2009 Nightingale Feedback Report QT

Nightingale
College of Nursing
Feedback Report
The Nightingale College of Nursing Feedback Report was prepared for use in the 2009 Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award Examiner Preparation Course. A team of experienced Baldrige Examiners
evaluated the Nightingale College of Nursing Case Study, using the Independent and Consensus Review
process. This case study describes a fictitious education organization. There is no connection between the
fictitious Nightingale College of Nursing and any other organization, either named Nightingale College of
Nursing or otherwise. Other organizations cited in the case study also are fictitious, except for several
national and government organizations. Because the case study was developed to train Baldrige
Examiners and others and to provide an example of the possible content of a Baldrige application, there
are areas in the case study where Criteria requirements are not addressed.
Nightingale College of Nursing scored in band 3 for Process Items and band 4 for Results Items. An
organization in band 3 for Process Items typically demonstrates effective, systematic approaches
responsive to the basic requirements of most Criteria Items, although there are still areas or work units in
the early stages of deployment. Key processes are beginning to be systematically evaluated and improved.
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. There are no patterns of adverse trends or poor performance in areas of importance
to the Criteria requirements and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission. Limited performance
projections are reported, including those for a few high-priority areas.
October 27, 2009
Dr. Nancy Nunnin

Dean
Nightingale College of Nursing
Central Texas University
Feld Hall, 2 Campus Drive
Freedom, TX 76555
Dear Dr. Nunnin:
Congratulations for taking the Baldrige challenge! We commend you for your commitment to
performance excellence and applying for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. This feedback
report was prepared for your organization by members of the Board of Examiners in response to your
application for the 2009 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. It presents an outline of the scoring
for your organization and describes areas identified as strengths and opportunities for possible
improvement. The report contains the Examiners’ observations about your organization, although it is not
intended to prescribe a specific course of action. Please refer to “Preparing to Read Your Feedback
Report” for further details about how to use the information contained in your feedback report.
We are eager to ensure that the comments in the report are clear to you so that you can incorporate the
feedback into your planning process to continue to improve your organization. As direct communication
between Examiners and applicants is not permitted, please contact me at (301) 975-2360 if you wish to
clarify the meaning of any comment in your report. We will contact the Examiners for clarification and
convey their intentions to you.
The feedback report is not your only source for ideas about organizational improvement. Current and
previous Award recipients can be potential resources on your continuing journey to performance
excellence. A contact list of Award recipients is enclosed. The 2009 recipients will share their stories at
our annual Quest for Excellence Conference, April 11–14, 2010. Current and previous recipients
participate in our regional conferences as well. Information about these events and other Baldrige
Program-related activities can be found on our Web site at www.nist.gov/baldrige.
In approximately 30 days, you will receive a customer satisfaction survey from the Panel of Judges. As an
applicant, you are uniquely qualified to provide an effective evaluation of the materials and processes that
we use in administering the Award Program. Please help us continue to improve the program by
completing and returning this survey.
Thank you for your participation in the Baldrige Award process. Best wishes for continued success with
your performance excellence journey.
Sincerely,
Harry S. Hertz, Director

Baldrige National Quality Program
Enclosures
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 requirement of 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 last applied before 2008, you may notice a slight change in the report. Key
themes, which serve as an overview or executive summary of the report, comprise four sections
rather than three: (a) Process Item strengths, (b) Process Item opportunities for improvement,
(c) Results Item strengths, and (d) Results Item opportunities for improvement.
Applicant organizations understand and respond to feedback comments in different ways. To
make the feedback most useful to you, we’ve gathered some 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.
• 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 the application, 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.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 1

KEY THEMES
Key Themes—Process Items
Nightingale College of Nursing (NCON) scored in band 3 for Process Items (1.1–6.2) in the
Consensus Review of written applications for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.
For an explanation of the process scoring bands, please refer to Figure 6a, Process Scoring Band
Descriptors.
An organization in band 3 for Process Items typically demonstrates effective, systematic

approaches responsive to the basic requirements of most Criteria Items, although there are still
areas or work units in the early stages of deployment. Key processes are beginning to be
systematically evaluated and improved.
a. The most important strengths or outstanding practices (of potential value to other
organizations) identified in NCON’s response to Process Items are as follows:
• To provide a continuing focus on the future, NCON has a shared governance structure
(Management and Governance Structure; Figure 1.1-1) that sets the college’s mission,
vision, and values, which are reviewed annually during the Strategic Planning Process
(SPP; Figure 2.1-1). The SPP, driven by the Nursing Professional Administrative Council
(NPAC), includes a situational analysis and budget planning, and coincides with the
capital-funding plan. In addition to developing short- and long-term plans, the college
tracks key performance indicators (KPIs) from the Strategic Plan via the Learning,
Improvement, Growth, fiscal Health, and Talent (LIGHT) Scorecard.
• NCON’s processes for gathering organizational information and providing analysis

appear to be systematic and well deployed. These include the Service Lamplighter Team;
the LIGHT Scorecard; the Roundtable Review Process (Figure 6.2-1); the Learning,
Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation (LADDIE) Design and
Improvement Process (Figure 6.2-2); the Complaint Management Process (Figure 3.2-2);
and the Golden Fleece and Classroom Resource Exchange (CRE) systems. Collectively,
these processes allow management by fact and enable NCON to benefit from the voices
of its students and stakeholders.
b. The most significant opportunities, concerns, or vulnerabilities identified in NCON’s

response to Process Items are as follows:
• Although NCON uses several processes to gather information and provide analysis, it
appears to be in the beginning stages of developing a systematic approach to evaluating
and improving its key processes. For example, the college appears to lack an approach to
keeping processes current in relation to the college’s leadership systems, SPP,
performance measurement system (including data and information availability
mechanisms), and work systems. Further, it is not clear how the college uses these
processes to drive innovation or increase organizational agility. Without an approach to
keeping the wide array of processes current with the college’s changing internal and

external needs, NCON may not always manage for innovation in order to perform well
against its competition and address its strategic challenges.
• It is not clear how NCON uses information to track and manage daily operations or drive
innovation; nor is it clear how the college collects and tracks data and information for all
areas identified as important (e.g., research, feeder schools, and potential students) or
how it selects and uses comparative data in strategic decision making for innovation.
Additionally, it is not apparent how NCON uses the information gained from multiple
customer engagement sources to understand student and stakeholder support
requirements and drive innovation in its programs, offerings, and services. Further, it is
not clear that NCON has a systematic process in place to manage its knowledge assets;
nor is it clear how its day for sharing best practices and its benchmarking process ensure
the rapid identification, sharing, and implementation of best practices across the
organization. These areas indicate a need for further maturity in these processes to
promote organizational and personal learning, innovation, and management by fact.
• Although the SPP originates from the college’s mission, vision, and values, and although
NCON cascades short- and long-term plans to the organization through the LIGHT
Scorecard and Golden Fleece, it is not clear how the SPP and its related approaches
address and integrate the college’s identified strategic challenges or leverage its strategic
advantages. In addition, NCON’s core competencies do not appear to be clearly
integrated in its approaches to ensuring its sustainability. Systematically addressing all
strategic challenges, strategic advantages, and core competencies may allow NCON to
provide visionary leadership as it strives to become an exemplar of excellence.
Key Themes—Results Items
NCON scored in band 4 for Results Items (7.1–7.6). 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. There are no patterns of adverse trends or poor performance in
areas of importance to the Criteria requirements and the accomplishment of the organization’s
mission. Limited performance projections are reported, including those for a few high-priority
areas.
c. Considering NCON’s key business/organization factors, the most significant strengths

found in response to Results Items are as follows:
• NCON demonstrates strong performance levels and sustained favorable trends in many
measures related to student learning and customer-focused outcomes. For example,
student learning shows improvement from 2004 to 2008, with NCLEX-RN Pass Rates
(Figure 7.1-1) increasing from 86% in 2004 to about 92% in 2008 and similar
improvements in Specialty Certification Exam Pass Rates (Figure 7.1-2), Comparative
Retention Rate (Figure 7.1-4), and Job-Related Benefits of MSN [Master of Science in
Nursing] and PhD [Doctor of Philosophy] Degrees (Figure 7.1-10). Other student

learning measures, such as Employers’ Rating of Graduates’ Skills and Knowledge
(Figure 7.1-11), show sustained strong performance. Student satisfaction results
demonstrate consistently high performance for all segments, with strong levels on
measures such as Student Satisfaction in Key Areas (Figure 7.2-1), Student Satisfaction
by Academic Program and Other Segments (Figure 7.2-2), Student Satisfaction by
Ethnicity (Figure 7.2-3), and Alumni Exit Assessment (Figure 7.2-9). Furthermore,
Employer Assessment (Figure 7.2-12) demonstrates consistently positive performance,
ranging from 90% satisfaction in 2004 to approximately 96% in 2008, with NCON
outperforming Peers 1 and 2 since 2006. This trend is indicative of NCON’s performance
across customer-focused outcomes.
• In overall performance relative to peers and to the state and national comparison
groups, NCON demonstrates favorable trends and routinely meets or exceeds the
given levels. Examples are the results shown in NCLEX-RN Pass Rates (Figure 7.1-1),
Comparative Retention Rate (Figure 7.1-4), Cumulative GPA [Grade Point Average]:
BSN [Bachelor of Science in Nursing] Graduates (Figure 7.1-8), Alumni Exit
Assessment (Figure 7.2-9), and Employer Assessment (Figure 7.2-12). Favorable
results are also shown in Administrative Costs as a Percentage of Operating Budget
(Figure 7.3-3), Research Expenditures (Figure 7.3-4), Enrollment by Program
(Figure 7.3-8), Workforce Turnover (Figure 7.4-5), Student Evaluation of Process
Effectiveness (Figure 7.5-7), and Number of Web-Based Courses (Figure 7.5-9).
• Results on the college’s LIGHT Scorecard (Figure 2.2-1) demonstrate beneficial

performance levels and trends as well as overall favorable performance relative to
comparisons and competitor groups. These beneficial results include NCON’s current
and projected performance on measures of all the LIGHT dimensions: Learning (e.g.,
NCLEX-RN Pass Rates, Figure 7.1-1), Improvement (e.g., Workforce Satisfaction by
Segments, Figure 7.4-1), Growth (Program Quality and Effectiveness, Figure 7.5-6),
fiscal Health (e.g., Administrative Costs as a Percentage of Operating Budget,
Figure 7.3-3), and Talent (e.g., Continuing Education Credits, Figure 7.4-6). The
integration of the LIGHT Scorecard measures with related processes demonstrates
NCON’s efforts to manage by fact, harnessing its ability to drive organizational strategies
and plans with measurable results.
d. Considering NCON’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:
• While NCON reports strong performance levels across results areas, results are also
missing across these areas. For example, no results are reported for student learning in
relation to collaborative practice, professional leadership, research, and integration of
health promotion and disease prevention for the sake of patient care, and healthy
communities—all elements of NCON’s mission or vision. Results are not reported for the
key requirements of all students (i.e., flexible scheduling, placement, instructional
support, advising, and accessible faculty members) and transfer students (i.e., the ability
to ask questions and receive prompt responses). Nor are results reported for the
requirements of the Board of Regents (BR), community, and alumni/donors. No

segmented information is provided on the budgetary or financial performance of NCON’s
various programs, and results are not reported for market share, for defined student
market segments, or by market performance. In addition, some key measures of
workforce-focused outcomes are missing, including results for workforce engagement,
training effectiveness and leadership development, workforce climate, and workforce
capacity and capability. Also missing are some measures of process effectiveness
outcomes, including those related to on-campus dining, the campus bookstore,
heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) and energy, clinical supplies, admissions,
institutional development, the library, and student life. Results are not provided for some
measures of the performance of key work processes, such as key measures noted in Key
Work Processes (Figure 6.1-1), as well as in-process measures. Results for many
measures of leadership outcomes are not segmented. Missing results in these areas might
make it difficult for NCON to understand its progress on its journey toward performance
excellence.
• Though NCON includes comparisons for many results, these generally show average or
peer performance levels (e.g., state averages or levels for peer organizations). In addition,
some results are segmented by campus (e.g., Satisfaction with Support Services,
Figure 7.2-5; Clinical Practicums, Figure 7.5-4) and student demographics (e.g.,
Retention Rates by Gender/ Ethnicity, Figure 7.1-3, and Graduation Rates by Gender and
Ethnicity, Figure 7.1-6, among others), but NCON lacks other results, including those
related to comparative performance. Given the vision of being an exemplar of excellence,
NCON may understand its performance better by consistently using better-than-average
comparisons and segmented data covering its three campus locations as well as its
varying student and stakeholder groups.

DETAILS OF STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
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, Scoring Guidelines for Process Items.)
STRENGTHS
• NCON uses a shared governance structure (Management and Governance Structure,

Figure 1.1-1) composed of multiple teams and committees (Figure 1.1-3) across locations to
set the college’s vision and values and provide overall leadership. NPAC (Figure 1.1-2) and
the Dean’s Council reinforce the mission, vision, and values, which are reviewed annually
during the SPP. Senior leaders participate personally in developing and deploying plans and
measures. The shared governance structure is an integral part of the development and
deployment of the Strategic Plan through the CRE.
• Senior leaders personally promote an organizational environment that fosters ethical behavior
by leading monthly case study review sessions and making the results available to all faculty
and staff members through postings on the CRE. These sessions reinforce annual ethics
training and signing of the Code of Ethical and Behavioral Excellence (CEBE) by all faculty
and staff members. The CEBE is supported by an Ethics Committee, which includes
members from all campuses as well as the parent university. The committee monitors
compliance with requirements, investigates ethical concerns, and reports to both the college
dean and the university provost.
• Senior leaders create a sustainable organization by developing and executing short- and long-
term plans driven by the overall Strategic Plan. Senior leaders use the LIGHT Scorecard to
track the SPP’s KPIs. Multiple committees review these results, and the Dean’s Council
performs weekly reviews of both LIGHT measures and information from the CRE. The KPIs
and LIGHT Scorecard align with the shared governance structure’s objectives and reinforce
organizational learning and the opportunity for leadership development.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
• It is unclear how NCON improves its approach for creating an environment for performance
improvement, the accomplishment of its mission, and innovation. For example, in the
college’s process for developing KPIs and the LIGHT Scorecard measures, it is not clear
how the review and monitoring cycles ensure that all organizational goals are addressed.
Regular review and monitoring of measures may enable NCON to adjust to changing needs,
but a systematic review of the entire process may allow an increased emphasis on improving
performance across all key areas of need (such as the college’s goal of developing its
research program) and providing a system based on innovation.

• While college leaders enhance their competencies by annually attending the Texas Institute
for Academic Leaders, it is unclear how this training is part of an overall system focused on
improving their personal leadership skills or how it helps prepare future leaders to be
successful. A systematic process to address senior leaders’ leadership skills and
professionally develop future organizational leaders may allow a more robust approach to
addressing the college’s value of quest for knowledge.
• Although NCON’s shared governance structure is deployed through committees and teams at
all locations, it is not clear how the college ensures the full deployment of its communication
system or improves the system and its associated communication methods. Given the varying
locations, university connections, stakeholder requirements, and student learning delivery
methods at the college’s sites, NCON may realize benefits for its workforce, students, and
stakeholders by fully deploying and improving its approach to communication.

1.2 Governance and Societal Responsibilities
STRENGTHS
• NCON reviews the performance of its leadership team annually and achieves accountability
for management’s actions by linking evaluations to individual compensation. Further, the BR
conducts an annual self-assessment. Fiscal accountability is managed through the parent
university’s administration as well as the policies of the state, and both allow for reviews by
internal and external auditors. These measures support NCON’s vision of being an exemplar
of excellence through a commitment to fiscal accountability.
• NCON’s governance system achieves transparency in operations through shared processes

and by publishing results for the organization’s performance. The Dean’s Council and
various committees meet regularly to review performance and help share information. The
division of responsibilities for the different audits allows for independent audits and
increased transparency.
• NCON uses the CEBE and multiple processes to promote ethical behavior in its interactions.
The processes encompass standards in course syllabi, specific requirements in the Faculty
and Staff Handbook, use of an Ethics Committee, adherence to university regulations and
guidelines, and CEBE training. This overall approach to ethical behavior helps reinforce the
college’s values, especially integrity.
• While NCON has instituted several programs to minimize adverse environmental impacts of
the operation of its facilities, it is unclear how (beyond meeting with external groups) the
college systematically ensures that it connects with all stakeholders, gathers inputs and
concerns, and uses these to address adverse impacts. Articulating an overall approach in this
area and deploying it to all key groups may assist NCON in addressing the legal and ethical
concerns of its stakeholders and society.
• Although the CEBE is an integral part of the Faculty and Staff Handbook and is reviewed by
faculty and staff members and supported through classroom activities, it is unclear how
NCON monitors this process for effectiveness and whether it is deployed throughout all
campuses and classrooms. Although the information is available, it is not clear to what extent
it is used or whether feedback is generated from questions and issues. Without ensuring that
its approach to promoting ethical behavior is systematically deployed and monitored for
effectiveness, NCON may have difficulty achieving the level of integrity to which it aspires.
• Although NCON identifies its key communities by the geographic areas in which it
operates, it is not clear how the college determines areas for organizational
involvement, including areas related to its core competencies and overall strategic
initiatives. While NCON considers its mission of serving community health care needs

and promoting healthy communities in choosing areas for community involvement,
examining the array of possibilities in any given year, it may benefit from a refined
approach to determining criteria for and prioritizing community support efforts.

Category 2 Strategic Planning
2.1 Strategy Development
STRENGTHS
• NPAC, which includes representatives from the Dean’s Council as well as university faculty
members and students, partners, and suppliers, provides overall strategic planning functions
for NCON. NCON uses a systematic seven-step SPP (Figure 2.1-1) that includes a situational
analysis and budget planning to ensure the resources necessary to execute the plan. The five-
year, long-term Strategic Plan coincides with the capital funding plan and development of
institutional initiatives, and it is updated annually, which leads to the development of a one-
year, short-term tactical plan. The Strategic Plan links to NCON’s mission and vision.
• The Summary of Key Long-Term Strategies and Short-Term Action Plans (Figure 2.2-1)
shows five strategic objectives supported by 21 action plans in seven key areas. The strategic
objectives and associated KPIs are reported on the LIGHT Scorecard. The LIGHT Scorecard
measures include comparative data sources as well as current, one-year, and five-year
projections addressing the identified requirements of most stakeholder groups.
• The process used to determine and select NCON’s core competencies, strategic challenges,
and strategic advantages is not clear. Nor is it clear how NCON’s strategic objectives address
all of its identified challenges and advantages, as goals related to many strategic challenges
(i.e., integrate technology, recruit minority faculty members, address the aging faculty,
increase enrollment of male students) are not evident. Addressing its core competencies and
strategic challenges and advantages and ensuring that these are linked to strategy and action
planning may help NCON realize opportunities for innovation in programming and develop
the competencies necessary to respond to present or future programmatic needs.
• Although NCON receives trend information from clinical partners that includes early
indicators of change, it is not clear how the college ensures that the SPP addresses early
indications of shifts in student and community demographics, markets, or competition. Given
the importance of changing student and community needs, NCON may benefit from
enhancing its overall approach to identifying such shifts.
• Although NCON refers to a commitment to research, collaboration, and creativity in its

mission, vision, values, human resource (HR) plan, and Graduate Committee activities, it is
not clear how this commitment has been developed into an aligned strategic objective or
action plan. The college may benefit from aligning its strategic objectives and action plans to
its overall commitments.

• While NCON has completed several Strategic Plan cycles, and the SPP’s Step 7 includes an
annual evaluation of results and the SPP itself, it is not evident how the evaluation addresses
the SPP’s effectiveness or how cycles of learning have resulted in the improvement or
innovation of the Strategic Plan process. Developing and deploying an effective, fact-based,
systematic approach to organizational learning relative to the SPP may allow the college to
more readily develop new and improved academic programs and business processes of value
to its students and stakeholders.

2.2 Strategy Deployment
STRENGTHS
• Summary of Key Long-Term Strategies and Short-Term Action Plans (Figure 2.2-1) shows
NCON’s key action plans, which are tied to the LIGHT Scorecard measures with current and
projected performance. Committees and ad hoc teams throughout the college deploy and
execute the two-to-five-year and one-year action plans using the Roundtable Review Process
(Figure 6.2-1) and LADDIE (Figure 6.2-2). NCON extends its deployment of action plans to
partners and suppliers. The Dean’s Council and NPAC review progress on action plans
through the LIGHT Scorecard.
• NCON ensures that resources are available to support its action plans through financial and
HR linkages during the development and deployment of action plans. The college’s key HR
plans provide for nine processes, programs, or funding actions to accomplish the strategic
objectives.
• While NCON identifies responsiveness to a changing education market as a key advantage

and identifies an aging faculty as a strategic challenge, the college does not indicate whether
it plans any related changes in its programs, offerings, or services or changes relative to
students, stakeholders, markets, or operations. Without a systematic process to assess and
respond to changing environmental conditions, NCON may put its long-term sustainability at
risk.
• It is not clear how NCON ensures that key outcomes of action plans are sustained or how the
college assesses and manages risks beyond budget allocations during the planning process. A
systematic process for deploying changes in action plans to all who need to know across
campuses, types of programs, or education platforms is not evident. These gaps may be
crucial given the impact of current and projected future economic conditions on state budgets
and ever-changing student and stakeholder needs.
• It is not clear how NCON determines performance projections, including how its projections
predict its future performance or compare to the performance of the college’s stated
competitors. Without a process in this area, NCON may have difficulty maintaining its
strategic advantage of responding to a changing market and difficulty addressing its strategic
challenge of growing enrollment while differentiating itself from its competitors.

Category 3 Customer Focus
3.1 Customer Engagement
STRENGTHS
• NCON uses multiple approaches, such as course evaluations, the Smith-Santini Satisfaction
Survey (4S) instruments, program evaluations, and customer complaint data to determine
whether educational programs and services meet and exceed the expectations of current
students and stakeholders. NCON uses the information from these approaches as well as
from the university’s Executive Committee as input to Step 2 of the SPP.
• By systematically gathering information from its students and stakeholders

(Figure 3.2-1), NCON determines its key mechanisms of support. Further, the Service
Lamplighter Team conducts quarterly reviews of the information and collaborates with
the Curriculum Committee to systematically include it in academic decision making.
Other means of supporting stakeholders include NCON’s alumni/donor contact
mechanisms and communication tools such as listservs and sharing days.
• Although NCON gathers and uses information from multiple sources to understand student
and stakeholder requirements, it is not apparent how the college uses the information to drive
innovation in its programs, offerings, or services. Nor is it clear how such information is
deployed to key suppliers, such as the bookstore, food service, or clinical partners. Without a
systematic process to promote innovation in its customer engagement system, NCON may
find it difficult to address its competition and the need for evolving programs, offerings, and
services.
• It is not clear how NCON creates an organizational culture focused on ensuring a positive
experience for and engagement of students and stakeholders. Sustaining such a culture may
help NCON meet its strategic challenge of growing enrollment.
• Although NCON uses multiple processes to listen to and learn from its students and
stakeholders in order to increase their engagement with the college and build and manage
relationships with them, the college appears to lack a systematic process for building
relationships. For example, because ease of access and continuous support are key
requirements for students, NCON includes students on committees and uses affiliation
agreements in working with stakeholders. Nonetheless, it is not clear how NCON
systematically determines and deploys relationship-management mechanisms to acquire new
students/stakeholders, meet and exceed their requirements and expectations, and increase
their engagement. Continuing to refine its approaches to building and managing student
relationships may help NCON maintain its critical success factor of a reputation for being
student focused.

• It is not clear how NCON builds and manages relationships with members of the community
and clinical partners, who are identified as key stakeholders who contribute to the
functioning of NCON’s academic and clinical activities. It is also not apparent how NCON
keeps its student and stakeholder culture-building approaches current with needs in a
continually changing market.

3.2 Voice of the Customer
STRENGTHS
• In listening to students and stakeholders, NPAC uses an annual process to gather information
from the identified stakeholder groups of prospective students, current students, the BR, the
community, feeder schools, alumni/donors, and employers (Figure 3.2-1). Methods of
gathering actionable information from these sources vary according to the stakeholder group
and are used to address overall satisfaction, satisfaction with courses and programs,
complaints, and student engagement (Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-3). Listening to students and
stakeholders allows NCON to enhance its strategic advantage of responsiveness to a
changing education market.
• NCON systematically deploys a Complaint Management Process (Figure 3.2-2) and a

Student Code of Conduct. The nine-step process includes the tracking of complaints within
the Complaint Management System (CMS). The Service Lamplighter Team and Service
Beacons use LADDIE and the Roundtable Review Process to address root causes. The
NPAC tracks complaints via the LIGHT Scorecard.
• NCON has various methods of determining the satisfaction and engagement of current
students and other stakeholders (Figure 3.2-3). The methods, including surveys, are
differentiated for identified student segments and programs. Many of the surveys are third-
party instruments that provide NCON with peer and national comparative data. Information
gleaned from these reviews is part of the information supplied in Step 2 of the SPP.
• While NCON has numerous methods of listening to and learning from a broad range of
stakeholders, it is not evident how the college systematically gathers information from
clinical partners or collects and analyzes dissatisfaction data. It is also not clear how NCON
uses and analyzes data from the community and marketplace. Nor is it apparent that such
information is collected in a way that provides actionable information and process learning.
Without processes for listening to and learning from all stakeholders, NCON may be limited
in addressing its strategic challenges related to enrollment and financial viability.
• Although NCON states that numerous sources of comparative data are available and that it
relies on the 4S instruments, it is not clear how the college uses competitive/comparative data
on student/stakeholder satisfaction in developing its processes or improving educational
programs, offerings, and services. Further, it is not clear how NCON uses such information
on students and on programs, offerings, and services to identify and anticipate future market
segments as well as stakeholder requirements. A systematic process for using comparative
and competitive information may enable NCON to better address its increasing competition.

• While NCON cites several sources of information (i.e., professional conferences and
workshops, professional literature, and role-model organizations) for keeping its approaches
to stakeholder listening, satisfaction, and engagement current, it does not describe a
systematic process for using information from these sources or its own student and
stakeholder data to keep its approaches responsive to changes in its organizational needs and
directions. The college’s vision of serving as an exemplar of excellence through innovation
may call for continued strengthening and refining of processes in this area.

Category 4 Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management
4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance
STRENGTHS
• NPAC uses the Strategic Plan and its goals as a framework for selecting and aligning
organizational performance measures. Measures are reviewed annually to ensure that they
align with current accreditation and regulatory requirements as well as educational and
operational needs. The Student Affairs Committee (SAC), Curriculum Committee, and
Faculty Development Committee make recommendations on measures related to their areas,
while the Evaluation and Assessment Committee performs a comprehensive review of
measures and the data that support them. Selected measures are entered into and tracked
through the LIGHT Scorecard.
• The Dean’s Council and NPAC review organizational performance results, capabilities, data,
and key reports, as evidenced in Review of Organizational Performance (Figure 4.1-2), and
the LIGHT Scorecard (Figure 4.1-1) provides the context for assessing KPIs. NCON uses
preselected criteria, including its mission and gaps with competitors, to prioritize
opportunities for improvement; the college then uses the Roundtable Review Process and
LADDIE (Figures 6.2-1 and 6.2-2) to improve processes and performance. Through
meetings, teams, and e-mails, the college deploys priorities and action plans as needed
through the parent university’s personnel.
• While NCON uses systematic processes to select, collect, align, and integrate data and
information for tracking the college’s overall performance, it is not clear how the
college uses this information to track and manage daily operations or support
innovation. Further, it is not clear how the college collects and tracks data and
information for all areas identified as important (such as research, feeder schools, and
potential students) or how it selects and uses comparative data to support strategic
decision making and innovation. The apparent lack of comparative measures from best-
performing organizations may limit NCON in supporting its opportunities for
innovation.
• Although the Dean’s Council and the Executive Committee provide yearly feedback on the
most effective organizational performance measures, a process to evaluate and improve the
overall performance measurement system is not apparent. For example, it is not clear how
NCON evaluates its use of information to track performance, make decisions, and innovate.
Nor is it clear how NCON ensures that its performance measurement system is sensitive to
rapid or unexpected organizational or external changes. Ensuring that it has an improvement
methodology may allow NCON to move more swiftly toward its vision of being an exemplar
of excellence.

4.2 Management of Information, Knowledge, and Information Technology
STRENGTHS
• To ensure that its data and information are accurate and reliable, NCON uses quality-control
checks, re-abstraction, and regular audits. Database design criteria are used to improve data
reliability, and accuracy and validity are criteria in NCON’s selection of comparative sources
of information. NCON ensures the timeliness, security, and availability of data by using
multiple electronic databases through Golden Fleece, with secure two-level access for those
needing access to the data. It also uses CRE secure portals, various listening/learning
methods as outlined in Figure 3.2-1, and the committee and team structure.
• NCON ensures that the hardware and software of its information technology (IT) systems are
reliable and secure through communication redundancy, 180-day password switching, Secure
Sockets Layer (SSL) technology, and information identification cards. The continued
availability of IT operations is ensured through an information emergency preparedness plan
that provides for extra equipment in secure locations and off-site data storage, allowing
system restoration within 24 hours. NCON’s IT strategy plan addresses continuous software
updating, a five-year equipment replacement cycle, and performance measures related to
information systems. The plan helps keep systems current with technological changes
through the identification of emerging technologies, and the CRE Users Committee monitors
the maintenance and currency of systems and proposes upgrades.
• While NCON deploys data and information to committees, teams, and faculty and staff
members through Golden Fleece and other information portals based on need, it is unclear
whether the college has systematic processes for sharing information that may be useful to all
users at all locations. For example, it is not clear how NCON makes data and information
available to all workforce teams and across committees; to various stakeholders such as
partners, suppliers, collaborators, or students; or to all faculty members and students,
including hospital-based faculty members. By ensuring the systemwide availability of
data/information as well as broad deployment of information to stakeholders, NCON may
better address its value of a quest for knowledge.
• While NCON builds organizational knowledge through numerous activities, including

collecting information through the SPP, documenting processes, and holding a sharing
day, it is not clear whether the college has a systematic process to manage its knowledge
assets. For example, NCON describes methods for collecting workforce knowledge but
not a systematic process for transferring that knowledge across committees, teams,
departments, campuses, and stakeholder groups. Additionally, while NCON designates
a day for sharing best practices, it is not clear how this ensures the rapid identification,
sharing, and implementation of best practices across the organization or how the
college’s benchmarking process is systematic and drives improvements.

• NCON is in the early stages of developing a systematic approach to keeping its data and
information availability mechanisms current with educational service needs and directions.
Although NCON has an IT strategy plan, it is not clear how the college develops this plan to
address changing educational service needs and directions. It also is not clear that NCON has
a systematic process for improving its information resources and technology. For example,
while NCON uses simulation technologies, computer-aided human simulators, and online
education components to provide services, it does not address the evaluation and
improvement of data, technology, or knowledge related to these strategic areas, which may
be key for NCON’s satisfaction rates among distance learners (Figure 7.2-2). Without
systematically improving such information resources and technology, the college may be
limited in supporting its core competencies related to effectively using instructional
technology and providing leading-edge distance education in nursing.

Category 5 Workforce Focus
5.1 Workforce Engagement
STRENGTHS
• NCON initially identified key factors affecting workforce engagement and satisfaction in
2002 through a faculty and staff task force that used a variety of information sources,
including existing employee survey data, focus groups, and exit interviews. The information
from this initial work informed NCON’s selection of a survey instrument, the 4S, which
continues to allow linkage to and differentiation of the key factors affecting workforce
engagement and satisfaction. The college reviews these factors annually as part of the SPP.
• NCON uses varying approaches (Figure 5.1-1) to foster an organizational culture

characterized by open communication, high performance, and engagement. These approaches
include rounding by the dean, physical arrangement of workspace, and the use of LADDIE
and committees. These approaches appear to be well deployed to faculty and staff members
and are integrated with key processes focused on performance improvement and performance
management.
• The performance management system supports high performance and workforce engagement
by linking faculty and staff member evaluations to the college’s mission, vision, and values.
In addition, the faculty evaluations are linked to the Standards of Teaching Excellence:
KNIGHTS (Figure 3.2-4), a model used as guidelines for providing educational services
capable of meeting student requirements. The system links workforce compensation to
outcomes of the performance appraisals, which further emphasizes to employees the
importance of meeting student requirements.
• To address the workforce’s learning and development needs, NCON uses the Dickinson-
Hobbs Faculty Development Model, which highlights individual needs and affiliated
resources. This model includes support structures for the faculty, including mentoring and a
shadowing process that involves new and experienced faculty members. The college
determines learning and development needs as part of the SPP to ensure linkage to NCON’s
short- and longer-term plans.
• While numerous systematic processes are in place to address workforce enrichment and
development, NCON provides limited evidence of a process to apply cycles of improvement
to these processes after their initial development. For example, systematic approaches do not
appear to be in place for improving key processes related to workforce engagement and
reward and recognition practices. Nor is it clear how NCON objectively determines the
effectiveness of workforce training. Ensuring that its systems and processes are
systematically improved so that they continue to meet workforce needs may support NCON

in addressing its identified strategic challenge to increase its capacity to meet workforce
needs.
• While the college has learning and development processes in place for factors such as
organizational performance improvement and ethics, it is unclear how these processes
address NCON’s current and future core competencies, strategic challenges, and
accomplishment of its action plans. It is also unclear how NCON deploys its workforce
learning and development initiatives to all key stakeholder groups, such as staff and adjunct
faculty members, or how the breadth of development opportunities includes systematic career
progression initiatives. Systematic, fully deployed workforce learning and development
processes may help support NCON in achieving its short- and long-term strategies and
ensure its ability to meet stakeholders’ requirements.
• While NCON has the 4S survey process in place to assess workforce engagement, it is not
clear how the organization systematically uses the survey and other indicators, such as
absenteeism, grievances, and productivity, to measure employees’ engagement. It also is not
clear how NCON relates its workforce assessment findings to key organizational results in
order to identify opportunities for improvement. Without a process for fully understanding,
measuring, and using workforce engagement metrics, NCON may limit its ability to address
the challenge of an aging faculty and competition for future faculty members.

5.2 Workforce Environment
STRENGTHS
• NCON describes multiple approaches for recruiting, hiring, and retaining employees
(Figure 5.2-1)—one of its strategic priorities—using faculty needs identified during the SPP.
These approaches include developing future faculty members through the PhD program,
attracting faculty members using the Visiting Scholar Program, and including faculty and
staff members on interview teams.
• The college organizes its workforce by campus location and educational program, with staff
members managed by program coordinators and directors. NCON also uses an array of
councils, teams, and committees comprising frontline staff and faculty members for planning
and decision making to address action plans and ensure the agility to respond to changing
organizational needs.
• It is not clear that NCON has effective, systematic processes for assessing workforce
capability and capacity needs or managing the workforce to capitalize on the college’s core
competencies. For instance, it is not clear how NCON evaluates capacity and capability to
support its vision of being an exemplar of excellence through research or how it manages the
workforce in a way that capitalizes on its core competencies. Without an effective,
systematic process for assessing current and future workforce capacity and capability and
maximizing the impact of core competencies, NCON may limit its ability to support an
increase in enrollment or achieve its vision of exemplar status.
• Although NCON works with the university’s Office of Employee Health and Safety to
determine workplace health and safety requirements and measures—and goals are in place
for these requirements—it is unclear how the identified health and safety requirements
specifically address the college’s needs or those of its various work groups and locations.
For instance, as part of the curriculum, NCON’s students work in clinics and other health
care settings that present different safety threats and risks than a standard college or
university setting does. Without addressing all the specific health and safety needs of its
students and workforce, NCON may limit its ability to improve recruitment, retention, and
engagement.
• While NCON supports its workforce through benefit programs with a wide range of options
available to the entire workforce, it is not clear how the various options are tailored to the
needs of a diverse workforce. It also is not clear if the benefits are integrated with other key
workforce-focused approaches, such as the workforce performance management system, or
with NCON’s recruitment and retention strategies.

• It is not clear how NCON systematically evaluates and improves its systems and processes to
build an effective and supportive workforce environment. NCON operates in a competitive
market for both students and faculty members. A consistent focus on evaluation and
improvement of key processes related to the workforce environment may allow the college to
enhance the way it addresses its strategic challenges related to workforce recruitment as well
as how it leverages its strategic advantage of responsiveness in a changing market.

Category 6 Process Management
6.1 Work Systems
STRENGTHS
• NCON uses both vertical and horizontal teams to design its work systems. The vertical
structure provides for direct reporting relationships and operational accountability from the
university’s central administration through the college’s program coordinators. The
horizontal structure consists of cross-functional committees of faculty and staff members,
and these are aligned around key work processes.
• NCON determines its key work process requirements (Figure 6.1-1) through inputs from
students, faculty and staff members, stakeholders, and partners. Inputs include SAC
meetings, student evaluations, informal conversations, the Bouvier & Brown Benchmarking
survey, the 4S, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) requirements, and
others. Analysis comes from committees, and the groups use both the Roundtable Review
Process and LADDIE (Figures 6.2-1 and 6.2-2) to provide a review cycle for these processes.
• NCON uses the parent university’s comprehensive emergency preparedness plans to ensure
its emergency readiness. It focuses on prevention, practice drills, and continuity and recovery
planning for IT, as well as partnering with the local community.
• Although NCON relates its core competencies of high-quality nursing instruction and use of
instructional technology to its learning-centered processes, it is not evident whether the
college uses an effective, systematic approach to understand and evaluate how its work
systems and key work processes relate to and capitalize on its core competencies. Such
linkages may assist NCON in addressing its strategic challenges related to recruitment,
enrollment, and financial viability.
• It is not clear how NCON decides which work processes will be internal and which will be
external or how its key work processes contribute to delivering student and stakeholder
value, student learning and success, organizational success, and sustainability. Without
effective, systematic approaches responsive to these multiple requirements, NCON may limit
its ability to deliver student and stakeholder value, maximize student learning and success,
and achieve organizational success and sustainability.
• Although NCON uses methods such as interactive formats and small class sizes to enhance
faculty members’ ability to anticipate, prepare for, and meet individual differences in
learning rates and styles, it is not clear how the college uses information on student segments
and individual students in designing work processes or to engage students in active learning.
Addressing student-driven information, student segments, and active learning methods may

enhance NCON’s core competencies of high-quality nursing instruction, effective use of
instructional technology, and leading-edge distance education in nursing.

6.2 Work Processes
STRENGTHS
• NCON uses its Roundtable Review Process (Figure 6.2-1) and LADDIE (Figure 6.2-2) to
design and implement its work processes to meet requirements. Committees and the Dean’s
Council provide oversight, and agility is incorporated through the execution of short-term
action plans. NCON addresses design requirements by designating specific owners as well as
through metrics and accountability factors. Key Work Processes (Figure 6.1-1) shows
NCON’s in-process and outcome measures for its work processes.
• NCON uses its Roundtable Review Process and LADDIE during NPAC meetings and other
committee/team meetings to reduce variability in the implementation of its work processes.
Performance monitoring minimizes costs by addressing downward trends and scores below
90% before an instance of noncompliance occurs. NCON’s use of LADDIE helps prevent
errors and rework.
• NCON uses formative and summative measures to address its work processes, monitors
performance using the LIGHT Scorecard, and compares results to those of other schools and
to state and national comparison data via NPAC, the Dean’s Council, and various committees
as part of a monthly review. Improvements and lessons learned are shared bidirectionally
through roundtables, committees, and councils. Through Golden Fleece and CRE, the college
stores and shares this information to drive organizational learning.
• While NCON describes approaches to design its work processes and gives an example of a
cycle-time improvement to a process, it is not evident how the college incorporates cycle
time, productivity, cost control, and other efficiency and effectiveness measures into the
design of its work processes. Further, although NCON refers to measures in Key Work
Processes (Figure 6.1-1), it is not clear which are in-process measures used to control and
improve work processes. Ensuring the use of cycle time, productivity, cost control, other
efficiency and effectiveness factors, and in-process measures in its work processes may
enable NCON to optimize its core competencies to address its strategic challenges.
• It is not evident how NCON uses input from its workforce, students, suppliers, and other
stakeholders to manage work processes. Further, it is not clear how the college manages
work processes to ensure that they meet design requirements. Without an effective,
systematic process for using key inputs and managing processes to meet requirements,
NCON may miss opportunities to drive innovation and thereby achieve its vision of being an
exemplar of excellence among nursing schools.
• Although NCON uses its Roundtable Review Process and LADDIE to improve work process
design and implementation, it is unclear whether the college has an effective, fact-based,

systematic approach to evaluating and improving these two key processes. For example,
while these processes have been in place since 1997, it is not apparent how they are
evaluated and improved, and results of evaluations are not apparent. Developing a systematic
approach to improving key processes may allow NCON to ensure that it meets its four
strategic challenges.

Category 7 Results
7.1 Student Learning Outcomes
(Please refer to Figure 5b, Scoring Guidelines for Results Items.)
STRENGTHS
• All student learning outcomes shown demonstrate four to five years of improved or sustained
good performance. For example, NCLEX-RN Pass Rates (Figure 7.1-1) increased from 86%
in 2004 to about 92% in 2008, and similar improvement trends are found, for example, in
Specialty Certification Exam Pass Rates (Figure 7.1-2), Comparative Retention Rate
(Figure 7.1-4), and Job-Related Benefits of MSN and PhD Degrees (Figure 7.1-10).
Measures such as Employers’ Rating of Graduates’ Skills and Knowledge (Figure 7.1-11)
show sustained strong performance, with employer ratings remaining better than 5.5 on a
6.0-point scale for the past five years.
• Eight of the 11 measures for student learning outcomes include comparisons, and NCON’s
performance has been consistently better than that of at least two of the three peer
competitors as well as the state average. NCON’s performance levels are generally better
than those of the national comparisons as well. For example, in Graduation Rates: Degree
Programs (Figure 7.1-5), the national rate in 2008 is about 82%, and NCON’s BSN and MSN
programs’ rates are about 86% and 96%, respectively. One-year performance projections are
shown for 7 of the 11 measures.
• Results are segmented in Specialty Certification Exam Pass Rates (Figure 7.1-2), Retention
Rates by Gender/Ethnicity (Figure 7.1-3), Graduation Rates: Degree Programs
(Figure 7.1-5), Graduation Rates by Gender and Ethnicity (Figure 7.1-6), and Program
Completion/Graduation Rate: Other Student Segments (Figure 7.1-7). On these measures, the
performance of all segments has generally improved by 4–10% over the past four to five
years.
• No results are reported for student learning and performance in some areas related to
NCON’s mission and vision, such as collaborative practice, professional leadership,
integration of health promotion and disease prevention for the sake of patient care, and
promotion of healthy communities, as well as research, creativity, and innovation. NCON’s
understanding of its ability to retain students, place them, and ensure that they graduate and
pass necessary exams is key; however, without measures in areas identified as important in
its mission and vision, the college may not be able to assess its performance in these areas.
Such a lack may cause blind spots for NCON and challenge its ability to accomplish its
mission, leverage its strengths and core competencies, and sustain its performance over time.
• Although NCON consistently outperforms its peers, the state average, and in most areas the
national comparison across measures of student learning outcomes, the college compares its

performance to the average (e.g., NCLEX-RN Pass Rates, Figure 7.1-1; Specialty
Certification Exam Pass Rates, Figure 7.1-2; Comparative Retention Rate, Figure 7.1-4; and
Graduation Rates: Degree Programs, Figure 7.1-5). NCON’s vision is to be an exemplar of
excellence among schools of nursing through academic achievement, research and creativity,
innovation, and collaboration, and it has identified a strategic challenge to grow enrollment
while differentiating the college and wants to leverage its strategic advantage of having BSN
programs with a strong reputation. However, without moving toward comparing and
projecting its performance against the best performers within the nursing education
community and against benchmarks in nursing education, NCON may find it difficult to
achieve this vision and overcome its challenges.
• While NCON segments performance data for numerous student learning outcomes and
shows generally improved performance for all segments on most measures, graduation and
retention rates for males, Hispanics, and African Americans for the most part trail the rates
for females, Caucasians, and Asians (Figures 7.1-3 and 7.1-6, Retention Rates by
Gender/Ethnicity and Graduation Rates by Gender and Ethnicity). Further, no comparisons
are provided for retention and graduation rates by gender and ethnicity. The performance
results for male and some minority student segments and the lack of comparative data
illustrate a gap related to the college’s key strategic challenge of increasing the enrollment
and graduation rates of male and minority students.

7.2 Customer-Focused Outcomes
STRENGTHS
• Student satisfaction results demonstrate consistently high performance for all student
segments. Student Satisfaction by Academic Program and Other Segments (Figure 7.2-2)—
across five student segments, not including PhD students—has increased steadily since 2004,
as demonstrated by survey questions on “overall satisfaction,” “would enroll again,” and
“expectations met.” For example, the MSN segment’s “overall satisfaction” rating increased
from 5.08 to 5.66 from 2004 to 2008. Further, Student Satisfaction by Ethnicity
(Figure 7.2-3), a key measure related to the strategic challenge of minority enrollment and
retention, trended upward for all segments and across questions on “overall satisfaction,”
“would enroll again,” and “expectations met” (e.g., the Hispanic student segment’s ratings
increased from 4.97 in 2004 to 5.44 in 2008).
• Student Satisfaction in Key Areas (Figure 7.2-1) shows NCON outperforming the top peer
and national top 10% comparisons since 2006 across the questions asked. For example,
ratings for “would enroll again” increased from 4.91 in 2004 to 5.53 in 2008. On a measure
of loyalty on the Alumni Exit Assessment (Figure 7.2-9), over 70% of students from the BSN
and MSN programs said they would “recommend [the college] to a friend.” The overall
percentage of students who would recommend NCON has outperformed the peer level since
2005, with similar ratings reported for the Alumni Exit Assessment question on whether
NCON is a “worthwhile investment.” Satisfaction with Complaint Management
(Figure 7.2-6) shows both “availability” and “timely response” ratings exceeding the top peer
and national top 10% levels since 2006 (e.g., NCON is at 5.89 in 2008 for “availability,” and
the top peer and national top 10% are at 5.75 and 5.55, respectively).
• The Alumni Survey (Figure 7.2-10) shows that students in the BSN, MSN, and PhD
programs have rated their level of employment preparation near or above the national top
10% level since 2006. Employer Assessment (Figure 7.2-12), a measure of the satisfaction of
another of NCON’s key stakeholder groups, demonstrates consistently positive performance
ranging from approximately 90% satisfaction in 2004 to approximately 96% in 2008, with
NCON outperforming Peers 1 and 2 since 2006.
• Student Engagement by Segment (Figure 7.2-7) demonstrates improvement trends in

NCON’s performance across all segments since 2004. Distance students’ engagement
increased from about 42% in 2004 to about 70% in 2008 and was approaching the national
top 10% level in 2008. Traditional students’ engagement has remained stable at
approximately 80–82% since 2004 and has consistently outperformed the national top 10%
level since 2004. Also, international students’ engagement increased from approximately
55% in 2004 to more than 70% in 2008.

• While Student Satisfaction by Academic Program and Other Segments, Student Satisfaction
by Ethnicity, Satisfaction with Curricula/Instruction, and Satisfaction with Support Services
(Figures 7.2-2 through 7.2-5) demonstrate mostly favorable trends, the results include no
comparative or competitive data. In addition, no results are reported on student or
stakeholder dissatisfaction. Without comparative data or data on student dissatisfaction,
NCON may find it difficult to determine how well it is meeting the needs of its current
students relative to other students within its competitive marketplace and how this
performance might impact its strategic challenge regarding enrollment.
• NCON does not report results related to the key requirements of “all students” (flexible
scheduling, placement, instructional support, advising, and accessible faculty) and
“transfer students” (ability to ask questions and receive prompt responses;
Figure P.1-3). Nor are results reported for the requirements of the BR, the community,
and alumni/donor stakeholders (Figure P.1-4). Understanding satisfaction results
across student and stakeholder segments may allow NCON to proactively address the
impact of increasing competition from “fast-track” and online programs as well as its
strategic challenge to increase enrollment.

7.3 Budgetary, Financial, and Market Outcomes
STRENGTHS
• Financial viability results presented in Administrative Costs as a Percentage of Operating

Budget, Research Expenditures, and Alumni Donations to NCON (Figures 7.3-3 through
7.3-5) are aligned with NCON’s strategic objective to “maintain adequate financial
resources” and the fiscal Health Point of LIGHT. Results demonstrate generally positive
trends over at least six years, and the college’s results compare favorably against those of
peers on two of the three measures (administrative costs and research expenditures; e.g.,
NCON’s research expenditures since 2005 have outpaced those of three peers by a minimum
of about $100,000).
• Average Tuition and Fees (Figure 7.3-1) shows levels below those of Peers 1 and 2 since
2005. While NCON’s tuition and fees have increased from an average of $4,000 in 2005 to
about $5,800 in 2008, Peers 1 and 2 show increases from about $4,100 and $5,200 in 2005 to
about $6,100 and $7,000 in 2008, respectively. Continued positive performance in this area
relative to competitors may benefit NCON as it addresses increasing competition for
students.
• Results for budgetary and financial performance are not segmented by NCON’s various
programs. Without segmented data on budgetary and overall financial performance, the
college may risk allocating scarce resources to programs that are not achieving its desired
results.
• Results are not reported for market share, for defined student market segments, or by market
performance. Without market analysis that considers market share or performance, NCON
may miss potential blind spots that may affect its sustainability.
• It is not clear that any of the comparisons provided in measures of budgetary, financial, and
market outcomes are national in scope. Without comparisons to benchmarks or best practices
(instead of averages), NCON may have difficulty setting targets for improved performance
that will help the college realize its vision to be an exemplar of excellence among nursing
schools or respond to strategic challenges, such as growing enrollment.

7.4 Workforce-Focused Outcomes
STRENGTHS
• Results for Workforce Satisfaction by Segments (Figure 7.4-1) demonstrate strong levels of
performance between 2004 and 2008. Results for all but one staff segment compare
favorably to those of Peer 1, and satisfaction levels for the tenured and nontenured faculty are
at the top-decile level. Workforce Satisfaction by Service Length and Location (Figure 7.4-2)
demonstrates positive trends for three of four groups over the same period. In addition,
Workforce Satisfaction by Service Length and Location demonstrates positive levels and
trends, particularly for two of NCON’s three locations. Workforce Turnover (Figure 7.4-5)
demonstrates favorable performance compared to that of Peer 1 as well as the parent
university, with NCON’s 2008 rate at about 8% and the Peer 1 and parent university rates at
about 10% and 13%, respectively.
• Two measures of workforce capacity for the faculty demonstrate strong levels of
performance. The college’s student/faculty ratio in clinical settings is currently 7:1,
compared to a Texas Board of Nursing (TBN) stipulated ratio of 10:1. In classroom settings,
NCON’s FTSE/FTFE [Full-Time Student Equivalent/Full-Time Faculty Equivalent]
Classroom Ratio (Figure 7.4-10) decreased from 20:1 to 17:1 between 2004 and 2008 and is
considerably lower than that of all three peer institutions, with the highest ratio currently at
27:1 and the lowest at 23:1.
• Many measures of workforce climate demonstrate strong performance and positive trends
from 2004 to 2008. Satisfaction with Benefits (Figure 7.4-3) currently is about 5.5 for faculty
and staff segments and exceeds Peer 1’s level, which is about 4.9 in 2008. Satisfaction with
Workforce Safety (Figure 7.4-12), while variable, shows performance at or above 5.75 since
2004. Four measures shown in Safety and Health (Figure 7.4-13) demonstrate favorable
trends since 2004 and compare favorably with Peer 1’s results. Days Away/Restricted Time
(Figure 7.4-14) also shows a favorable trend since 2004, with NCON’s current level
(approximately 2) better than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
80th percentile (approximately 3) and Peer 1’s level (approximately 11). Finally, Money Paid
for Workers’ Compensation Claims (Figure 7.4-15) demonstrates a favorable three-year
trend, with NCON’s current performance better than that of two of three peer organizations.
• Some measures of workforce-focused outcomes for adjunct faculty members demonstrate

unfavorable trends or performance well below that of other staff segments or comparison
groups over time. These include Workforce Satisfaction by Segments (Figure 7.4-1) and
Workforce Turnover (Figure 7.4-5). In addition, projections for 2009 do not indicate
significant change. NCON identifies adjunct faculty members as a key group for addressing
capacity needs. Therefore, without addressing its performance on workforce-focused

outcomes, such as turnover and satisfaction rates, NCON may limit its ability to address its
strategic challenge of an aging workforce.
• Some key measures of workforce-focused outcomes are not provided. These include
measures of workforce engagement, workforce climate, and workforce capacity and
capability (e.g., measures related to research, other than the total number of staff
members). Use of such measures may help NCON address factors related to having a
more favorable employee environment than competitors and maintaining a strong
reputation.
• While NCON’s overall comparative performance is strong, it lags the comparisons given on
measures of Continuing Education Credits (Figure 7.4-6) and Tuition Reimbursement
(Figure 7.4-8). Given the competitive marketplace and the workforce’s need for continued
professional development to stay current with job requirements, NCON may benefit from
enhancing its performance in these workforce-focused areas.

7.5 Process Effectiveness Outcomes
STRENGTHS
• Participation in Committees and Teams (Figure 7.5-2) shows strong levels and positive
trends for committee participation, with full-time faculty participation increasing from 89%
to 100% between 2004 and 2008. In addition, 74% of full-time faculty members participated
in teams in 2004, and participation increased to 89% in 2008.
• Results for Completed Improvement/Innovation Projects (Figure 7.5-3) show an overall

positive trend for 2005 to 2008, increasing from 6 completed projects in 2005 to 11 in 2008.
Results for Emergency Training and Drills (Figure 7.5-5) show strong levels and trends for
2004 to 2008 for all three locations (Freedom, San Antonio, and Dallas) and for both
“training completion” (with the total score improving from 83% to 89%) and “highly
effective” drills (with the total score improving from 79% to 84%).
• Results for Program Quality and Effectiveness, Student Evaluation of Process Effectiveness,
and Workforce Evaluation of Process Effectiveness (Figures 7.5-6 through 7.5-8) show
overall favorable performance trends from at least 2005 to 2008. In addition, current
performance levels on these measures are at or slightly above peer levels for most reported
segments.
• Some measures of vertical work system performance are not provided. These include
measures for some areas of the work system (external supplier-provided services, such as on-
campus dining, the campus bookstore, HVAC and energy, and clinical supplies) and internal
partners’ work systems, such as those related to admissions, institutional development, the
library, and student life. Additionally, no measures are provided for key processes performed
by suppliers of partners, such as clinical settings or technology processes. Use of such
measures may help NCON address its strategic challenges of growing enrollment while
differentiating the college and maintaining financial viability.
• Some measures of key work process performance (e.g., CRE User Satisfaction, and Cost and
Cycle-Time Reductions; Figures 7.5-10 and 7.5-11) and key work systems (e.g., Number of
Initiatives and Faculty Slots Funded Each Year, Participation in Committees and Teams, and
Completed Improvement/Innovation Projects; Figures 7.5-1 through 7.5-3) do not include
external comparisons. Understanding its performance relative to high-performing
organizations may allow NCON to become more innovative in its work processes and move
toward its vision of being an exemplar of excellence among nursing schools.
• Some measures of key work process performance are not provided. For example, measures
related to the Roundtable Review Process and LADDIE are missing, as are key measures
noted in Key Work Processes (Figure 6.1-1) and in-process measures. A clear understanding

of performance of processes across areas may help NCON address its key student and
stakeholder requirements.

7.6 Leadership Outcomes
STRENGTHS
• Key Measures of Regulatory, Safety, and Legal Compliance (Figure 7.6-4) and THECB
Review Results (Figure 7.6-5) show sustained levels of high performance. For example,
violations and noncompliances were at zero for the four years reported, and the percentage of
facilities accessible as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act consistently increased
from 90% to 94% from 2005 to 2008 (Figure 7.6-4). Further, NCON shows increasing
THECB standards compliance (from 10 of 11 to 12 of 12) over the four years reported, with
the number of programs (8 to 10) and the number of exemplary programs (1 to 3) increasing.
• Results for measures of ethical behavior show increased participation and increased program
effectiveness and performance. Faculty and Staff Participation in Ethical Behavior Activities
(Figure 7.6-6) is at nearly 100% in all categories reported. Breaches of Ethical Behavior:
Reporting, Confirmation, and Resolution (Figure 7.6-7) shows that complaints increased
from 22 to 35 over the five years reported, while confirmed issues dropped, indicating
success in the education and compliance programs. From 2004 to 2008, confirmed/resolved
complaints dropped from 7 of 11 to 4 of 16 for senior leaders and faculty/staff members and
from 8 of 11 to 5 of 19 for students.
• Addressing Environmental Concerns and Support of Key Communities (Figures 7.6-10 and
7.6-11) show overall increasing performance over the five years reported. Safe disposal
practices increased from 95% to 100%, and recycling increased from 48% to 61%
(Figure 7.6-10). NCON’s support through health programs in schools and through clinics
increased from 21 to 24 programs and from 2 to 3 clinics (with an increase from 1,361
patients in 2004 to 1,888 patients in 2008; Figure 7.6-11).
• Results for 2008 Accomplishment of Strategy and Action Plans and Overall Accomplishment
of Action Plans (Figures 7.6-1 and 7.6-2) show generally acceptable levels over time but no
significant improvement in NCON’s key areas, such as maintenance of a high-quality faculty
(only 88% of short-term plans and 85% of long-term plans completed). Further, no action
plan results are shown for the development of research. Considering that these results
indicate NCON’s progress on its strategic direction, NCON may benefit from addressing
strategy deployment and the alignment and execution of its action plans.
• Results for Other Stakeholders’ Trust in Senior Leaders/Governance (Figure 7.6-9), which
appears to be an important measure for achieving NCON’s vision (to be an exemplar of
excellence) and values (e.g., integrity), show that up to 20% of some key stakeholder groups
do not strongly agree that they trust NCON’s senior leaders and the governance system.
While the steady levels show favorable performance in this area, the lack of a significant
improvement trend over the five years reported may indicate an opportunity for NCON to

address stakeholder trust. In addition, NCON provides no performance data for fiscal
accountability that might support stakeholder trust.
• Results for many measures of leadership outcomes are not segmented, for example, by
NCON’s diverse stakeholder groups, different campuses, or different operations.
Without such segmentation, NCON may have difficulty identifying areas for
improvement as it addresses its leadership and societal responsibility results.

APPENDIX
By submitting a Baldrige 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 69 of the 2009–2010 Education Criteria for Performance Excellence.

Award Process Review Cycle
Applications Due
CD: Mid-May
Paper: Late May
Independent Review
& Consensus
Review
June–August
Feedback Report
Judges Meet Not Selected to Applicant
Mid-September
Selected
Site Visit Review

October
Feedback Report
Judges Meet Not Selected to Applicant
Mid-November
Judges Recommend Award

Recipients to NIST Director/
Secretary of Commerce
Figure 1—Award Process Review Cycle

Consensus Review
In Consensus Review (see Figure 2), a team of Examiners, led by a Senior Examiner, conducts a
series of reviews, first managed virtually through a secure Web site 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 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Consensus Planning Virtual Consensus Consensus Call Post–Consensus Call
Activities
• Clarify the • Review all • Discuss a limited • Revise comments
timeline for the Independent number of issues and scores to
team to complete Review related to specific reflect consensus
its work evaluations— comments or decisions
• Assign draft consensus scores, and • Prepare final
Category/Item comments and discuss all key Consensus
discussion leaders propose scores themes Scorebook
• Discuss key • Post Consensus • Achieve • Prepare feedback
business/ Review consensus on report
organization worksheets for comments and
factors the team to scores
review
• Address
feedback,
incorporate
inputs, and
propose a
resolution of
differences on
each worksheet
• Review updated
comments and
scores
Figure 2—Consensus Review
Site Visit Review
After Consensus Review, the Panel of Judges selects applicants to receive site visits based on the
scoring profiles. If an applicant is not selected for Site Visit Review, one of the Examiners on the
consensus team edits the final Consensus Scorebook, which becomes the feedback report.
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 Step 2 Step 3

Team Preparation Site Visit Post–Site Visit Activities
• Review consensus • Make/receive • Resolve issues
findings presentations • Summarize findings
• Develop site visit issues • Conduct interviews • Finalize comments
• Plan site visit • Record observations • Prepare final Site Visit
• Review records Scorebook
• Prepare feedback report
Figure 3—Site Visit Review
Applications, Consensus Scorebooks, and Site Visit Scorebooks for all applicants receiving site
visits are forwarded to the Panel of Judges for review (see Figure 4). The Judges recommend
which applicants should receive the Award. The Judges discuss applications in each of the six
Award categories 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. The process is repeated for each Award category.
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Panel of Judges’ Review Evaluation by Category Assessment of Top
Organizations
• Applications • Manufacturing • Overall strengths/
• Consensus Scorebooks • Service opportunities for
• Site Visit Scorebooks • Small business improvement
• Education • Appropriateness as
• Health care national model of
• Nonprofit performance excellence
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.

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 Scoring Guidelines (Figures 5a
and 5b), 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 7.1–7.6) 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.

SCORE PROCESS (For Use with Categories 1–6)
 No systematic approach to Item requirements is evident; information is anecdotal. (A)
0% or 5%  Little or no deployment of any systematic approach is evident. (D)
 An improvement orientation is not evident; improvement is achieved through 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 requirements of the Item is evident.
10%, 15%, (A)
20%, or 25%  The approach is in the early stages of deployment in most areas or work units, inhibiting
progress in achieving the basic requirements of the Item. (D)
 Early stages of a transition from reacting to problems to a general improvement
orientation are evident. (L)
 The approach is aligned with other areas or work units largely through joint problem
solving. (I)
 An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the basic requirements of the Item, is
30%, 35%, evident. (A)
40%, or 45%  The approach is deployed, although some areas or work units are in early stages of
deployment. (D)
 The beginning of a systematic approach to evaluation and improvement of key
processes is evident. (L)
 The approach is in the early stages of alignment with your basic organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other Process Items. (I)
 An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the overall requirements of the Item, is
50%, 55%, evident. (A)
60%, or 65%  The approach is well deployed, although deployment may vary in some areas or work
units. (D)
 A fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process and some organizational
learning, including innovation, are in place for improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of key processes. (L)
 The approach is aligned with your organizational needs identified in response to the
Organizational Profile and other Process Items. (I)
 An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item,
70%, 75%, is evident. (A)
80%, or 85%  The approach is well deployed, with no significant gaps. (D)
 Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning,
including innovation, are key management tools; there is clear evidence of refinement as
a result of organizational-level analysis and sharing. (L)
 The approach is integrated with your organizational needs identified in response to the
Organizational Profile and other Process Items. (I)
 An effective, systematic approach, fully responsive to the multiple requirements of the
90%, 95%, Item, is evident. (A)
or 100%  The approach is fully deployed without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units. (D)
 Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning through
innovation are key organization-wide tools; refinement and innovation, backed by
analysis and sharing, are evident throughout the organization. (L)
 The approach is well integrated with your organizational needs identified in response to
the Organizational Profile and other Process Items. (I)
Figure 5a—Scoring Guidelines for Process Items in the Education Criteria

SCORE RESULTS (For Use with Category 7)
 There are no organizational performance results and/or poor results in areas reported.
0% or 5% (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. No performance projections are reported. (I)
 A few organizational performance results are reported, and early good performance
10%, 15%, levels are evident in a few areas. (Le)
20%, or 25%  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. Limited or no performance projections are reported. (I)
 Good organizational performance levels are reported for some areas of importance to
30%, 35%, the Item requirements. (Le)
40%, or 45%  Some trend data are reported, and a majority 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. Limited performance projections are reported. (I)
 Good organizational performance levels are reported for most areas of importance to the
Item requirements. (Le)
50%, 55%,  Beneficial trends are evident in areas of importance to the accomplishment of your
60%, or 65% 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, stakeholder,
market, and process requirements. Performance projections for some high-priority
results are reported. (I)
 Good to excellent organizational performance levels are reported for most areas of
importance to the Item requirements. (Le)
70%, 75%,  Beneficial trends have been sustained over time in most areas of importance to the
80%, or 85% 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, stakeholder,
market, process, and action plan requirements, and they include some projections of
your future performance. (I)
 Excellent organizational performance levels are reported for most areas of importance to
the Item requirements. (Le)
90%, 95%,  Beneficial trends have been sustained over time in all areas of importance to the
or 100% accomplishment of your organization’s mission. (T)
 Evidence of education sector and benchmark leadership is demonstrated in many areas.
(C)
 Organizational performance results fully address key student, stakeholder, market,
process, and action plan requirements, and they include projections of your future
performance. (I)
Figure 5b--Scoring Guidelines for Results Items in the Education Criteria

Band Band %
Score Number Applicants in PROCESS Scoring Band Descriptors
Band1
0–150 1 0 The organization demonstrates early stages of developing and implementing

approaches to the basic Criteria requirements, 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 requirements of the Criteria, but some areas or work units are in the early
stages of deployment. The organization has developed a general improvement
orientation that is forward-looking.

basic requirements of most Criteria Items, although there are still areas or work
units in the early stages of deployment. Key processes are beginning to be
systematically evaluated and improved.

overall requirements of the Criteria, but deployment may vary in some areas or
work units. Key processes benefit from fact-based evaluation and improvement,
and approaches are being aligned with organizational needs.
321–370 5 0 The organization demonstrates effective, systematic, well-deployed approaches

responsive to the overall requirements of most Criteria Items. The organization
demonstrates a fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process and
organizational learning, including innovation, that result in improving the
effectiveness and efficiency of key processes.
371–430 6 0 The organization demonstrates refined approaches responsive to the multiple

requirements of the Criteria. These approaches are characterized by the use of
key measures, good deployment, and evidence of innovation in most areas.
Organizational learning, including innovation and sharing of best practices, is a
key management tool, and integration of approaches with organizational needs is
evident.
431–480 7 0 The organization demonstrates refined approaches responsive to the multiple

requirements of the Criteria Items. It also demonstrates innovation, excellent
deployment, and good to excellent use of measures in most areas. Good to
excellent integration is evident, with organizational analysis, learning through
innovation, and sharing of best practices as key management strategies.
481–550 8 0 The organization demonstrates outstanding approaches focused on innovation.

Approaches are fully deployed and demonstrate excellent, sustained use of
measures. There is excellent integration of approaches with organizational needs.
Organizational analysis, learning through innovation, and sharing of best
practices are pervasive.
1
Percentages are based on scores from Consensus Review.
2
“Industry” refers to other organizations performing substantially the same functions, thereby facilitating direct comparisons.
Figure 6a—Process Scoring Band Descriptors

Band Band %
Score Number Applicants RESULTS Scoring Band Descriptors
in Band1
0–125 1 0 Results are reported for a few areas of importance to the accomplishment of the
organization’s mission, but they generally lack trend and comparative data.
Limited or no performance projections are reported.
126–170 2 0 Results are reported for several areas of importance to the Criteria requirements
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. Limited performance projections are reported.
171–210 3 0 Results address many areas of importance to the 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. Limited performance projections are reported.
211–255 4 0 Results address some key customer/stakeholder, market, and process

requirements, and they demonstrate good relative performance against relevant
comparisons. There are no patterns of adverse trends or poor performance in
areas of importance to the Criteria requirements and the accomplishment of the
organization’s mission. Limited performance projections are reported, including
those for a few high-priority areas.
256–300 5 0 Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market, and process

requirements, and they demonstrate areas of strength against relevant
comparisons and/or benchmarks. Improvement trends and/or good performance
are reported for most areas of importance to the Criteria requirements and the
accomplishment of the organization’s mission. Performance projections for some
high-priority areas are reported.
301–345 6 0 Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market, and process

requirements, as well as many action plan requirements, and some results include
projections of future performance. Results demonstrate beneficial trends in most
areas of importance to the Criteria requirements and the accomplishment of the
organization’s mission, and the organization is an industry2 leader in some results
areas.
346–390 7 0 Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market, process, and action plan
requirements and include projections of future performance. Results demonstrate
excellent organizational performance levels and some industry2 leadership.
Results demonstrate sustained beneficial trends in most areas of importance to
the Criteria requirements and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission.
391–450 8 0 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 importanc
to the Criteria requirements 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

2009 Nightingale Feedback Report QT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009 Nightingale Feedback Report QT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009 Nightingale Feedback Report QT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nightingale

Dr. Nancy Nunnin

Dear Dr. Nunnin:

Harry S. Hertz, Director

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 1

Key Themes—Process Items

An organization in band 3 for Process Items typically demonstrates effective, systematic

• NCON’s processes for gathering organizational information and providing analysis

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

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 2

Key Themes—Results Items

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

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 3

• Results on the college’s LIGHT Scorecard (Figure 2.2-1) demonstrate beneficial

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

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 4

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 5

1.1 Senior Leadership

• NCON uses a shared governance structure (Management and Governance Structure,

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 6

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 7

• NCON’s governance system achieves transparency in operations through shared processes

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 8

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 9

2.1 Strategy Development

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

• Although NCON refers to a commitment to research, collaboration, and creativity in its

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 10

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 11

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

• While NCON identifies responsiveness to a changing education market as a key advantage

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 12

3.1 Customer Engagement

• By systematically gathering information from its students and stakeholders

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 13

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 14

• NCON systematically deploys a Complaint Management Process (Figure 3.2-2) and a

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 15

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 16

4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 17

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

• While NCON builds organizational knowledge through numerous activities, including

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 18

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 19

5.1 Workforce Engagement

• NCON uses varying approaches (Figure 5.1-1) to foster an organizational culture

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 20

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 21

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 22

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Feedback Report 23

6.1 Work Systems

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT