years and below the Dasher and NCCBP benchmarks (Figure 7.5-11). Even during a 

move to remote operations precipitated by the pandemic, safety drop-box inputs have 

remained higher than pre-pandemic levels in 2018 (Figure 7.1-19). In addition, both the 

Canter and CEE surveys indicate that engagement results for the staff segment are 

lower for all workforce engagement factors (Figures 7.3-9 and 7.3-10) than for other 

workforce segments. Lower results for the staff segment relative to faculty and 

administrator segments are also reflected in the measures showing lower investment in 

staff learning and development (Figure 7.3-13), lower satisfaction for this work group 

with Bright Star peer mentoring (Figure 7.3-14), lower participation in leadership 

development (Figure 7.3-15), and an uneven trend for attrition. Further demonstrating 

performance that may limit CCNW’s advancement, seven of the organization’s 15 

strategic goals have a red status, indicating that they have not been met, and many 

action plans (Figure 7.5-18) have a red or yellow status. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

Category 1 Leadership 

1.1 Senior Leadership 

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) Based on nationally recognized best practices, senior leaders (SLs) implemented a 

Culture Walk program in 2016 to demonstrate their commitment to ethical and legal 

behavior. President’s Team (PT) members serve as resources for workforce questions 

and guidance. CCNW logs Culture Walk issues, takes action, and records outcomes; SLs 

conduct an annual Culture Walk review. Employees are required to participate in an 

annual review and pass a test on their Culture Walk competency; new employees 

receive Culture Walk information during new-employee orientation (NEO). 

• a(1) CCNW’s vision and values are established by SLs within the Strategic Planning 

Process (SPP) and are communicated and reinforced to employees through various 

communications methods (Figure 1.1-2). For example, SLs introduce the vision and 

values at NEO, and they are discussed at department meetings. SLs receive feedback on 

how they reflect CCNW’s values in their annual performance reviews, providing some 

opportunities for learning. This approach helps reinforce CCNW’s Students First value. 

• c(1) SLs create an environment for success by integrating communications approaches 

to drive the achievement of CCNW’s mission. SLs help ensure cultural alignment through 

feedback and integration with change management approaches, NEO, and employee 

surveys. In SPP, step 5, the PT and unit leaders address innovation and change 

management, and they use PDCA to continually evaluate and improve these processes. 

Short- and longer-term systematic succession plans are in place for CCNW’s president 

and PT to ensure continuity and smooth transitions, as needed. These approaches may 

help CCNW achieve organizational sustainability. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• a(1), c(2) It is not evident how SLs’ personal actions reflect a commitment to 

CCNW’s values or how SLs demonstrate personal accountability for the organization’s 

actions. For example, the Culture Walk appears to be limited to promoting ethical and 

legal behavior, inclusion, and equity, rather than addressing values and personal 

accountability more broadly. In addition, it is not clear how SLs demonstrate their 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

commitment to the values of being community-engaged and of partnership 

excellence. Systematic approaches in these areas may enable SLs to enhance the 

mission of empowering students. 

• c(1) Beyond the Culture Walk program, systematic processes for SLs to create a 

culture that fosters inclusion and cultivates organizational agility and resilience is not 

evident. For example, it is not evident how the organization ensures inclusion of 

individuals with diverse backgrounds in efforts to develop future leaders; nor is it 

evident how innovation processes contribute to cultivating agility or resilience. 

Approaches in these areas may enhance CCNW’s ability to empower students in a 

diverse society and diverse communities. 

• b It is not evident how SLs effectively encourage two-way communication with the 

workforce, students, and key partners using CCNW’s communications methods (Figure 

1.1-2). For example, it is not evident how STAR-Point achieves frank, two-way 

communication or how such communication is achieved in department meetings. Fully 

engaging the workforce and students may advance CCNW’s performance excellence 

journey. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2 Governance and Societal Contributions 

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(2) CCNW promotes and ensures ethical behavior in all of its interactions through the 

well-deployed and integrated Culture Walks and Walk It Right programs, with the latter 

integrated into stakeholder surveys and added to SL reviews in cycles of improvement. 

Deployment occurs through NEO, leader meetings, the classroom, and stakeholder 

surveys. These approaches support leaders’ effectiveness in addressing CCNW’s key 

drivers of workforce engagement, especially inclusion and equity (Figure 5.2-1). 

• a(2) CCNW evaluates the performance of SLs and governance board members 

through a systematic, multilevel process. Annually, the CPBT conducts a self-evaluation 

to determine learning needs. The president is evaluated using an ACCT-endorsed review 

instrument, as well as the measures of the strategic dashboard and Culture Walk. 

Performance review results lead to an annual development plan for SLs and Bright Star 

graduates. Providing accountability for performance and development opportunities 

supports CCNW in maintaining expert, up-to-date leadership. 

• a(1) CCNW’s governance approaches support its ability to deliver on its value of being 

community engaged. The organization ensures responsible governance through the 

board’s fiduciary and leadership oversight; transparency is accomplished through 

regular open meetings, the board committee structure and meetings, performance 

reviews, regional events, and community engagement. Annual performance outcomes 

are aligned with strategic objectives. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• b(2) A systematic approach is not evident to effectively respond to ethical breaches, 

such as potential FERPA violations, Title IX complaints, and students being harassed at 

remote worksites. For example, Compliance Services would respond to ethical breaches, 

but it is not clear what specific process would be used to address breaches, as none 

have yet to occur. Given CCNW’s regulatory requirements and commitment to societal 

responsibility, being unable to systematically address ethical breaches may have a 

negative impact on CCNW’s reputation. 

• c(2) It is not clear how CCNW identifies its key communities (identified as feeder and 

transfer schools, local business and community advisory committees, and industry 

partners) and determines areas for organizational involvement. For example, the 

electric company, which is identified as a key community, does not appear to be a target 

for organizational involvement. Given that the organization’s key partner/collaborator is 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the local community, a systematic approach may allow CCNW to better anticipate and 

evaluate any changes in its key communities or their needs. 

• a, c Systematic evaluation and improvement, as well as use of best practices and 

innovations, are not evident for CCNW’s governance and societal contributions 

approaches. For example, it is not evident how CCNW evaluates the effectiveness of its 

processes to ensure responsible governance or to assess the performance of its SLs and 

Board; it is not clear how CCNW arrived at the decision to expand the CPBT in 2018. 

Applying its PDCA system to these approaches may help CCNW move toward its vision 

to be the best. 

• b(1) It is not clear how CCNW systematically addresses current and anticipates future 

concerns with its educational programs, services, and operations. For example, it is 

unclear that the organization’s Complaint Management Process (Figure 3.2-1) includes 

systematic approaches to effectively manage escalation, resolution, and follow-up; nor 

is it clear how complaints are validated prior to filing with the state. The lack of a 

systematic approach in this area may limit CCNW’s ability to demonstrate its value of 

Students First. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category 2 Strategy 

2.1 Strategy Development 

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(1) CCNW’s systematic Strategic Planning Process (SPP; Figure 2.2-1) includes five 

steps built around PDCA and engages key stakeholders, partners, suppliers, and 

collaborators, as well as the workforce. Monitoring of short- and long-term goals 

quarterly for agility and annually for improvement allows CCNW to strengthen its core 

competencies and support its values. The process cascades organizational goals to the 

workforce through the online Action Plan Management system, with action plan 

performance posted on the web for transparency. 

• b(1) CCNW’s strategic objectives are aligned with its strategic advantages, strategic 

challenges, and core competencies (Figure 2.2-1). Each objective has associated 

strategic goals, KPIs, and corresponding action plans or strategic initiatives. The action 

plans incorporate key changes in educational programs and services that may help 

CCNW succeed in its changing competitive environment. 

• a(2) CCNW systematically stimulates and incorporates innovation through SPP step 1 

(Visioning) and step 5 (Strategy/Process and Innovation). Through the Intelligent Risk 

Analysis, the college prioritizes strategic opportunities. The strategic opportunities for 

online and competency-based education, transfer articulation, and on-site educational 

and training among rural communities were results of this process. This approach may 

help CCNW address the strategic challenge of closing the achievement gap. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• b(2) A systematic process is not evident for balancing the needs of all key 

stakeholders while addressing CCNW’s strategic challenges and leveraging its core 

competencies and strategic advantages. In particular, CCNW’s strategic objectives do 

not appear to address the key changes planned for educational programs and 

competitive changes, or to address strategic challenges such as decreased state 

funding and differentiation of multiple student segments’ learning needs. Without 

addressing these key areas, CCNW may limit its ability to achieve its vision of being 

the best in the nation in a highly competitive and changing environment. 

• a(4) It is not clear how CCNW determines what core competencies it will need in the 

future or how it includes the core competencies of suppliers and partners in this 

determination. Considering CCNW’s need for the core competencies of technology 

partners, the need to understand and meet the needs of rural students, and the 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

changing demographics of students in a more diverse learning environment, a 

systematic approach in this area may help the organization sustain its strategic 

advantage of student success outcomes. 

• a(3) In CCNW’s collection and analysis of data, it is unclear how it engages its 

technology partners to assess changes and innovations in technology. For example, it is 

unclear how the college engages these partners to anticipate and prepare for 

technological disruptions and in the use of the IRA tool to minimize risk. Given changes 

such as the increased use of technology in STEM programs and the decrease in state 

funding, an approach in this area may help CCNW address the risk of not having 

adequate resources to execute its strategic plan. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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(4) Workforce plans are systematically developed to address key changes and their 

impact on CCNW’s workforce, supporting the organization’s core competency of 

maintaining an expert, up-to-date workforce. The Cap2 Analysis Process, a part of step 2 

of the SPP, is integrated with the strategic objectives (SObjs) and action plans (APs). 

Four workforce plans (Figure 2.2-1) are aligned to specific SObjs, deployed to the 

organization’s leaders and workforce through the Action Plan Management System 

(APMS), and reviewed semiannually. 

• a(3) Through its systematic Strategic Resource Allocations (SRA) process, CCNW 

ensures that workforce, financial, and other resources are available to support the 

achievement of action plans at a time of declining state funding. Step 5 of the SPP 

includes a review of the budgeting process used by the Finance Committee (CPBT-FC), 

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

action plans. A review of the Workforce Process (Cap2) ensures that workforce 

resources are available to execute the plans. 

• a(5) Through its use of S-KPIs for longer-term action plans and O-KPIs, CCNW tracks its 

performance through its Performance Measurement System (PMS). During step 3 of the 

SPP (Figure 2.1-1), the PT and unit leaders deploy the action plans through the Action 

Plan Management System (APMS), which cascades SObjs and S-KPIs down to strategic 

initiatives/priorities, unit goals, strategies, and O-KPIs. This approach supports the 

organization’s ability to execute on its strategic objectives. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• a(2) A systematic approach is not evident for deploying action plans to key 

suppliers, partners, and collaborators. For example, the Action Plan Development and 

Deployment Process does not indicate who is involved in the supplier and partnership 

plans or how the relationship process takes place. Deployment of action plans to 

these and other stakeholders may help CCNW achieve its strategic objectives related 

to student access and readiness. 

• a(6) In CCNW’s review of projected performance against that of competitors or 

comparable organizations, it is not clear how the organization addresses performance 

gaps. For example, the processes used to address these gaps during the strategy 

evaluation and process improvement phases of the SPP are not evident. Addressing 

such gaps may help CCNW attain its vision of being the best in the nation. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• a(1) It is unclear which action plans (Figure 2.1-2) are short-term and which are longterm; nor is it clear how the action plans align with the short-term and long-term SObjs. 

Clear time frames and alignment may help CCNW more effectively address the 

competitiveness changes of a decline in projected high school graduates, lowering of 

some peers’ admission standards, and increasing dual-credit academies. 

• b In the APMS, it is not clear how CCNW recognizes when circumstances (e.g., the 

pandemic or changing economic conditions) require a shift in action plans and rapid 

execution of new plans. A systematic approach may enable CCNW to be positioned for 

success in a rapidly changing environment. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category 3 Customers 

3.1 Customer Expectations 

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

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

STRENGTHS 

• a(1) CCNW uses a systematic approach (Figure 3.1-1) to listen to, interact with, and 

observe students and other customers, such as feeder and transfer schools, to obtain 

actionable data and information. Formal and informal VOC methods include a variety of 

modalities at varying frequencies. The VOC data flow to the RMP (Figure 3.1-2) to 

provide actionable information in support of operational and strategic discussions. 

• b(2) During step 1 of the SPP, CCNW uses multiple methods to determine program 

and service offerings. These methods incorporate data and information from the 

applicant’s VOC (Figure 3.1-1) and RMP (Figure 3.1-2). Other data, including 

environmental scans, competitor information, and stakeholder feedback, are 

incorporated during SPP step 1 to analyze opportunities. Some additional services and 

programs have resulted from the VOC and RMP analyses, including the STAR program 

and pandemic-related initiatives, and these expand CCNW’s reach into new markets 

based on community and local needs. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• b(1) CCNW’s partnership with RBM does not appear to be a systematic approach for 

identifying future student and other customer groups and market segments, including 

which groups and segments to pursue for future growth. The approach does not appear 

to be well ordered or repeatable by CCNW, as it is not clear which processes the college 

has outsourced to its RBM partner. A systematic approach may help CCNW address its 

strategic objectives for student access and success. 

• a, b Beyond evaluating specific VOC methods, CCNW does not appear to use its 

Baldrige-based PDCA performance improvement system to evaluate and improve its 

overall approach to student and other customer listening. Nor are cycles of 

improvement evident for CCNW’s processes to determine student/customer groups and 

market segments and to determine educational program and service offerings. 

Systematic use of PDCA in these areas may help CCNW address its student-related 

strategic challenges. 

• a(2) Approaches for listening to potential students and other customers to obtain 

actionable information do not appear to be systematic. For example, it is not clear how 

frequently CCNW gathers information about competitors’ students via discussions, 

conferences, websites, and job/high school fairs; nor is it clear who gathers this 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

information. Additionally, approaches to listening to former, competitors’, and other 

potential customers do not appear to focus on CCNW’s tri-county service area. 

Systematic processes may help CCNW address the strategic challenge of increased 

competition in its service area. 

• a(1) It is not evident how CCNW varies its listening methods for different student 

groups and across the stages of students’ relationships with the applicant, or how the 

college deploys its RMP (Figure 3.1-2) to understand varying student and other 

customer requirements. This may limit CCNW’s ability to address the requirements of 

key market segments. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2 Customer Engagement 

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

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

STRENGTHS 

• c In support of achieving its strategic objectives for student access and success, CCNW 

systematically uses VOC and market data and information to make decisions on 

students-first initiatives. Specifically, RMP, CEOC, and PROD teams review S-KPIs 

presented by the RBM team and derived from VOC, enrollment reports/market data, 

daily reports, campaign data, and web traffic. Based on analysis and integration of these 

data, changes are vetted through RMP and reviewed through PI and SPP to determine 

programs/services focused on students first. 

• a(3) CCNW’s six-step complaint management process (Figure 3.2-1) reinforces its 

value of Students First. CCNW relies on RBM to screen, assign, and prioritize complaints. 

Red-flag complaints related to security, safety, legal, or ethical issues are brought to the 

immediate attention of the President’s Team and to the Crisis Communication Team, if 

necessary. Complaint data are aggregated, analyzed, tracked, and trended to determine 

if patterns exist and to support cycles of evaluation and improvement. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• b CCNW’s processes for determining student and other customer satisfaction and 

engagement do not appear to be systematic. For example, the provision of inputs via 

the VOC methods and RMP and the disaggregation of data by RBM do not appear to 

constitute a systematic approach. Furthermore, the outsourcing of key elements to RBM 

may make it difficult for CCNW to ensure the repeatability of this approach if the college 

chooses to conduct these activities internally or to use another partner/vendor. 

• a(4) In CCNW’s efforts to ensure fair treatment for different students and student 

groups, alignment of the Walk-It-Right ethics program to the Just Culture guidelines is 

not evident; that is, compliance with federal/state equal opportunity and 

antidiscrimination laws does not appear to align with Just Culture and Walk-It-Right. 

Such alignment may help ensure that CCNW can provide exceptional support services 

for all students. 

• a(2) It is unclear how the RMP (Figure 3.1-2) systematically ensures that key means of 

student support vary for different student groups or segments; nor are cycles of learning 

and improvement evident for this process. A systematic process, along with evaluation 

and improvement, may reinforce CCNW’s core competency in providing exceptional 

student support services. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

• a(1) It is not clear how CCNW builds and manages student and other customer 

relationships through its RBM partner; the processes managed by RBM are not 

described, and it is unclear how CCNW evaluates and improves them. Without wellordered, repeatable processes that are accessible to the college, its ability to acquire 

students and other customers and meet their expectations may be at risk. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category 4 Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management 

4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance 

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 CCNW systematically reviews organizational performance across the college. 

Through the Operational Performance Review structure (Figure 4.1-6), CCNW identifies 

the teams (including the governance board), areas, and frequencies for reviews. CCNW 

uses the Strategic and Operational Performance Review Process (Figure 4.1-5) to review 

S-KPIs and O-KPIs. Opportunities are recorded in the Action Plan Management System, 

which is integrated with the SPP. Two cycles of improvement have led to the current 

SOPRP. These systems help CCNW identify improvement opportunities to support its 

vision to be the best. 

• a(2) CCNW’s PMS (Figure 4.1-1) is supported by the four-step B2P process to select 

comparative data and information to support fact-based decision making (Figure 4.1-3). 

The PROD selects benchmarks for each S-KPI and most O-KPIs through the B2P process. 

The B2P has undergone two cycles of improvement through semiannual reviews by 

PROD and key stakeholders. These systematic processes may help CCNW address the 

strategic challenge of increased competition. 

• a(1) Key performance measures, including strategic and operational, are 

systematically selected, collected, and aligned using the four-phase Performance 

Management System (PMS; Figure 4.1-1). The resulting key data and information are 

used to monitor daily operations and overall performance. Key metrics and the PMS are 

fully deployed, through a number of key methods, down to the various departments 

and operational units. Several cycles of improvement have occurred as part of the SPP, 

step 4. This approach may enable CCNW to effectively manage and track its strategic 

and operational KPIs, leading to achieving its strategic objectives. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• c(2) It is not clear how CCNW deploys priorities from its performance reviews to its 

key suppliers, partners, and collaborators. For example, it is unclear how the leader of 

each priority captured in the APMS deploys those priorities to suppliers of student 

support services such as providers of technology, laboratory support, the bookstore, 

and dining. Ensuring deployment of improvement priorities to key suppliers may help in 

reinforcing CCNW’s first core competency—providing exceptional student support 

services. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• b, c(1) It is unclear how CCNW considers competitive performance and data as it 

reviews organizational performance and projects future performance. For example, it is 

unclear how this occurs in the SOPRP, the SP3, or other related processes. Inclusion of 

competitive performance and data in these processes may assist CCNW in 

understanding the impact of increased competition for students and qualified staff 

members. 

• a(1) Key short- and longer-term financial measures are not evident among CCNW’s 

S-KPIs. For example, no financial measures are listed with S-KPIs (Figure 2.1-1); nor are 

any listed in the short-term O-KPIs (Figure 4.1-2). The lack of broad, strategically focused 

financial measures among the S-KPIs may limit CCNW leaders’ ability to manage county 

funds and to successfully navigate an environment with reduced state funding. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2 Information and Knowledge Management 

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) In support of the workforce engagement driver of training and resource 

availability, the four-step COKMP (Figure 4.2-2) allows CCNW to build and manage 

organizational knowledge as well as conduct workforce knowledge transfer. This process 

resulted from two improvement cycles and a subsequent innovation project, with the 

current version being improved to include search technology and data entry 

automations. 

• a CCNW uses multiple approaches through its MDQA (Figure 4.2-1) to systematically 

verify and ensure data and information quality as well as attributes including accuracy, 

validity, integrity, reliability, and currency. The MDQA has undergone two cycles of 

improvement and is currently subject to two improvement projects regarding quality of 

data and information. The MDQA is integrated with several other key processes such as 

the SPP, PMS, BwP, PMM, and SP3. These approaches allow users to get accurate and 

timely information from CCNW’s many information technology platforms. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• b(1) It is not clear how CCNW transfers relevant knowledge to and from students and 

other groups; nor is it clear how it transfers relevant knowledge for use in strategic 

planning and innovation processes. For example, it is not evident how students and 

other stakeholders are made aware of knowledge available in the TNW portals, and it is 

unclear what process triggers other departments to use TNW portal information in 

innovation and strategic planning processes. Systematically transferring knowledge may 

help CCNW’s various stakeholder groups more fully engage to create an environment of 

organizational success. 

• b(2) Several aspects of how CCNW manages best practices are not evident, potentially 

limiting its efforts to become one of the best in the nation. For example, it is unclear 

how CCNW identifies best practices to be shared at its annual Day of Sharing or for 

inclusion in the TNW portal, or whether any best practices come from the highestperforming role models. Further, it is not evident how best practices are implemented 

once they are identified and shared. 

• a(2) CCNW’s approach to making needed data and information available in a userfriendly format and timely manner to students and the workforce does not appear to be 

systematic. For example, it is not evident how or when PROD reviews user satisfaction 

data to determine whether students and the workforce perceive that information is 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 24 
 

 

 

user-friendly and timely. A more systematic approach may be important given the 

centrality of the STAR-Point app (introduced in 2019) and the Students First value. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category 5 Workforce 

5.1 Workforce Environment 

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(1) The JPC team systematically assesses workforce capability and capacity needs 

through the annual Capability Review Process, which is part of the SPP and undergoes 

annual reviews. Skills, competencies, certifications, and staffing levels are considered 

and aligned to the SPP, budget, and the NWPMP processes to evaluate performance and 

future development needs. Capacity analysis for academics includes projected 

enrollment, contact hours with consideration for FT/PT faculty ratios, average class size, 

and advising and student services ratios. Achieving appropriate workforce capability and 

capacity supports CCNW’s Students First value. 

• a(3) Changes to addressing workforce capacity and capability needs are systematically 

determined through the SPP and are reviewed twice a year for degree instruction and 

quarterly for workforce development. Changes in capacity are addressed through the 

Center for Faculty Development, the Emergency Innovation Response Team, and the 

three-year systematic change management strategy. Improvements over the last three 

years include established outplacement, revised training opportunities, and more justin-time hiring. These improved processes may help CCNW strengthen its core 

competency of an expert, up-to-date workforce. 

• a(4) CCNW systematically addresses work accomplishment through a defined 

structure focused on aligning the organization to achieve goals/action plans with a focus 

on continuous improvement. Committees and teams promote collaboration and 

continuous improvement across the organization. Unit-level teams focus on achieving 

SPP goals and establish action plans for the coming year. Cross-functional teams work 

on issues affecting the larger organization, and ad hoc teams address specific issues. 

Departments are aligned by function. Both faculty and staff members participate on 

teams and committees. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• a, b It is not clear how CCNW considers its various workforce segments in managing 

workplace capability and capacity, workplace environment, and benefits/policies. For 

example, for workplace health, security, and accessibility processes, it is unclear how 

CCNW takes into account potential differences between professional staff vs. faculty 

members, full-time vs. part-time employees, or employees in labs vs. those in other 

locations. Considering workforce segments in these approaches may strengthen 

CCNW’s core competency of maintaining an expert, up-to-date workforce. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• a(4) CCNW’s team-based structure to accomplish work does not appear to capitalize 

on the college’s three core competencies, reinforce resilience and a student focus, or 

manage the workforce to exceed performance expectations. Systematically addressing 

these components of its work accomplishment approach may help CCNW meet or 

exceed its stated performance expectations. 

• a(2) A systematic process is not evident for improving the effectiveness of CCNW’s 

diversity-related processes for recruiting, hiring, and onboarding new workforce 

members. Specifically, it is unclear how processes such as using community agencies, 

diversity websites, behavioral interviewing, and the Works System ensure that the 

workforce represents the ideas, cultures, and thinking of CCNW’s student community. 

Such an evaluation process may help CCNW succeed in an environment of increased 

competition for students. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.2 Workforce Engagement 

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(1) CCNW systematically identifies the key drivers of workforce engagement through 

an annual environmental scan including data from Baldrige Award recipients and 

surveys from CCSSE, Dasher, and Great Higher Ed Employers. Further, focus groups, 

performance evaluations, training feedback, and exit interviews help CCNW identify 

potential improvements. Examples of improvement include enhancements to the 

surveys in 2017 and the addition of exit interviews in 2019. These actions support 

CCNW’s core competency of maintaining an expert, up-to-date workforce. 

• a(2) Through analysis of surveys, focus groups, and departmental performance review 

summaries, CCNW systematically assesses workforce engagement. Three surveys (CEE 

Climate, Canter 12Q and the Great Higher Ed Employers surveys) include benchmarks of 

top-performing organizations outside education as well as data to evaluate and 

understand the key workforce drivers. Further, focus groups and departmental 

performance review summaries are combined with the survey results for analysis, with 

findings used as an input into the SPP. 

• c(3) CCNW systematically evaluates and improves its LDC process, which includes 

Kirkpatrick for benchmarking against best-performing organizations. A multidisciplinary 

team began a biennial learning and development assessment, which led to 

improvements such as the development of professional development seminars and 

classes open to all levels of faculty and staff. This approach responds to CCNW’s 

workforce engagement driver of training and resource availability and relevance. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• c(1) CCNW’s approach to performance management does not appear to support high 

performance. For example, the NWPMP defines how performance is tracked, but not 

how the process supports high performance or how it reinforces intelligent risk taking 

and the achievement of action plans. In addition, goal setting considers innovative ideas 

and intelligent risk, but it is not clear how this is actually accomplished. Supporting high 

performance through the NWPMP may help CCNW respond to the engagement factor 

of high-performance work. 

• a(1) CCNW’s approach for determining drivers of workforce engagement does not 

appear to differentiate these drivers for the college’s various workforce segments, such 

as faculty vs. staff members. Determining these drivers for each workforce segment may 

assist CCNW in responding to the needs of its workforce. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

• c(5) It is not clear how CCNW’s approaches to performance management, 

performance development, and career development systematically promote equity 

and inclusion. Such an approach may help CCNW achieve its strategic objectives and 

enhance its ability to recruit diverse workforce members, which may support its 

Students First value. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

• a(3) CCNW uses best practices such as NIST IDEF0 (Figure 6.1-2) and PMI’s Project 

Management Body of Knowledge to systematically design its educational programs and 

services and work processes. PDCA, an addition resulting from the organization’s 

learning during its Baldrige journey, is embedded into process implementation loops. 

These processes include a WBS for all required activities and deliverables. This approach 

integrates with the KPIs and Tracking Star PMS and supports CCNW’s core competency 

of providing exceptional student support services. 

• b(1, 3) CCNW implements and improves its work processes using approaches that 

have been updated through its Baldrige journey. For example, processes are 

implemented through monitoring O-KPIs on the dashboard. The PDCA approach 

embedded into process implementation loops is triggered when O-KPIs cross 

predetermined thresholds. These approaches support CCNW’s vision of being the best 

in the nation in providing students with accessibility, affordability, and career-readiness. 

• d The PDCA-based innovation process (Figure 6.1-4) helps CCNW manage 

opportunities for innovation. Innovation initiatives are accompanied by a business case 

that includes cost, schedule, and scope and are monitored with stoplight reviews for 

budget, schedule, and meeting of objectives. These processes support CCNW in 

pursuing innovation opportunities that are likely to be successful. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• a(1, 2) It is unclear how CCNW systematically determines key educational program, 

service, and process requirements; work processes and requirements (Figure 6.1-1) do 

not appear to align with strategic objectives, goals, action plans, and KPIs (Figure 2.1-1). 

In regard to the sorting of inputs by operational units and departments, the frequency, 

criteria, and decision makers are unclear. In addition, no work processes align with 

learning, graduation, or work-readiness of students. Systematically determining 

requirements that are aligned with strategic elements may assist CCNW in addressing its 

strategic challenge of increased competition for students. 

• c CCNW’s CAS processes for managing the supply network do not appear to include 

approaches for communicating performance expectations, measuring suppliers’ 

performance, providing feedback, or addressing suppliers’ poor performance. 

Considering suppliers’ role in providing information technology, the bookstore, and 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dining services (Figure 6.1-1), supplier management may be critical to meeting students’ 

requirements. 

• b(2) It is unclear how CCNW systematically determines its key support processes and 

their requirements and determines whether these processes meet key business 

requirements during daily operations; nor is full deployment to the key assets and 

locations (P.1a[4]) or other support functions (Figure P.1-1a) evident. Without a 

systematic approach and full deployment, CCNW may not meet its students’ or other 

customers’ requirements or maintain its core competency in providing exceptional 

student support services. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.2 Operational Effectiveness 

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 CCNW systematically protects its systems from and detects cybersecurity events 

through the Baldrige Cybersecurity Excellence Builder, the NIST Cybersecurity 

Framework, and US-CERT; PDCA processes are used to improve these approaches. By 

using students to both attack and defend CCNW’s cyber systems, the college identifies 

and acts on opportunities for improvement, as well as providing a learning opportunity 

for students. Such improvements may help CCNW maintain cybersecurity, which has 

become increasingly important given the reliance on online instruction and use of 

technology platforms during the pandemic. 

• c(1) CCNW systematically provides a safe operating environment for its workforce, 

students, and others in the workplace through its Emergency and Safety Process (Figure 

6.2-1). CCNW regularly performs safety audits and inspections, provides for 

multiplatform reporting of safety issues, and customizes safety training for all faculty 

and staff members for their respective roles. 

• a CCNW’s stoplight reviews provide an emphasis on budget/cost control and 

schedules in order to manage process efficiency and effectiveness. As an improvement 

made through the PDCA process, CCNW integrated the registration and scheduling 

system with food services and the bookstore, which resulted in cost savings. This 

approach may help CCNW manage its strategic challenge of decreased state funding. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• b It is not clear how CCNW manages physical and digital data, information, and key 

operational systems to ensure confidentiality and only appropriate physical and digital 

access by employees, partners, and suppliers. Ensuring that these stakeholders 

understand their roles may help CCNW mitigate the risk of inappropriate access 

inherent in moving operations online. 

• c(2) It is not clear how CCNW’s emergency process allows it to anticipate disasters, 

emergencies, and other disruptions; nor is it clear how the process is deployed to 

suppliers, other people in the workplace, and several locations (such as the bookstore, 

athletics, art galleries, and dining areas). For example, when the pandemic struck, plans 

were put into place as needed rather than according to a continuity-of-operations plan. 

Without a fully deployed process that includes the ability to anticipate disruptions, 

CCNW may find its business continuity at risk. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• a It is not clear how CCNW systematically balances the need for cost control and 

efficiency with students’ and customers’ needs. For example, CCNW has a strategic 

challenge of reduced state funding while also facing the increasing need to develop 

dual-credit options and meet employers’ needs. By addressing process efficiency and 

effectiveness, CCNW may better mitigate the effects of declining state funding and still 

meet student and stakeholder requirements. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category 7 Results 

7.1 Student Learning and Process Results 

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

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

STRENGTHS 

• a Student access and success results demonstrate good levels and favorable 

performance against comparisons. Enrollment, four-year graduation rate, credit hours 

delivered, and number of students transferred (Figures 7.1-1, 7.1-3, 7.1-4, and 7.1-6), 

among other results, were improving prior to the pandemic and showed better 

performance than the IPEEx2 peer group, the NCCBP top decile, and Baldrige Award 

recipient comparisons. In many cases (e.g., degrees awarded and continuing education 

hours, Figures 7.1-2 and 7.1-5, respectively), CCNW’s results outperform comparisons 

even during the pandemic downturn in performance. 

• c Supply-network results demonstrate good levels and beneficial trends prior to the 

pandemic. A change in the procurement system has resulted in a tripling of participation 

by and procurement dollars from small, woman, and minority suppliers (Figure 7.1-20) 

and a decrease in cycle times (Figure 7.1-23). A shift to online textbooks has decreased 

the average cost and increased student savings (Figure 7.1-22); integrating systems has 

resulted in support savings in food service and the bookstore (Figure 7.1-21). These 

results are evidence of CCNW’s core competency in providing exceptional student 

support services, many of which are delivered by suppliers. 

• b(1) CCNW’s indicators for innovation performance (Figure 7.1-18) demonstrate good 

pre-pandemic trends and comparisons. Both the number of innovations submitted and 

the percentage of innovations completed doubled prior to the pandemic and exceeded 

the DASHER top decile for 2019 and 2020. Continuing to effectively manage innovation 

processes may help CCNW manage its strategic challenges around funding, competition, 

and the achievement gap. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

a CCNW lacks results demonstrating student learning as well as results for its 

efforts to close the student achievement gap. For example, there are no results that 

demonstrate students’ attainment of new knowledge through study or experience 

while enrolled at CCNW. In regard to the student achievement gap, CCNW is missing 

data on student learning by different population segments, utilization of student 

support services, and interventions to promote equitable access. Tracking student 

learning results may enable CCNW to meet its mission of empowering students to be 

successful in the workplace and in their communities; in addition, tracking student 

performance by key population segments as well as results for key services supporting 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

student learning may help the organization to effectively address its strategic 

challenge of demands to close the student achievement gap. 

• a CCNW does not provide segmented results for its educational program and service 

offerings (P.1-1). For example, fall-to-fall student persistence rates (Figure 7.1-9), 

graduation rates (Figure 7.1-3, 7.1-3b), and the number of students transferring to fouryear institutions (Figure 7.1-6) are not segmented by certificate programs, workforce 

badges, or career preparation courses. Results for CCNW’s various programs may reveal 

progress toward meeting the requirements of its key market segments. 

• b Some of CCNW’s results for work process effectiveness demonstrate poor levels. 

Even during a pandemic move to remote operations, safety drop-box inputs remain 

higher than pre-pandemic levels in 2018 (Figure 7.1-19). In addition, the percentage of 

students with a required education plan has declined by more than 10 percentage 

points (Figure 7.1-13). Probing and improving these pandemic-era results may help 

CCNW improve its resilience. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.2 Customer Results 

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

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

STRENGTHS 

• a(1) In support of the Students First value, student satisfaction results show 

beneficial trends and good performance against comparisons. RBM Overall 

Satisfaction (Figure 7.2-1) levels continuously improved and outperformed peer 

institutions in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020, and were equal to the Baldrige Award 

recipient’s levels in 2020. For RBM College Met Expectations (Figure 7.2-2), CCNW 

outperformed peers and was at the RBM top decile in 2020. In addition, results for 

Satisfaction with Student Focus (Figure 7.2-4) improved steadily from 2014 to 2019 for 

four key measures, and Customer Satisfaction with Student Services (Figure 7.2-14) 

increased from 2017 to 2020 for four student segments. 

• a(2) CCNW demonstrates beneficial trends and favorable comparisons for some 

measures of stakeholder and student engagement. For example, results for Stakeholder 

Engagement (Figure 7.2-24) from 2017 through 2020 show charitable giving trending 

beneficially overall for annual giving, the STAR scholarship fund, and the alumni 

association. Customer Engagement Response Times (Figure 7.2-25) have generally 

improved, and response times have been cut in half during the pandemic. In addition, 

Level of Student Engagement (Figure 7.2-20) exceeds the CCSSE top decile for all four 

dimensions reported. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• a Results for most measures of student satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and engagement 

lack segmentation by key student groups (Figure P.1-5). Examples are Figures 7.2-1 

through 7.2-3 as well as Figures 7.5, 7.8, and 7.9 for satisfaction; Figure 7.2-19 for 

dissatisfaction; and Figures 7.2-20 and 7.2-23 for engagement. Such segmentation may 

help CCNW uncover opportunities for improving the satisfaction and engagement of key 

student groups. 

• a Some customer results lack comparisons that may help CCNW determine its 

progress toward its goal of being best in the nation. For example, results for Financial 

Aid Student Satisfaction (Figure 7.2-15), Community Satisfaction (Figure 7.2-16), Percent 

of Student Achieving Goals (Figure 7.2-23), Stakeholder Engagement (Figure 7.2-24), and 

Customer Engagement Response Times (Figure 7.2-25) lack comparisons. 

• a Results are missing for the satisfaction and engagement of most of the customers 

listed in Figure 3.1-1. For example, no results are provided for engagement of employers 

and advisory committee members, technology companies, the community (including the 

local chamber of commerce), and lab support providers. Such results may help CCNW 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 36 
 

 

 

strengthen its core competency of partnering with the local community to achieve 

excellence and graduate job-readiness. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.3 Workforce Results 

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

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

STRENGTHS 

• a(1) Workforce capacity results show good levels and good performance relative to 

comparisons. For example, Vacancy Rates (Figure 7.3-3) and Faculty-Student Ratio 

(Figure 7.3-4) both demonstrate consistent good levels and exceed the comparisons 

shown. In addition, Workforce Attrition (Figure 7.3-2) for faculty members and 

administrators has been consistently better than that of the top-decile comparators. 

Such results may help CCNW achieve its strategic objectives during a period of 

decreased state funding. 

• a(4) CCNW invests more in workforce development than its peers do, which garners 

good satisfaction ratings for the effectiveness of leadership development programs. 

Workforce Learning and Development Investment (Figure 7.3-13) exceeds that of the 

DASHER comparison for all three workforce segments. Results for satisfaction with peer 

mentoring and participation in leadership development (Figures 7.3-14 and 7.3-15) also 

demonstrate generally beneficial trends. These results evidence progress in responding 

to CCNW’s workforce engagement driver of training and resource availability and 

relevance. 

• a(2) CCNW’s results for workplace climate demonstrate good levels and favorable 

comparisons. Perceived safety results for service and professionalism (Figure 7.3-5) 

show beneficial trends and exceed the national top decile in all areas. Results for 

workers’ compensation injuries compare favorably to the National Safety Council 

average. These results support CCNW in meeting the workforce engagement factors it 

has identified. 

• a(3) CCNW’s results for the engagement of faculty members and administrators 

demonstrate good levels, beneficial trends, and good performance relative to 

comparisons. Performance on the Great Higher Education Employers Survey exceeds 

the two-year college top decile for all factors. Overall Workplace Climate (Figure 7.3-6) 

and Workforce Engagement Factors (Figure 7.3-10) show good relative levels, trends, 

and comparisons for faculty members and administrators. This good performance 

evidences CCNW’s success in responding to the workforce engagement driver of feeling 

valued as a team member. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• a(1, 2, 3) Some key workforce-related results are missing. For example, workforce 

capability results do not address academic credentials or appropriate skills. In addition, 

accessibility results, which may impact inclusion, are missing, as are results for 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

participation in and satisfaction with wellness programs, CCNW’s indicator of workplace 

health. Tracking these results may assist CCNW in strengthening its core competency of 

maintaining an expert, up-to-date workforce and in responding to the increased 

attention on instructor quality. 

• a(3) Engagement results for staff members, the largest segment of the workforce, lag 

behind those for other workforce segments. This is reflected in results for all workforce 

engagement factors (Figures 7.3-9 and 7.3-10), lower investment in staff learning and 

development (Figure 7.3-13), lower satisfaction with peer mentoring (Figure 7.3-14), 

lower participation in leadership development (Figure 7.3-15), and a mixed attrition 

trend. Improvement in these areas may help CCNW meet students’ needs as it works to 

increase entry pathways to the college. 

• a CCNW’s results for workforce capacity and capability, climate, engagement, and 

development are not segmented by non-tenure-track, adjunct, full-time, and part-time 

faculty members, a significant portion of the faculty ranks. Segmented results may help 

CCNW ensure that it is fulfilling the engagement drivers for all employees. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.4 Leadership and Governance Results 

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

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

STRENGTHS 

• a(3, 4) CCNW’s key ethics and legal/regulatory results show good levels, beneficial 

trends, and good relative performance against comparisons (Figures 7.4-4 through 

7.4-7 and Figures 7.4-9 through 7.4-12). Most compliance and regulatory measures 

have been at or near 100% for the most recent one or two years reported, and 

employee participation in ethics training has outperformed that of the top sister 

college in the system for four of the last five years. In addition, stakeholders’ trust in 

the President’s Team demonstrates beneficial trends for the past three years and 

outperforms the top-decile comparison in FY2020 for all stakeholder groups (overall, 

faculty, staff, and students). 

• a(1) For senior leaders’ communication, engagement, and support of organizational 

values (Figure 7.4-1), CCNW reports good-to-excellent results levels, sustained 

improvement, and good relative performance against comparisons among several key 

student and stakeholder groups. For example, leadership scores for reinforcement of 

each of CCNW’s values demonstrate overall consistent beneficial trends for 

administrators, faculty members, staff members, and overall for the past three years 

(Figure 7.4-2). Results for both measures outperform top-decile comparisons. These 

results demonstrate that the workforce and key stakeholders perceive that senior 

leaders support CCNW’s values. 

• a(5) Some results for societal well-being and support of key communities demonstrate 

good levels, beneficial trends, and good relative performance against comparisons. For 

example, dual-credit enrollment has saved students over $1.7 million, and enrollment of 

rural students increased to 31% in the latest fall term, achieving the best-in-the-state 

level in fall 2019-2020 (Figure 7.4-13). Other examples of such results are the increased 

percentage of employees giving back and a reduction in consumption of resources 

(Figures 7.4-14 and 7.4-15). These results demonstrate CCNW’s value of being 

community-engaged. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• a(1, 2, 3, 4) Results are missing for a number of measures related to CCNW’s 

leadership; governance; and legal and regulatory, compliance, and accreditation 

performance. For example, no results are reported for senior leaders’ communication 

and engagement with students, for the Board self-assessment, for grievances and 

complaints, and for measures addressing risk with educational programs. Tracking such 

results may enable CCNW to more effectively demonstrate being the best in the nation. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• a(5) Performance results are missing for several expected measures of societal wellbeing and key community support. These results relate to students (graduate 

placements in programs of need); faculty and student events for community benefit; 

businesses (certification, advisory groups, and dual-credit programs); and community 

learning events. In addition, results are not reported for career placement and 

readiness, for retaining students in higher-income positions, or for keeping students 

local. Tracking these results may help CCNW assess its performance relative to the social 

responsibility aspect of its vision. 

• a(1,2,5) Most of CCNW’s key leadership, governance, and societal well-being results 

are not segmented by student segments, faculty segments, or programs. For example, in 

Figures 7.4-2, 7.4-3, and 7.4-10 through 7.4-12, results for career-seeking vs. noncareer-seeking students or for part-time vs. full-time faculty segments are not reported. 

Tracking results by these key segments may enable CCNW leaders to ensure that they 

are effectively meeting each group’s requirements and expectations (Figure P.1-5). 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.5 Budgetary, Financial, Market, and Strategy Results 

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

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

STRENGTHS 

• a(1) Some financial performance results demonstrate sustained top-decile or topquartile levels. For example, the bond credit report (Figure 7.5-6) is positive, and for cost 

containment, CCNW’s results are equal to or better than those of the DASHER top peer 

(Figure 7.5-8). CCNW’s results for the percentage of expenditures for instruction and 

academic support (Figure 7.5-9) outperform results of the DASHER top peer, while 

CCNW’s results for cost per enrollment are lower than results of all three comparators 

(Figure 7.5-10). These results may help CCNW maintain its strategic advantage of 

affordability. 

• a(2) CCNW reports beneficial trends for market performance and growth, with some 

results comparing favorably to in-state competitors and the top decile. For example, 

there is consistent growth in results for dual-credit enrollment (Figure 7.5-11), which are 

now above the best in the state; results for total number of customers (Figure 7.5-14) 

show CCNW outperforming the best competitor and equal to the DASHER top peer. In 

addition, CCNW’s market share penetration in the three-county service area is better 

than that of the best service-area competitor (Figure 7.5-12). 

• a(1) Revenue and margin results have remained stable or are better than benchmarks. 

For example, net asset position (Figure 7.5-4) is better than the NCCBP comparison, 

revenue and expenditures outperform the IPEEx2 top quartile (Figure 7.5-2a), and net 

margin continued to improve from 2016 to 2019 (Figure 7.5-2b). These results may 

enable CCNW to use its resources to address its challenge of decreased state funding. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

• a Some key financial and marketplace measures demonstrate unfavorable 

performance relative to comparisons. For example, CCNW’s clock hours have 

consistently been below the DASHER top peer, the NCCBP 90th percentile, and the 

IPEEx2 top quartile (Figure 7.5-13). Market share for credit students, who compose 

70% of the student population, has been flat over the last five years and is below the 

DASHER and NCCBP benchmarks (Figure 7.5-11). Closing these gaps may assist CCNW 

in meeting the strategic challenge of increased competition for students. 

• b CCNW reports performance below expectations for achieving its organizational 

strategy (Figure 7.5-17). Seven of CCNW’s 15 strategic goals have a red status, indicating 

that they have not been met. Among these are goals for enrollment, academic/technical 

program completion, pathways, and transfer. Many action plans (Figure 7.5-18) show a 

red or yellow status. Without progress on achievement of its strategic goals and action 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

plans, CCNW may not be able to meet its strategic challenges in its competitive 

environment. 

• a Results in some areas of financial and market performance are not segmented by 

student groups, other customer groups, or programs. For example, net revenue results 

are not segmented to show results for credit/degree students, who are 70% of the 

student population. Nor are results for affordability segmented by markets, educational 

offerings, or student groups (such as career-seeking, transfer, nondegree, and dualcredit students) or relative to the local community. Segmented results in these areas 

may help CCNW eliminate any blind spots and focus on which student groups persist 

and which need assistance. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

2021 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 2021 

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. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 44 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award —2021 Feedback Report 45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 review 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 2021–2022 Baldrige Excellence Framework (Education). 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 46 
 

Figure 1—Award Process Evaluation Cycle 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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—2021 Feedback Report 48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 1 

Judges Panel Review 

Step 2 

Evaluation by Sector 

Step 3 

Assessment of Top 

Organizations 

• Applications • Manufacturing • Overall strengths/ 

• Consensus Scorebooks • Service opportunities for 

• Site Visit Scorebooks • Small business 

• Education 

• Health care 

• Nonprofit 

improvement 

• Appropriateness as 

national model of 

performance excellence 

• Determination of 

organizations 

demonstrating one or 

more Category Best 

Practices 

Figure 4—Judges’ Review 

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 Team 

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

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 the 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 provide information on the percentage 

of applicants scoring in each band at Consensus Review. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 51 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award —2021 Feedback Report 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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) 

• 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 

10%, 15%, progress in achieving the basic question in the item. (D) 

20%, or • Early stages of a transition from reacting to problems to a general improvement orientation 

25% are evident. (L) 

• The approach is aligned with other areas or work units largely through joint problem solving. 

(I) 

• 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 

30%, 35%, deployment. (D) 

40%, or • The beginning of a systematic approach to evaluation and improvement of key processes is 

45% 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) 

• An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the overall questions in the item, is 

evident. (A) 

50%, 55%, • The approach is well deployed, although deployment may vary in some areas or work 

60%, or units. (D) 

65% • Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement, and some examples of use of best 

practices, instances of innovation, or sharing of refinements, 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) 

• An effective, systematic approach, responsive to multiple questions in the item, is evident. (A) 

• The approach is well deployed, with no significant gaps. (D) 

70%, 75%, • Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement, adoption of best practices, managing for 

80%, or innovation, and sharing of refinements are key tools for improving organizational efficiency 

85% and effectiveness. (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, development of best practices, 

achievement of innovation, and sharing of refinements are key organization-wide tools for 

improving efficiency and effectiveness. (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) 

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

52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 student and other 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 student, other 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 student and 

other customer, market, process, and action plan requirements. (I) 

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

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 53 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Band 

Score 

Band 

Number 

% Applicants 

in Band1 Process Scoring Band Descriptors 

0–150 1 0 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 0 The organization demonstrates effective, systematic approaches 

responsive to the basic Criteria questions, with some areas or work units 

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

general improvement orientation that is forward-looking. 

201–260 3 10 The organization demonstrates effective, systematic approaches 

responsive to the basic questions in most Criteria items, with some areas 

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

beginning to be systematically evaluated and improved. 

261–320 4 65 The organization 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. 

321–370 5 20 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 5 The organization demonstrates refined approaches generally responsive 

to the multiple Criteria questions. 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 there is some integration of 

approaches with current and future organizational needs. 

431–480 7 0 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. There is good-to-excellent integration of 

approaches with organizational needs; organizational analysis, learning 

through innovation, and sharing of best practices are key management 

strategies. 

481–550 8 0 The organization demonstrates outstanding approaches fully responsive 

to the multiple Criteria questions. 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. 

1 Percentages are based on scores from the Consensus Review. 

Figure 6a–Process Scoring Band Descriptors 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Band 

Score 

Band 

Number 

% 

Applicants 

in Band1

Results Scoring Band Descriptors 

0–125 1 TBD A few results are reported responsive to the basic Criteria questions, but 

they generally lack trend and comparative data. 

126–170 2 TBD 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 TBD 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 TBD Results address some key customer/stakeholder, market, and process 

requirements, and they demonstrate good relative performance against 

relevant comparisons. Beneficial trends and/or good performance are 

reported for many areas of importance to the overall Criteria questions 

and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission. 

256–300 5 TBD 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 TBD 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 industry2 leader in some results areas. 

346–390 7 TBD Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market, process, and 

action plan requirements. Results demonstrate excellent organizational 

performance levels and some industry2 leadership. 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 TBD 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. 

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 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2021 BALDRIGE AWARD APPLICANTS 

Sector Total Number of Award 

Applications 

Number of Award 

Applicants 

Recommended for Site 

Visit 

Health Care 5 TBD 

Nonprofit 4 TBD 

Education 3 TBD 

Business–Small Business 0 TBD 

Business–Service 2 TBD 

Business–Manufacturing 0 TBD 

Total 14 TBD 

BALDRIGE AWARD RECIPIENT CONTACT INFORMATION 1988–2020 

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. 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—2021 Feedback Report 56