We are committed to help organisations drive improvement through the EFQM Excellence Model, a comprehensive management framework used by over 30 000 organisations in Europe. To help you implement our Model, we provide training and assessment tools as well as recognition for high performing organisations. But our real talent comes from gathering good practices and integrating those within our portfolio. We at EFQM, a not-for-profit membership Foundation, aim to share what works, through case studies, online seminars, working groups, conferences and thematic events. Sharing our member’s enthusiasm, their motivation and the results they achieve; that is what we work for.

The EFQM User Guides are designed to help member organisations by giving examples of common approaches, techniques and methods which support the practical deployment of the EFQM Excellence Model. We have developed them in response to feedback from a number of our members; using their knowledge and experience to identify approaches commonly used within our member organisations. The EFQM Excellence Model is non-prescriptive and there are many different approaches that can help you on your journey towards excellence – the challenge is finding the one that works best within your organisation. The aim of this guide is to give you a number of ideas to help inspire, based on the experience of others. This document is not intended to be a “definitive version” or to describe all the approaches possible within this area. This document will be adapted and updated to incorporate new ideas and learning as EFQM continues to share what works.

1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3 DMAIC Storyboard ............................................................................................................................... 5 Phase 1: Define .................................................................................................................................... 6 Phase 2: Measure ................................................................................................................................. 7 Phase 3: Analyse .................................................................................................................................. 8 Phase 4: Improve ................................................................................................................................. 9 Phase 5: Check ................................................................................................................................... 10 Four Step Approach for the Analyse Phase ....................................................................................... 11 Alignment between DMAIC and RADAR ............................................................................................ 14 Example 1: Product X Manufacturing Process ................................................................................... 16 Example 2: Sharing Internal Best Practice ......................................................................................... 21 Simple Training Exercise .................................................................................................................... 26

2

We all come across problems within our working environment. The temptation is to immediately move into “solution mode” before we really understand what’s causing the problem we’re observing. DMAIC is a structured approach for problem solving. It is often used in Six Sigma or Lean approaches to define the stages of a project. It provides a framework for understanding the root causes of a problem and then developing appropriate solutions to eliminate them. The DMAIC approach itself can be used both within and outside these techniques. It is scalable and can be used to tackle a range of different problems, from relatively simple to highly complex. In this guide we explain a simple a simple way to start using these principles to structure improvement projects in your organisation.

DMAIC is an acronym for the 5 key phases in an improvement project:  Define: this is a statement that describes the desired outcome; the result you want to achieve.  Measure: this phase describes the current situation, in terms of the current process and performance.  Analyse: during this phase you analyse the information available to identify the root cause and possible solutions.  Improve: during this phase you implement the improvement you have selected.  Check: finally, you check whether you have achieved the desired outcome, as defined in the first phase.

There is a clear alignment between the DMAIC approach and the RADAR, although the RADAR is an ongoing cycle which looks at continually improving and refining approaches over time. The DMAIC approach is for a single improvement cycle. This is further explained on page 13.

If you’re just starting out using DMAIC, or any problem solving tools, it’s advisable to start with simple problems that can be resolved relatively quickly. Not only does this help to demonstrate results relatively quickly, it also helps to build people’s confidence in the tools. The more often you use the tools, the easier they become to use effectively.

3

 The main advantage of using DMAIC is that, in its simplest form, it can be used pretty much out of the box, with little or no formal training. It provides a structured approach that helps ensure improvement projects successfully identify and address the root causes of problems, checking that they have been effective before moving on to the next issue.  Because the DMAIC approach is scalable, it is possible to consistently use it to document all improvement projects. It can be used within a team to structure brainstorming and involve people in the identification and implementation of improvement actions. Alternatively, it can be used with Six Sigma techniques to resolve more complex issues through statistical analysis.  It is possible to integrate a number of different tools and approaches within the different phases. For example, if you already have a standard approach for project management, this can be used in the Improve phase to implement the improvement.  Techniques like Six Sigma and Lean are most commonly associated with the manufacturing sector but some of the tools used, such as DMAIC, can be applied within any sector. Solving problems is not exclusive to the manufacturing industry.

Identifying the right people to include in the DMAIC Improvement Team will be crucial to the success of the project. Selecting people who actually work on the process will help the project team gain a clear insight into the current situation and, more often than not, these people have ideas on how the process can be improved. Having an experienced facilitator, who understands how to use a range of different problem solving tools, is always useful. They can help structure the data analysis and brainstorming using these tools, ensuring all views and options are considered. The number of people and their level within the organisation will depend on the nature and scope of the problem being addressed. However, there should be a “project manager” responsible for ensuring each phase is successfully completed and coordinating the actions of the other team members. There may also be a “project sponsor”, normally a senior manager who makes sure the time and resources are made available to the team. They would normally agree the improvement objective, the proposed solution and ultimately sign off the project once the check phase has been completed. The team members should include people who are actively involved in the process as they are most likely to have access to the relevant data and will understand what’s actually happening. Depending on the subject process, this may be a group of people from a single department or a cross functional team. You should be careful when trying to improve part of a process in isolation that your improvement doesn’t have a negative impact further down the value chain. One way to avoid this is to involve these people in the improvement team. It’s worth remembering that often the problem lies in the interfaces between process steps, not with the steps themselves.

4

One of the advantages of the DMAIC approach is the ability to show the whole improvement project on a single table. This could either be a piece of paper or an electronic document but the concept remains the same. The Storyboard can be used as a communication tool, showing what stage the project is currently at. Once the project is complete, it should be clear to anyone reviewing the storyboard what actions have been taken and what the impact has been.

The level of complexity of the content that goes into this storyboard will depend on the size, scope and complexity of the problem you are trying to address. As mentioned previously, the DMAIC approach is scalable, so can be used to address relatively simple problems or for summarising the progress of extremely complex projects. The level of detail that sits behind each of the phases will vary greatly but the concept is that the key learning from each phase should be able to fit onto the Storyboard template.

5

The first phase is crucial to the success of the improvement project. The problem statement should clearly define what the team is expected to achieve and by when. A good problem statement will focus on one specific issue at a time. This will enable the team to focus on eliminating the root cause of that problem before moving on to the next issue. If the statement is not sufficiently clear, time may be wasted as the team debate what the desired outcome is and, in the worst case, may deliver an improvement that does not really address the issue originally identified. One useful tool in helping define the problem statement is the concept of the SMART objective. A SMART objective is:  Specific  Measureable  Achievable  Realistic  Timebound For example, “To improve the defect rate on Product X to less than 1 in 1000 within 3 months” is Specific, Measurable and Timebound. Whether it is Achievable and Realistic would depend on the subject and current performance levels. However, this could be determined during the “Measure” phase. One way to determine this could be through a benchmarking exercise, either internally or externally. If no one else can achieve this level of performance, the achievability could be questioned. The problem statement can always be refined following the “Measure” phase to ensure it is realistic.

 SMART objectives

6

The Measure phase is used to establish the baseline position. If you’re going to be able to demonstrate an improvement over time, it is vital to understand where you’re starting from. It is possible that you’re starting from a “zero point”, for example, if you’ve completed a selfassessment and there is no standard approach in place. If this was the case, the “desired state” could well be defining and establishing a standard process. The achievement would be measured by the existence of the new approach. However, in most instances, there is some defined approach or process. Often, the first step in this phase is to review the current process. If a flowchart is not available, it should be defined to show the flow and who is involved. This can be a relatively simple flow, showing the key steps and defining the current measures in place. One of the concepts from Six Sigma that can be applied here is the identification of the points that are “Critical to Quality” (CTQ). These are the points within the process where errors that will impact the end product are most likely to occur. Establishing measures in these points will help establish the baseline and help identify the root cause in the “Analyse” phase. Whilst these concepts are most commonly applied in manufacturing, they can also be applied in other sectors, especially service industries. However, it is often more difficult to define and measure what is “Critical to Quality” accurately and consistently. This often means there is limited data available.

   

7

Process Flow Chart Process Performance Indicators Critical to Quality (CTQ) Pareto Diagrams

The Analyse phase is where we investigate and understand the root cause of the problem we are observing. To develop a long-term solution, it is crucial to identify and eliminate the root cause. If you take an action that only addresses one of the symptoms, whilst in the short term you might see some initial improvement in performance, the problem is more than likely to reoccur. Within DMAIC, you can use whichever problem solving tools are available to you and that you are comfortable using. Examples of commonly used problem solving tools include pareto diagrams, statistical analysis and Fishbone / Ishikawa diagrams. Once the root cause has been identified, you can start to develop potential solutions to address this. It is advisable to come up with, and assess the merits of, a number of different improvement options. Considering a range of potential solutions will enable you to choose the solution that best meets your needs. Things to consider could include cost, resources, time taken to implement, time taken to recover investment, impact on different stakeholder groups, etc. The Forcefield Diagram is a tool that can help determine which factors will help drive you towards the “desired state” you have defined and which will drive you towards the “worst case scenario”. This can be useful in helping to identify potential solutions. In some circumstances, you may be looking to identify and implement a “quick fix” to take the pressure off whilst a more permanent solution is developed. If this is the case, you would need to focus the attention of the team on things that will be easy to implement and require minimal investment in terms of both time and money. The “Spheres of Influence” can be used to prioritise causes of the issue you’re observing, based on which ones you can actively change. This can help focus the group on identifying “quick wins”, rather than focusing on issues that will be difficult to resolve, whether because they require action from other players, the involvement of senior management or are factors they have to accept, such as things that have happened historically. The Analyse phase is considered complete when the solution has been identified and agreed.

    

Pareto Diagrams Fishbone / Ishikawa Diagrams (see page 10) Statistical Analysis Techniques Spheres of Influence (see page 11) Forcefield Diagrams

8

Once the solution has been identified, you need to develop the implementation plan. If you have a standard project management methodology in your organisation, you could use this approach to implement the improvement. Depending on the size of the project, this phase could be as simple as a list of tasks, owners and dates in a table or it could be a Gantt Chart. It is best to use the tools that people in the organisation are already familiar working with and using the DMAIC to ensure that they are used in the right order to deliver the best result. If you are going to run a pilot exercise to test the effectiveness of the chosen solution, the results could be included in this phase. If you are going to change the process flow as part of the improvement, the revised process flow could be included.

 Gantt Charts  Process Flow Diagrams  Action & Owner List

9

The final phase is normally shown as a graph, showing how the process has improved over time. It can be useful to indicate on the graph when key improvements were implemented to help explain changes in performance. If the target has not been achieved, further improvement or analysis may be required. It could be that one of the suggested solutions was rejected as the benefits did not outweigh the investment required. Under these circumstances the sponsor may choose to close the project if there are no other options available. In Six Sigma, statistical process control charts are normally used in this phase to demonstrate whether the process is now under control. By this, they mean the process will deliver a predictable result within a given set of finite parameters (normally 1 defect in 1,000,000). Any performance that lie outside these parameters would have to be investigated as in “normal conditions” such performance would not be possible.

 Process Performance Graphs  Run Time Diagrams  Process Control Charts

10

It’s quite common for groups of stakeholders to be brought together so people can “understand the issues”. However, if nothing happens following these discussions, the effect can be worse than not having asked them. When you want to get a group of people involved and engaged in identifying and implementing the solution to an issue, you can use the following 4 step approach. It’s designed for a workshop environment and can be completed in about an hour, if effectively facilitated, by allowing 15 minutes for each step. Instead of leaving the room with flipcharts full of issues, they should leave the room with a clear action plan, understanding who’s going to be taking what actions and when they will see the result. Some of them may also be responsible for delivering those actions, so it’s important to have the right people involved in the discussions. There is an example of this approach being used later in this document (page 20 onwards).

The first step is to brainstorm all the possible causes for the problem you’re observing. In normal “brainstorming” mode, you don’t discuss at this stage; you’re looking for people to get all the issues out in the open. Discussing may put some people off contributing or may side track the discussions. It’s also very difficult to stop people getting into “solutions mode” once the discussions start. The Fishbone Diagram (also known as an Ishikawa Diagram or a Cause & Effect Diagram) is often used to structure the brainstorming.

Example of a Fishbone Diagram

11

The problem statement sits at the “head”, focusing people on the issue. The participants put their ideas on the chart. The “spines” are used to theme ideas. The facilitator can use these to prompt people to consider issues from a different perspective. The titles on the spines can be changed to suit the subject matter, if considered appropriate.

When all the issues have been captured, it’s a good idea to start grouping things together. This can help start the discussions in a controlled way by seeking clarification from the person who contributed the issue. Grouping things together should help you to identify themes. Once the themes have been identified, the group should consider the issues in terms of what they can control, what they can influence and what is outside of their control. A number of the issues that are classified as “outside our control” will be historical issues. Agreeing this in the group will help people focus on the future, rather than past events that cannot be changed. This approach is called the “Sphere of Influence”. You can colour the issues according to the level of influence the group has over them. The things that can be influenced will take additional time; these may be things that require a management decision or could involve changes in people’s attitudes and behaviours. The objective of this step is to empower the group by getting them to consider what is inside their control; the things you can change today.

12

Remove the issues that are “outside our control” or can only be influenced and focus on the issues that people say they can control. You’re now looking to get the group into “positive brainstorming mode” and come up with potential solutions that will address the issues identified. You can use the same tool as you used in Step 1. Again, you’re looking for as many ideas as possible at this stage; you can discuss and prioritise them in the next step.

The final step is to agree which of the solutions merit further action, who is going to do this and when it needs to be completed by. In most cases, a simple table can be used to capture this. As the people who came up with the suggestions will be sitting in the room, look to involve them in the implementation plan as much as possible. Remember, they said they could control the issue, so they should be empowered to take the appropriate action to address it. Based on the agreed deadlines, you may wish to set one or more meetings to review the progress and, ultimately, the impact of the action plan.

13

In assessment, one of the things you should be looking for is evidence of improvements to approaches being embedded over time. There is a clear alignment between the DMAIC approach and the RADAR logic. Improvement projects completed using the DMAIC methodology can therefore be used to provide evidence of a systematic approach to implementing and embedding improvements in key approaches.

Define

Measure

Check

Analyse Improve

14

Where no approach exists, the improvement project will effectively complete a cycle through the RADAR: DMAIC Phase Define

RADAR Element Results

Action  Clearly state the desired outcome

Measure

Approach



Understand what the current situation is

Analyse

Approach



Investigate the options and agree the appropriate actions

Improve

Deployment



Systematically implement the improvement plan

Check

Assess & Refine



Check that the improvement has been effective

Where an existing approach exists, you will be focusing on the “Assess & Refine” elements of the RADAR: DMAIC Phase Define

RADAR Element Results

Action  Clearly state the desired outcome

Measure

Measurement



Describe the Approach & Deployment

Analyse

Learning & Creativity

 

Assess the effectiveness & efficiency of the current approach and it’s deployment Understand how the approach and / or deployment can be improved to achieve the desired result

Improve

Refine



Systematically implement the improvement plan

Check

Measurement



Check that the improvement has been effective

15

Let’s go back to the improvement statement example we used in Phase 1: “To improve the defect rate on Product X to less than 1 in 1000 within 3 months”. This statement would appear in the first box of the DMAIC Storyboard. Define

Measure

To improve the defect rate on Product X to less than 1 in 1000 within 3 months. Analyse

Improve

Check

16

Currently, the process flow is as follows:

In this example, the only test carried out during the assembly is at the end, meaning that if the final product is faulty, the 2 components have to be disassembled, repaired and then reassembled. The only process performance data available is based on this final test. The defect rate is currently 3.95 per 1000. The process flow chart and performance graph can be added to the “Measure” box to define the baseline position. Define

Measure

To improve the defect rate on Product X from 3.95 to less than 1 in 1000 within 3 months. Analyse

Improve

17

Check

Identifying the points that are Critical to Quality will help understand the root cause of the problem. There are several in this process:  The quality of the raw materials from the suppliers  The quality of the 2 components being manufactured  The final assembly of the 2 components This gives us 5 different measures. These measures are shown on the second process flow, now appearing in the Analyse phase. In a real situation, these measures could be done by batch, sample or on each individual part. The cost, time and resource demands would ultimately determine how many and over what time period these measurements would be carried out. However, as there is already a test on the raw materials coming in from Supplier A, it would be reasonable to question why similar checks are not in place for the materials coming in from Supplier B. This is not an uncommon scenario. For example, “Supplier B” could be an internal supplier and there may be different quality controls in place for internal & external suppliers. A Pareto Analysis or a Pie Chart can be used to show where the most common source of defects is. In this case, we’ve used a pie chart. Define

Measure

To improve the defect rate on Product X from 3.95 to less than 1 in 1000 within 3 months. Analyse Root Causes 1. No quality control on materials from Supplier B 2. Components not tested before assembly

Improve

Improvements 1. Add quality control on materials from Supplier B 2. Test both components before assembly

Check

Once the root cause has been identified, the team can brainstorm possible solutions. If there are a large number of potential solutions, you may need a structured approach for determining which is the most suitable. This could be as simple as ranking or may involve a cost / benefit analysis.

18

Once the improvement actions and owners have been agreed, these need to be implemented. The Improve box can be used to show who is doing what and when the implementation is due. This can be a simple action list or a Gantt Chart. If the process has changed, a revised process flow could be included at this point. In this example, we’ve chosen to put the action list in a table and include a copy of the revised process, indicating the new test points that have been added. Define

Measure

To improve the defect rate on Product X from 3.95 to less than 1 in 1000 within 3 months. Analyse Root Causes 1. No quality control on materials from Supplier B 2. Components not tested before assembly

Improve

19

Improvements 1. Add quality control on materials from Supplier B 2. Test both components before assembly

Check

The final phase is to check that the improvement has had the desired impact. In this case, we’ve indicated when the improvements were implemented to explain the changes in performance. Define

Measure

To improve the defect rate on Product X from 3.95 to less than 1 in 1000 within 3 months. Analyse Root Causes 1. No quality control on materials from Supplier B 2. Components not tested before assembly

Improve

Improvements 1. Add quality control on materials from Supplier B 2. Test both components before assembly

Check

20

Whilst these techniques seem most applicable in a “manufacturing” environment, it is possible to use this methodology in virtually any situation. For example, it can be used very effectively in involving teams of people in identifying and implementing improvements following perception studies, where the underlying root cause is not always apparent from the results. The next example is based on a real project identified from an EFQM assessment.

The issue identified was the lack of a structured process to effectively share and implement best practices across the Group. The first part of the problem statement came directly from the feedback report; the target was agreed with the Board. Define

Measure

 The EFQM assessment identified “sharing of best practices between countries” as an opportunity to improve.  Target: 20 “best practices” implemented by the end of the year.

Analyse

Improve

21

Check

The Business Excellence Group within the Head Office reviewed the current process for sharing best practices. It was based on an annual recognition scheme where applications were submitted by the countries in the Group. Although the submission documents were available to all countries, and the resulting “best practices” circulated, there was no process in place to track whether any of these were being implemented elsewhere in the organisation. Define

Measure

 The EFQM assessment identified “sharing of best practices between countries” as an opportunity to improve.  Target: 20 “best practices” implemented by the end of the year.

 “Best Practices” identified and recognised through annual CEO Awards.  Submission Documents circulated to all countries.  No tracking in place to determine whether BP is implemented in other countries.

Analyse

Improve

Check

22

The Business Excellence Representatives from each of the countries met each 6 months to review progress on key issues and discuss future initiatives. During one of these meetings, the “Analyse” phase was completed using the 4 step approach described earlier in this document during a 1 hour workshop. A number of the potential root causes identified were deemed “Outside the Control” of the BE Representatives. These included things like language issues and a lack of standardised processes and systems across the Group. Whilst these are valid issues, if the BE Representatives focused on trying to resolve these issues, there would be little progress in the short to medium term and the projects, if approved, would require significant funding. However, there were a number of issues that were agreed to be “Inside the Control” of the group, so they focused attention on these areas to identify possible solutions. The BE Representatives would take ownership of the process and, through the established self-assessments, would be able to identify “good practices” they could share and the areas where their country would benefit from learning from another’s experience. Define

Measure

 The EFQM assessment identified “sharing of best practices between countries” as an opportunity to improve.  Target: 20 “best practices” implemented by the end of the year.

 “Best Practices” identified and recognised through annual CEO Awards.  Submission Documents circulated to all countries.  No tracking in place to determine whether BP is implemented in other countries.

Analyse

Outside Influence Don’t have standardised processes across borders Within Influence Culturally we are internally focused Within Control Not clear who is responsible for sharing information

Improve

23

Proposed Solution  Country BE Representatives become responsible for sharing “key approaches”  Group BE to establish reporting process.

Check

The action plan was agreed at the end of the session. As the action plan had been developed by the BE Representatives, they were engaged in the process and empowered to take action. The actions were tracked by the BE Group in the Head Office to ensure the agreed deadlines were met. Define

Measure

 The EFQM assessment identified “sharing of best practices between countries” as an opportunity to improve.  Target: 20 “best practices” implemented by the end of the year.

 “Best Practices” identified and recognised through annual CEO Awards.  Submission Documents circulated to all countries.  No tracking in place to determine whether BP is implemented in other countries.

Analyse

Outside Influence Don’t have standardised processes across borders Within Influence Culturally we are internally focused Within Control Not clear who is responsible for sharing information

Improve

Proposed Solution  Country BE Representatives become responsible for sharing “key approaches”  Group BE to establish reporting process.

Check

Action

Owner

Due

Complete

Update database & add RADAR templates

Group BE

End of Q1

Yes

Circulate request for list of knowledge required

Group BE

End of Q1

Yes

Complete & return list of knowledge requirements

Country BE

End of Q1

Yes

Complete RADAR Template

Country BE

End of April

Yes

Review requirements and establish contact with relevant OC

Country BE

End of May

Yes

24

At the end of the year, there were 19 examples of a “good practice” from one country being implemented in at least one other country. Whilst the numerical improvement target had not been met, the improvement objective of establishing a process for effectively sharing best practices internally had been established. Had this plan been developed elsewhere and imposed on them, the result achieved might have been very different. Define

Measure

 The EFQM assessment identified “sharing of best practices between countries” as an opportunity to improve.  Target: 20 “best practices” implemented by the end of the year.

 “Best Practices” identified and recognised through annual CEO Awards.  Submission Documents circulated to all countries.  No tracking in place to determine whether BP is implemented in other countries.

Analyse

Outside Influence Don’t have standardised processes across borders Within Influence Culturally we are internally focused Within Control Not clear who is responsible for sharing information

Improve

Check

Action

Owner

Due

Complete

Update database & add RADAR templates

Group BE

End of Q1

Yes

Circulate request for list of knowledge required

Group BE

End of Q1

Yes

Complete & return list of knowledge requirements

Country BE

End of Q1

Yes

Complete RADAR Template

Country BE

End of April

Yes

Review requirements and establish contact with relevant OC

Country BE

End of May

Yes

25

Proposed Solution  Country BE Representatives become responsible for sharing “key approaches”  Group BE to establish reporting process.

Total Shared = 20 Total Implemented = 19

One of the problems with training people on techniques like DMAIC is getting a real set of data for people to use within a short period of time. We have developed the following simple exercise that will enable people to complete a full DMAIC improvement project in around 1 hour. The training works best with a group of at least 8 people, working in 2 teams of 4. If you have more than 12 people, form 3 teams. The training uses the 4 step analysis approach described earlier in this document. However, you can introduce statistical analysis techniques if you have more time. In this example, a regression analysis, which is available as a function in Excel, can be used to determine the solution in the Analyse phase.

For each team, you will need the following:  1 prepared DMAIC Chart, printed on A3 paper, with the problem statement, empty tables and fishbone templates included (see next page).  1 tape measure  1 friction powered toy car (pull back and release type)  1 calculator (or a laptop with Excel)

 Measure 5 runs of the car using “Current Process” to see how far it goes (5 minutes)  Brainstorm potential causes of variation and highlight top 4 (or less) causes of variation (10 minutes)  Brainstorm possible solutions to address key issues and select top 4 (or less) actions (10 minutes)  Agree improvement actions, including documenting changes to process (10 minutes)  Check whether improvement actions have worked with 5 more runs (5 minutes)

26

27

EFQM is a membership organisation. We rely on input, ideas and suggestions from you to create a vibrant community. Without the contributions of our members, the network would not work. These are some of the ways you can contribute: We created The EFQM Network for Sustainable Excellence to facilitate a dialogue between our peers and the wider community. The group is open to anyone with an interest in this area. Over 4000 individuals have already joined our group and shared their experiences. If you’ve got a question, it’s a great place to start. Organisations can join the EFQM member community and enjoy some exclusive benefits such as access to free assessment and improvement tools, participation to events, themed webinars and good practice visits. To learn more about our member community, feel free to contact us or to join one of the free introduction meetings at our offices in Brussels. Member benefits include:  Expert advice to plan & support your organisation’s journey towards excellence.  Access to the EFQM Knowledge Base with free-to-download assessment-, management- and improvement tools; as well as Case Studies & Good Practices from award winning organisations.  Learning from peers through webinars, conferences and visits.  Extending your professional network.  Gaining recognition for your organisation’s achievements.  20% discount on EFQM Products & Services, including Training, Events, Publications and Assessments.  Regular newsletters, giving the latest information on what’s happening in and around the excellence community. For more information, please e-mail us at [email protected]

28

29

Avenue des Olympiades 2 1140 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 775 35 11 Fax: +32 2 775 35 96 [email protected] www.efqm.org

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (be this electronically, mechanically, through photocopy, or recording or otherwise) without either the prior written permission of, or a licence permitting restricted copying, and use for a third party, from the publisher.