How do the different performance management systems, such as Baldrige criteria, Six Sigma, ISO, coexist? Are there conflicting requirements here? How do you get beyond the perceptions of conflict?
I think, again, that it is an advent of a number of different tools and techniques that have been put out there for different organizations to use, in the interest of improving organizations. I talked about this the concept that every model is flawed and some are useful. And knowing what tool and technique to apply to the right situation is really what is key. So I don’t see the different initiatives as having conflicting requirements. If you understand and assess the healthiness of the organization from an overall performance perspective, and as an example, you use the Malcolm Baldrige criteria to do that (or any other assessment model), [then] identify your performance gaps, and then use the other tools and techniques to try to close those performance gaps. [Use] Six Sigma to make breakthrough performance improvement. ISO 9000, as an example, is brought upon sometimes by customer requirements. But at the end of the day, ISO 9000 is the end product, the by-product, of having put in place a good, solid quality management structure that defines the way workers perform within the organization. So personally, I don’t see the different tools and techniques conflicting, but if you use them in the spirit of continuous improvement of a solid management system within an organization, they all coexist very nicely.