MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE 2012 FEEDBACK REPORTecampus.matc.edu/accreditation/pdf/2012...
Transcript of MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE 2012 FEEDBACK REPORTecampus.matc.edu/accreditation/pdf/2012...
MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE
2012 FEEDBACK REPORT
Milwaukee Area Technical College
2012 Feedback Report
2909 Landmark Place, Suite 110
Madison, WI 53713
(608) 663-5300
(608) 663-5302 (fax)
www.wisquality.org
Feedback Report page 1
Wisconsin Forward Award Feedback Report
for Milwaukee Area Technical College
Introduction
The Wisconsin Forward Award Board of Examiners has evaluated your organization’s application report for
Wisconsin Forward Award assessment and recognition. This feedback report contains background information on
the evaluation and scoring process, as well as the findings of the Examiner Team that reviewed your
organization’s application. The findings include an Executive Summary of overall findings, as well as detail by
Category Item of your organization’s strengths and opportunities for improvement relative to the Criteria for
Performance Excellence.
Preparing to Read Your Feedback Report
Your feedback report contains Wisconsin Forward Award Examiners’ observations that are 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 for Performance Excellence. The
feedback is non-prescriptive. It will tell you where Examiners think you have strengths to celebrate and where
they think that improvement opportunities exist. The feedback will not say specifically how you should address
these opportunities. The specifics will depend on what you decide is most important to your organization.
Applicant organizations read and use feedback comments in different ways. We and the Baldrige National Quality
Program suggest the following practices for your consideration:
Take a deep breath and approach your Wisconsin Forward Award feedback with an open mind. You applied
to get the feedback. Read it, take the time to digest it, and read it again.
You know your organization in ways in which the Examiner team can’t. There might be relevant information
that was not communicated to them or that they did not fully understand. Although we strive for the best and
most relevant feedback at all times, we do not achieve it in every comment. If Examiners have misread your
application or misunderstood your organization on a particular point, don’t discount the entire feedback
report. Consider the other comments and focus on the most important ones.
Use your strength comments to understand what the Examiners observed you do well. Continue to sustain,
evaluate, and improve the things you do well and build on them to achieve world-class performance and a
competitive advantage. Sharing those things you do well with the rest of your organization can speed
organizational learning. Celebrate your strengths. You’ve worked hard and should congratulate yourselves.
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. You may decide to
address all, some, or none of the opportunities for a particular Item. It depends on how important you think
any one particular Item or comment is to your organization.
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.
If WFA can provide additional support of guidance as you progress in your performance excellence journey,
please do not hesitate to contact us at (608) 663-5300 or [email protected].
Feedback Report page 2
Executive Summary
Based on the Wisconsin Forward Award Board of Examiners’ review of the organization’s written application
and site visit review Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) scored in
■ Band 3 in process Items (Categories 1–6)
■ Band 2 in results Items (Category 7)
■ Band 3 overall
This assessment places the organization at the Proficiency recognition level. For an explanation of the scoring
bands, please refer to Figures 4, 5, and 6 on pages 51 to 54 of this document.
Key Strengths/Outstanding Practices
■ Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses a PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) methodology throughout
the organization, including 1) developing and deploying the strategic plan, 2) setting and deploying the
mission, vision, and values, as well as shared governance; 3) identifying and meeting student and other
stakeholder requirements and designing educational programs; 4) improving student satisfaction; and 5)
designing and improving work systems and processes.
■ MATC employs 90 Advisory Committees consisting of business, industry and labor representatives in
addition to alumni, students, and faculty members. The Advisory Committees assist with planning and
evaluation of the college’s vocational and technical education programs and include 886 citizen
representatives. Input from these committees feeds into strategic planning and budgeting processes as well
as improvements in educational offerings.
■ The Budget Development Committee addresses the college’s financial viability including addressing future
sustainability by developing budget assumptions such as enrollments, local property taxes, state aid, student
fees, salary and benefit projections, operating and capitol expenditures, program assumptions, and
enterprise activities. This committee includes administrative staff members, union representatives, and
students.
Significant Improvement Opportunities for Process Items
■ While there exist multiple sources for data and information and a significant amount of data are gathered in
support of the annual strategic planning process, for monitoring the progress of strategic action projects and
improvement projects, and in support of key work system and work process improvements through PDCA
cycles, MATC does not appear to have a systematic approach to the use of data, including aggregation and
analysis, to monitor processes and identify and address strategic challenges and opportunities for
improvement and innovation via its PDCA methodology. Therefore the organization appears to be reactive
to circumstances rather than proactive towards opportunities, which may limit the ability to compete for
students and tuition dollars in an increasingly competitive market.
■ It is unclear how the organization is addressing its long-term sustainability during strategic planning
development and deployment given: 1) a lack of focus on strategic challenges and advantages, 2) a failure
to project future performance including performance relative to competitors, and 3) a lack of understanding
of future workforce capability and capacity needs as well as needed core competencies.
Feedback Report page 3
■ Many processes appear to be non-systematic, indicating what the organization does, but not clearly
demonstrating how work is performed. Examples include senior leadership communication and engagement
with the workforce, students and stakeholders, strategic planning (who is involved and how is it conducted),
identifying needs of current and future students and stakeholders, selecting and using data and information,
knowledge management, workforce management (capacity and capability), and identifying work system
and work process requirements.
Significant Strengths for Results
■ MATC is seeing some positive results associated with student success and engagement, specifically
Prepared Learning Institute (PLI) course completions, program graduates and program graduate
employment, post-secondary course completion, comparative part-time graduation rates, comparative full-
time success rates, and smart start sessions.
■ Several areas associated with operational effectiveness show positive results including student satisfaction,
workforce climate factors, human resources requisitions, foundation contributions, and grant support.
■ Many measures for areas of strategic importance are being gathered and are at the beginning stages of being
monitored for opportunities for improvement.
Significant Improvement Opportunities for Results
■ Most results lack comparators, and even fewer include comparators related to other schools with whom
MATC directly competes for students and financial dollars (including both local institutions and those that
offer online courses). Lack of appropriate comparators may hinder sustainability in an ever-competitive
market with decreasing funding.
■ The organization appears to be in the early stages of collecting data as evidenced by some of the results
presented, which lack trending. In addition, many results lack segmentation. Without the existence of
trended or segmented data and a focus on monitoring strategic data, it may be difficult for the college to
understand where it is on the journey towards excellence in education and training for its diverse
community.
■ Several areas of strategic focus are showing negative trends, including adult basic education enrollment,
general fund reserve, foundation contributions, college preference among district residents, market
penetration, and part-time student retention rates. No actions are evident in response to these negative
trends, which will likely have an effect on long-term sustainability.
Feedback Report page 4
Details of Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement
1.0 Leadership
Your overall score in this Category is in the 30–45 percentage range. Refer to Figure 2, “Criteria Scoring
Guidelines (Process),” on page 49.
1.1 Senior Leadership
Your score in this Item is in the 30–45 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
1.1a(1,3),
b
Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses a PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) improvement
cycle throughout its system, and senior leaders utilize that process to develop strategic plans, set
and deploy the mission, vision, and values, and execute a shared-governance decision-making
model. Leaders use numerous methods to communicate with the workforce through listening and
learning sessions each semester, Conversation Days, quarterly review of key performance
indicators (KPI), newsletters, emails, the website, the President’s Blog, research compiled by the
Office of Institutional Research & Strategic Planning (IRSP), and SWOT analysis to understand
college, community, and employment trends. The collection of one- and two-way communication
methods enables leadership to inform stakeholders and receive feedback that can be used to make
improvements across the organization. Leaders focus on action plans to achieve strategic goals and
mostly use the seven Core Committees to execute strategic plans. The Core Committees each have
co-chairs, including one each from faculty and administration with direct connection to the
President. Activities are reported to the District Board monthly so that progress can be measured
and adjustments can be made as needed.
1.1a(3),
b(2)
Innovation grants are used to promote the value of excellence and identify improvement
opportunities. Faculty members submit proposals that are directly connected to achieving strategic
goals and meeting MATC’s vision and mission. These new programs help to identify new
opportunities for the school, engage staff members in collaborative efforts that improve
performance, and deliver positive experiences for students and stakeholders.
1.1a(3) MATC creates a sustainable organization through succession planning and developing future
organizational leaders. Leaders are analyzing current and future staffing needs of the institution
and held training sessions on succession planning in the 2009–2010 school year. The Vice
Presidents then developed plans for their respective areas and identified individuals for further
leadership development, including stretch assignments to enhance skills and expose workforce
members to new areas. As of 2012, leaders also put 32 employees through the Wisconsin
Leadership Development Institute (WLDI), and 79% of those administrators have been promoted
(Figure 7-3m).
Feedback Report page 5
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
1.1a(1) It is unclear how senior leaders encourage high performance throughout the college and how their
actions reflect a commitment to the organization’s values. This may make it more difficult for
them to engage the workforce in achieving MATC’s mission and vision and to remain competitive
in a highly competitive environment.
1.1a(2) It is not evident how senior leaders’ actions demonstrate their commitment to legal and ethical
behavior nor how they promote a climate that requires it. Role model organizations seek
opportunities to exceed requirements and to excel in areas of legal and ethical requirements. This
also supports the core values of integrity and accountability.
1.1 MATC seems to be in the early stages of leadership development, given an overall approach that is
deployed systematically throughout the organization with some initial cycles of learning and
limited integration of that learning. There seem to be many metrics collected, yet it is unclear
which are critical to enable leaders to focus on creating and balancing value for students and other
stakeholders in their organizational performance expectations. The organization appears to be in
the early stages of deploying cycles of improvement.
1.1b(1) Based on internal survey results and Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE)
survey scores (Figures 7.3f, 7.3g, and 7.3h) it appears that the methods senior leaders use to
communicate and engage the entire workforce are not systematically deployed.
Feedback Report page 6
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 1.1
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 7
1.2 Governance and Societal Responsibilities
Your score in this Item is in the 30–45 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
1.2a(1) MATC instituted an internal audit in July 2010 and now holds regular, public Audit Committee
meetings, demonstrating financial and operational transparency in accordance with Wisconsin
statutes, accountability for management’s actions, and protection of stakeholder interests.
1.2c The organization supports and strengthens its key communities by encouraging employees to
participate in numerous volunteer capacities. Over 56,000 individual volunteer hours and over
29,000 employee volunteer hours were logged in 2011.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
1.2b It is unclear how MATC ensures or promotes ethical behavior in all interactions or what the key
processes, measures, or indicators are to monitor ethical behavior beyond what is statutorily
required with open meetings and public records. It is also not evident how the organization
responds to breaches of ethical behavior. Even though a policy exists, no evidence of its
effectiveness is presented.
1.2a(2) It is unclear how senior leaders and the governance system utilize performance reviews to
determine executive compensation and to advance MATC leaders’ personal and professional
development. It is also unclear how Board members are evaluated and what processes are utilized
to improve any underperformance. Performance evaluation captures and reflects the core values of
excellence and accountability.
1.2c(2) Although the development of the School of Pre-College Education provides an approach towards
addressing the strategic challenge of increasing under-prepared learners, the number of participants
is trending down (Figure 7-4c), and it is unclear how the school is using cycles of learning to
integrate improvement efforts to address this concern.
Feedback Report page 8
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 1.2
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 9
2.0 Strategic Planning
Your overall score in this Category is in the 50–65 percentage range. Refer to Figure 2, “Criteria Scoring
Guidelines (Process),” on page 49.
2.1 Strategy Development
Your score in this Item is in the 50–65 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
2.1a(1) Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) conducts its strategic planning annually using a
systematic PDCA-based approach. Key process steps are outlined in Figure 2-1a (Strategic
Planning Annual Cycle) using multiple inputs as identified in Figure 2-1b (Input for Strategic
Plan). The multiyear strategic plan includes both short-term and long-term plans, with longer-term
plans broken out into phases, which include action projects aligned with the faculty’s academic
calendar. The strategic plan is monitored through a decision-making process that involves the
entire college community and is updated each spring with input from the Office of Institutional
Research & Strategic Planning (IRSP).
2.1b(1) Five key strategic goals align with thirteen key strategic objectives in the 2011–2012 strategic plan
(Figure 2-1c). The plan aligns with the college’s core values and indicates timetables for
accomplishing both short-term and long-term action projects, as well as key performance
indicators (KPI ) for measuring accomplishment. Each strategic objective is assigned to a Core
Committee and includes annual adjustments as needed. The Core Committees are each co-chaired
by a vice president who is a member of the Strategic Planning and Budget Steering Committee
(SPBSC) and reports progress monthly to the President’s Cabinet.
2.1a(2) The IRSP conducts over 200 analyses in order to review trends in the economy, market conditions,
the workforce, mandates, program development demographics, and community perception. The
office also conducts a SWOT analysis to identify major shifts in technology, educational programs
and services, student and community demographics, markets, preferences, competition, the
economy, and the regulatory environment.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
2.1 It is unclear how MATC systematically addresses strategic challenges and leverages strategic
advantages in developing their strategic plan, although early approaches exist through
Conversation Days, reporting mechanisms, research studies, audits, and self-evaluations. Failure to
focus on strategic challenges and capitalize on strategic advantages may affect organizational
sustainability in light of the school’s serious fiscal situation, especially given increased
competition both locally and online.
Feedback Report page 10
Item reference Description
2.1a(2) It is unclear how the strategic planning process addresses long-term organizational sustainability,
including needed core competencies and projections of future performance relative to competitors
and other comparable organizations. In light of the higher level of competition for students and
their tuition dollars, developing a strategic plan that identifies and addresses the need for additional
core competencies as well as the need to address projected shortfalls in performance relative to
competing schools will help the organization understand its priorities as it develops plans, applies
resources, and reviews progress toward its objectives.
2.1a(1) It is unclear who the key participants are in the strategic planning process, nor how those
determine core competencies during strategic planning process. As indicated in Figure 2-1b (Input
for Strategic Plan), there is a significant amount of data that feeds into the strategic plan, but it is
unclear (beyond the 200 analyses conducted by the IRSP) who collates the data into information
that is meaningful and actionable and represents it during the planning process. Systematically
ensuring that strategic planning includes representation from all stakeholders (suppliers, partners,
faculty, staff, students, etc.) for all aspects of educational processes will help more fully to identify
potential blind spots, understand and fully capitalize on existing core competencies, and ensure
diversity in planning (particularly including community partners as mentioned in the vision and
mission).
Feedback Report page 11
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 2.1
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 12
2.2 Strategy Implementation
Your score in this Item is in the 50–65 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
2.2a(1,5) The strategic plan outlines goals that cascade to objectives that further cascade into short-term and
long-term action plans as shown in Figure 2-1c. Goals are aligned with MATC’s values. KPIs are
identified for most action plans, with future goals assigned. Plans are developed via Conversation
Days and other meetings with core committee co-chairs, divisional champions, union presidents,
and the Executive Vice President/Provost in the spring. (Some plans are developed by the
Academic Quality Improvement Program, or AQIP). The SPBSC integrates facilitation,
communication, and alignment of the planning and budgeting process with the committee co-
chairs.
2.2a(2) Action plans are deployed during Convocation Days in the fall, and resources are assigned and
volunteered. Strategy work teams submit findings; Core Committees, Divisional Champions and
Presidents review results. The SPBSC monitors progress monthly, mid-year, and during the third
quarter. Figure 2-2a outlines how action plans are deployed.
2.2a(3) MATC manages financial risks associated with operations and action plans though the planning
and budgeting process, with assistance from the Budget Development Committee. This committee
projects future funding and enrollment and consists of administration, union members, and
students. They make recommendations related to financial viability and contribute to the annual
Activity Plan and Budget.
2.2a(3) In support of its ability to accomplish action plans, MATC uses citizen advisory committees to
assist in planning and evaluation processes for each vocational and technical education program.
More than 90 advisory committees with 886 citizen representatives are involved on a regular and
systematic basis in the planning, development, and review of educational programs. The input and
advice from these committees is fed into the strategic planning and budgeting process.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
2.2 It is unclear how the organization identifies appropriate KPIs for its action plans and assesses its
future performance including future performance relative to key comparisons. Although KPIs are
aligned with each strategic goal, it is not evident how some of the identified indicators will help the
organization understand whether it is improving. For example, reduction of calls placed in queue
and average wait times may not directly support the adoption of a mobile technology strategy or
enhance quality student learning. In addition, the organization’s dashboard of KPI Trends (Figure
2-2b) does not include current levels or future performance projections. Without clear, actionable
KPIs, nor projection of performance relative to appropriate comparators, the college may not fully
understand whether its initiatives will allow it to compete effectively in the future for students,
funding, and community support.
Feedback Report page 13
Item reference Description
2.2a(4) No approach for aligning its workforce plans with strategic objectives and action plans is evident.
Resources appear to be assigned in an ad hoc, reactive manner to teams, and no resource plans are
identified to address future needs for capacity or capability. For example, one action plan involves
creating a mobile technology strategy, but it is not evident that appropriate, knowledgeable
personnel are assigned to the task or that skills are being developed at the faculty level to follow
through on implementation. Insufficient identification of knowledgeable resources may limit the
ability to achieve strategies such as competing in online course offerings or meeting capacity needs
for addressing under-prepared students.
2.2a(6) It is unclear how action plans are modified as needed following frequently changing local, state,
and national regulations; increasing competition and changes in vocational training needs; or
shortfalls in meeting strategic objective targets. It is also not evident whether strategic plan KPIs
offer actionable information to identify opportunities to modify action plans. Failure to
systematically modify action plans through the organization’s PDCA process as needed might
influence the ability to achieve short-term and long-term action plans in the face of shrinking
tuition and grant dollars and other limited resources.
Feedback Report page 14
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 2.2
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 15
3.0 Customer Focus
Your overall score in this Category is in the 50–65 percentage range. Refer to Figure 2, “Criteria Scoring
Guidelines (Process),” on page 49.
3.1 Voice of the Customer
Your score in this Item is in the 50–65 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
3.1a Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses the PDCA and Pathways for Students models
model as tools for ensuring that student and stakeholder needs are captured at various stages of
interactions (Figures 3-1a and 3-1b). There are multiple listening methods used for potential and
current students and stakeholders to obtain actionable information aligned with core values of
student success and customer focus with learning through PDCA cycles. Customer segments,
needs, listening methods, and measures of success are defined in Figures 3-1c and 3-1d, and Figure
3-1a illustrates PDCA cycles of improvement.
3.1b(1) Determination of student satisfaction and engagement occurs through several methods specific to
different student groups in alignment with core values of student success and customer focus with
learning through the PDCA cycle. The Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory is used to assess
student satisfaction and student retention and persistence rates are used as measures of
engagement. Course completion rates are segmented by division and minority status (Figure 2-2b).
Prospective student satisfaction and engagement are tracked through MATC Marketplace, district
resident college preference, and Smart Start Session data.
3.1b(3) Multiple approaches to determine student and stakeholder dissatisfaction to capture actionable
information are used to meet requirements. These approaches include social media and web-based
technologies to connect with students via familiar media such a public website, Facebook, and two
Twitter accounts, as well as methods listed in Figure 3-1c, including the Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI), on-line surveys, the complaint process, employer surveys, training evaluations,
and a phone survey for withdrawn students.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
3.1a Although the PDCA and Pathways for Students models are depicted and a number of methods are
listed for use in identifying needs of prospective and current students and stakeholders, it is not
clear how these methods are aligned into a replicable process that is consistently deployed, or how
inputs are used in process improvements. Without a clearly defined, and well-deployed process for
gathering actionable input from key constituents (current and prospective students and
stakeholders), the applicant will be challenged to address the competitive factors that it is facing,
including increasing competition, and overcome its strategic challenges.
Feedback Report page 16
Item reference Description
3.1.b While the applicant identifies a number of tools used to gather information about satisfaction and
engagement and dissatisfaction, it is unclear how these information-gathering systems are
evaluated, maintained, used to make improvements and ensure that needs are being addressed.
Without a systematic approach to learning and innovation of its information-gathering approaches
to understand and meet changing student expectations and requirements in the future, applicant
may be challenged to address its challenges and meet the needs of current and prospective students
in an increasingly competitive environment.
3.1b Although methods exist to gather inputs from the student population, it is not clear how
information related to the satisfaction, engagement and dissatisfaction of other key stakeholders
such as the business community, alumni and donors is attained or used to address strategic
challenges.
3.1b An approach to measure student and stakeholder satisfaction relative to competitors is not evident.
Without an approach to gathering information from key stakeholders who play a role in helping
MATC achieve its mission and vision in an increasingly competitive environment, the organization
may not optimally leverage its advantages to address its strategic challenges.
Feedback Report page 17
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 3.1
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 18
3.2 Customer Engagement
Your score in this Item is in the 50–65 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
3.2a(1) MATC exhibits a systematic approach to identify requirements for educational programs, to
innovate programs to meet student and stakeholder needs, and to attract new students and expand
relationships with existing students with improvements and learning through the PTA3 (Plan,
Teach, Assess, Analyze, Adjust) improvement cycle—an adaptation of the PDCA cycle of
improvement used elsewhere in the organization (Figure 3-2a)—and integration with the core
values of customer focus and excellence. This is demonstrated through the use of Economic
Modeling Specialists’ (EMSI) Strategic Advantage suite, Advisory Committees and citizen input,
and the use of curriculum development reports to develop or modify program content. In addition,
program initiation and development with the Board of Directors ensures the analysis,
communication, and consistency of program development throughout the system. PTA3 cycles are
used to continuously improve programs.
3.2a(2) A number of methods are made available to students to receive information and seek support, with
support services targeted to specific student groups based on their needs (Figure 3-2b). Evidence of
improvements based on information attained are provided and aligned with MATC’s mission,
vision and core values, particularly student success and customer focus. Key information and
support vehicles include the MATC website, the Welcome Center, the Advising Center, the
Counseling Center, Program Plans, and Qualifying Plans. Improvements are evident from
identification of internal communication as a key challenge and subsequent development of
Convocation Days and the Online Risk Assessment Tool. Cycles of improvement are identified
from 2007 (a strategy work team to identify barriers to student success), the 2009–2010 school
year (the online at-risk assessment tool) and 2012 (pilot of the Retention Alert system); a new
College Success course has also been implemented.
3.2a(3) Multiple approaches are used to identify student segments for targeted educational programs and
services including SWOT analysis, environmental scans, key performance indicators (KPI), and
recommendations from groups such as the Strategic Enrollment Management Core Committee and
Enrollment Capacity Planning Team. The Student Data Warehouse and Enrollment Funnel reports
track various segments and special student groups, listed in Figure 3-2b.
3.2.b(1) Various approaches to build and manage relationships with prospective and current students are
aligned with the vision to enrich, empower, and transform lives in the community, with learning
occurring through PDCA cycles of improvement. To help keep students who are, in significant
proportion, economically challenged in the classroom, MATC has partnered with local agencies to
provide access to needed services. These include recruitment events, Smart Starts, open houses,
and SmartExperience events for prospective students as well as activities coordinated through the
Office of Student Life, the Partners Advancing Career Employment (PACE) program, advising,
and mentoring for current students (Figure 3-2c). The school also maintains a partnership with the
Muilwaukee County Human Services Department to increase access to supportive services for
students (e.g., child care, food stamps, transportation, and medical insurance)
Feedback Report page 19
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item
reference Description
3.2b(2) While a number of decentralized means are in place to gather complaints from students and
stakeholders, the organization acknowledges that “at this time, no systematic way to follow
up with complaints is enforced nor [is complaint information] analyzed to help identify areas
needed for improvement.” Furthermore, it is not evident that complaints are resolved
promptly and effectively. Without a centralized and clearly defined and deployed process to
receive and respond to complaints from students and other stakeholders in a timely manner,
MATC will risk alienating its constituencies and missing opportunities to identify
improvements that could help it achieve its mission and vision and respond to strategic
challenges in an increasingly competitive market. Systematic approaches through
aggregation, analysis, and root cause determination can lead to effective service and process
improvements.
3.1a(3) It is not evident that the organization considers prospective and current students of competing
institutions in its analysis of student needs, nor is it evident how student, stakeholder, and market
segments are identified to pursue for current and future educational programs and services. There
is also no apparent process for gathering these inputs or incorporating them into the strategic
planning process. Without clear and ongoing analysis of these populations it will be difficult for
MATC to identify ways in which it can meet its existing identified strategic challenges in an
increasingly competitive market.
3.1a(4) While some methods exist to improve marketing, it is not evident that there is a clearly defined,
consistently used, and well-deployed approach to use this information to build a more student- and
stakeholder-focused culture and identify opportunities for innovation.
3.2b(1) While some methods exist to market, build, and manage relationships with students and
prospective students (Figure 3-2c), a clearly defined and consistently used approach is not evident.
It is not evident how different approaches might be used with distinctive segments that represent
economically disadvantaged and otherwise hard-to-reach students. MATC offers current students
“numerous ways to build and maintain their relationship” with the organization, but it is not clear
what these methods are or how they are consistently applied or deployed.
Feedback Report page 20
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 3.2
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 21
4.0 Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management
Your overall score in this Category is in the 30–45 percentage range. Refer to Figure 2, “Criteria Scoring
Guidelines (Process),” on page 49.
4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance
Your score in this Item is in the 30–45 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
4.1a(1) Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses PDCA learning cycles to improve
organizational performance. This systematic approach may assist the college in analyzing the data
it identifies as key in powerful ways to improve operations.
4.1a(2) The college has implemented a new Datatel dashboard system to begin transforming,
standardizing, and improving knowledge management throughout all work systems. As this system
develops reports using easily accessible data, it may assist in integrating the use of data throughout
the system. Using data in this manner may assist in addressing the strategic challenge of using data
for decision-making and improvements.
4.1a(3) MATC has identified stakeholders and multiple approaches for information discovery and sharing
with the identified segmented groups. By identifying stakeholder information sources, both
documented and through interpersonal interactions (Figure 4-1b), the college may be able to send
key messages more effectively using specific tools and methods. This, in turn, may engage
stakeholders and improve operational efficiency.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
4.1 While the college has provided a few instances of knowledge sharing and best practice sharing, a
standardized methodology utilized across the organization is not evident. The organization has not
indicated how data and information are selected, aligned, and integrated. Failure to have a broadly
communicated, mandatory, and accepted methodology for knowledge sharing and best practice
sharing can make it more challenging to fully leverage knowledge assets.
4.1 It is not clear if the organization equips and incorporates information across the broad and diverse
student population. This is important because strategic challenges include improving
communications and using data more effectively. Students are a key stakeholder group, and if
students are not equipped with internet access or have language deficiencies or other life
challenges, the ability to ensure integrity and measurement agility may be hindered.
4.1a(1,4) It is unclear how MATC addresses the process of data integration and measurement agility of the
multiple data sources such as those listed in Figure 4.1b. Without a systematic and centralized
process, a blend of written data, manually extracted data, and disparate systems can impede
timeliness and accuracy of information.
Feedback Report page 22
Item reference Description
4.1a(2) A systematic method, focused on organizational goals and challenges, for selecting other colleges
for the use of comparative performance data is not evident. While comparative data from the
institutions referenced in, for example, Figures 7-1g, 7-1k, and 7-1l do provide some context for
MATC’s own performance, those comparisons may not drive improvement priorities as well as
comparisons to direct competitors.
Feedback Report page 23
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 4.1
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 24
4.2 Management of Information, Knowledge, and Information Technology
Your score in this Item is in the 30–45 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
4.2a(1) A systematic approach to data integrity and security of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
system is evidenced by the use of user IDs and passwords with permissions granted after review by
supervisors and IT staff, annual review of access and data quality by the Data Integrity Committee,
nightly back-ups, a back-up system maintained outside of the main data center, and use of an
automated identity management system to control user accounts.
4.2a(2) MATC has a systematic approach and deployment for availability of data and information to the
workforce, students, partners, and suppliers as evidenced by 24-hour accessibility through
INFOnline, the web-based interface to the ERP system for students and employees, a public
website, an intranet, Virtual Desktop Infrastructure and virtual private network access for partners
and suppliers.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
4.2a(3) While there are multiple data sources as evidenced in Figure 4-1b, it is not evident that there is an
effective, systematic approach for knowledge management to ensure the transfer of relevant
knowledge, identification, sharing, and implementation of best practices, or assembly and transfer
of relevant knowledge for use in innovation processes. Unsystematically gathered and managed
knowledge assets may not optimally improve organizational efficiency and stimulate innovation to
add value for students, stakeholders, and the organization; a systematic process may help ensure
alignment with the strategic challenges of improving communications and using data more
effectively for improvements.
4.2 No systematic process or work system is evident for managing the significant amount of data
gathered in support of the annual strategic planning process, for monitoring the progress of
strategic action projects and improvement projects, and in support of key work system and work
process improvements through PDCA cycles. Without a systematic process to collect and transfer
workforce knowledge or relevant knowledge from students and other stakeholders, the
organization may be unable to rapidly identify, share, and implement best practices across its
multiple campuses and operations, nor assemble and transfer relevant knowledge to use in
innovating its processes and offerings in an increasingly competitive landscape.
4.2b(1) It is not evident how the college ensures the user-friendliness of hardware and software, possibly
rendering key information systems ineffective, negatively impacting student and workforce
satisfaction, and impeding progress in the improvement of internal communication.
4.2a(1) It is not clear how the organization ensures the accuracy of organizational data and information.
Large amounts of data are rapidly available electronically to students and workforce, and accuracy
of that information is necessary for effective communication and work.
Feedback Report page 25
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 4.2
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 26
5.0 Workforce Focus
Your overall score in this Category is in the 30–45 percentage range. Refer to Figure 2, “Criteria Scoring
Guidelines (Process),” on page 49.
5.1 Workforce Environment
Your score in this Item is in the 30–45 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
5.1a(2) Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) hires new employees using People Source software
to enable online applications, and action projects have resulted in a paperless application process.
Two orientations are conducted at the beginning of each year: a two-day comprehensive
orientation for full-time employees and an evening session for part-time employees. An
Affirmative Action Plan and the President’s Diversity Council ensure that the diversity of the
workforce reflects that of the community. The deployment of these approaches is supportive of
MATC’s strategic focus and unique market. A PDCA process (Figure 5.1a) allows for learning
cycles in the hiring process.
5.1a(1) The Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) office ensures staff capability and licensure by
evaluating the occupational, academic and teaching experience of district employees to determine
their preparedness to work in the system. At the institution level, the MATC Certification reviews
credentials and determines eligibility for initial renewal certifications, maintains files, processes
records, and communicates with customers regarding requirements. As part of a 2010 AQIP
project, the Human Resources Core Committee reviewed and updated hiring processes and
documents, and individual departments updated their credentialing requirements in 2012.
5.1b(2) The college deploys multiple approaches for employee benefits and services to meet the needs of a
diverse workforce and its various segments. Employees are surveyed to determine their level of
satisfaction and engagement with these offerings (Figure 5.1d).
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
5.1a(1) The PDCA model for managing workforce capability and capacity does not appear to be
systematically deployed in all areas of the organization, particularly non-instructional areas.
Without a fully deployed, systematic method the organization may be challenged to achieve its
strategic goals related to ensuring employee growth.
5.1a(2) Specific improvements to the hiring process based on systematic learning cycles are not evident.
Without a clear hiring process that is well deployed to all areas of the organization, the
organization will be challenged to attract and maintain quality faculty and staff members that
reflect core values of excellence and diversity.
5.1a(3) The college’s shared decision-making model appears to be in the early stages of development, and
it is not clear how the model systematically supports work achievement, core competencies,
student and stakeholder focus, the exceeding of performance expectations, or addressing strategic
challenges and action plans.
Feedback Report page 27
Item reference Description
5.1b(1) Workplace performance measures and improvement goals related to the health, safety, and security
a diverse workforce in varied workplace environments are not evident. Without clear indicators of
workforce health, safety, and security, unidentified workforce may hinder continuous improvement
goals.
Feedback Report page 28
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 5.1
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 29
5.2 Workforce Engagement
Your score in this Item is in the 30–45 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
5.2a(2) MATC uses core committees and a shared governance system of staff and faculty members. AQIP
projects and strategy work teams promote open communication, represent diverse ideas and
cultures of the workplace, and provide alignment to the strategic plan. In the 2011–2012 school
year, 200 employees represented strategy work teams including representation on the President’s
Diversity Council.
5.2a(1) The Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE) survey is administered for
employee engagement, and the faculty survey was administered for the first time in 2012.
5.2c(3) In 2010 the college created succession readiness plans for employees, guided by the Human
Resources Department as outlined in Human Resources “Success Readiness” (Figure 5.2-b).
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
5.2a(3) It is not evident how the college ensures the effectiveness, full deployment, or systematic
improvement of its mechanisms to support high-performance work and workforce engagement,
consider workforce compensation, reward, recognition, and incentive practices, or reinforce a
student and stakeholder focus for achievement of action plans. Without a clearly defined process to
support high performing work and engagement, limited resources may be used inefficiently.
5.2b It is unclear how measures of workforce engagement and satisfaction are used as a component of
process improvement related to strategic objectives. Further, it is not evident that some key
declining and static measures on the PACE survey are being used to drive action plans. Without a
clearly defined process to identify areas of improvement, resources and approaches may not be
prioritized for attainment of the organizations mission and strategic goals.
5.2c(1,2) While the organization has a variety of mechanisms to support its learning and development
systems, such as training programs and opportunities that are linked to mission, vision, values and
strategic goals, it is unclear how this support is accomplished as part of a clearly defined,
systematic, and well developed process or work system. Without a clearly defined process,
learning and development opportunities may not be prioritized to support attainment of the
organizations mission and strategic goals.
Feedback Report page 30
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 5.2
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 31
6.0 Operations Focus
Your overall score in this Category is in the 50–65 percentage range. Refer to Figure 2, “Criteria Scoring
Guidelines (Process),” on page 49.
6.1 Work Systems
Your score in this Item is in the 50–65 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
6.1a(1) Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses the PDCA continuous improvement model,
developed to provide student excellence in education to “enrich, empower and transform” their
lives, to design and innovate its work systems. The PDCA process, designed according to
Wisconsin statutes, collective bargaining decisions, college policies and procedures, and
accreditation requirements, utilizes input from both internal and external stakeholders and is
deployed throughout the organization in many key areas as identified in Figures 6-1b through 6.1h.
6.1b(1) MATC has identified six key work systems— college administration, student learning, student
services, general counsel and human resources, financial management and college planning, and
the MATC Foundation (Figures 6-1b thru 6-1h)—that support its mission, vision, and core values
and competencies. Identification of work systems and key underlying processes is foundational in
understanding organizational operations and may assist in improving organizational efficiency and
create a focus on what best leverages continuous improvement.
6.1a(1) A systematic approach is in place to determine if work systems will be internal to the organization
or if they will be outsourced using several clearly identified criteria, including alignment with
mission, vision, values, and core competencies, the existence of internal expertise, and cost
effectiveness. This focus can assist in making strategic financial choices and address financial
strategic challenges.
6.1c The emergency preparedness plan deploys an emergency response plan and teams, a crisis
communication plan, and processes in their early stages ensuring continuity of operations. Cycles
of learning over the past five years are evident in its updating and continuous improvement, and
the college participates in quarterly and annual district-wide training using exercises and in-class
training. By creating a safe work and learning environment, MATC tends to its mission and
demonstrates its values to stakeholders.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
6.1a(2) A systematic process for determining work system requirements and incorporating input from
students and stakeholders, suppliers, partners, and collaborators is not evident, although at least
some methods are in place for capturing input from stakeholders. Work system charts (Figures 6-
1b through 6-1h) give process requirements rather than whole-system requirements, and although
improvement methodologies appear to exist, it is not evident that they are systematic and well-
defined. Without a systematic process to improve work systems, MATC may not be addressing the
strategic challenges concerning fiscal sustainability or student goal attainment.
Feedback Report page 32
Item reference Description
6.1b(2) Approaches to cost control do not appear to be fully deployed, particularly in the instructional
areas of the work system. It is also not evident that there are systematic processes in place to
prevent errors and rework and to minimize the costs of inspections, tests, and process or
performance audits throughout the organization and all work systems. By deploying a systematic
process to prevent errors and rework, the organization may better address its strategic challenge of
utilizing data more effectively for improvement.
Feedback Report page 33
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 6.1
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 34
6.2 Work Processes
Your score in this Item is in the 50–65 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
6.2a(2),
b(1)
In support of the core objective of providing high quality teaching and learning, MATC has
identified multiple work processes housed in each work system and has determined key work
process requirements for the identified work processes. Data presented in Figures 6-1b through
6-1h show a clear understanding of work process improvement that may allow for heightened
improvement of how work gets done efficiently and effectively. This may be helpful in leveraging
strategic advantages in offering student options.
6.2a(1) Multiple management approaches are in place to design and innovate work processes to meet
identified key requirements. This is in alignment with the mission, vision and values. Through this
focus on continuous improvement, MATC may better attain its mission and vision.
6.2b(1) The college has established key performance measures and has identified process owners or
processes that support meeting identified key process requirements. Establishing process owners
and utilizing process measures provides a link to data use in the methodology and may drive more
efficient and effective use of data.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
6.2a(1) It is not clear how the identified work processes incorporate the need for agility, cycle time,
productivity, and cost control. Without in-process measures focused on work systems, it may be
difficult to determine how individual processes are operating in real time, and without systematic
application of efficiency and effectiveness factors, it may be difficult to determine how processes
are meeting identified key requirements. This may hamper the attainment of vision and negatively
impact sustainability.
6.2a(2) Work process requirements are currently obtained “through listening and learning with customers,
employees stakeholders, partners, advisory committees, accrediting bodies, professional
organizations and through benchmarking other high-performing organizations,” an approach that
may be more reactive than systematic and may also include blind spots. For example, it appears
that college administration systems drive the assessment of student learning while failing to
acknowledge student perception. A systematic approach that is deployed throughout the
organization may inform the college of organizational needs and opportunities for improvement,
thereby helping drive organizational improvement and sustainability, key strategic challenges.
6.2b(3) MATC is in the early stages of deploying a process improvement system. It is unclear how
deployed the identified approaches for process improvement are deployed throughout the
organization, if they have undergone cycles of learning, or how integrated they are in all systems
and throughout the organization. An integrated process management system may allow the
applicant to focus its training and create unity around how to attain the mission, vision, and core
values.
Feedback Report page 35
Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Approach No systematic approach to Item
requirements is
evident; information is
anecdotal.
The beginning of a systematic
approach to the
basic requirements of
the Item is
evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the basic
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the overall
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic
approach,
responsive to the multiple
requirements of
the Item, is evident.
An effective, systematic approach,
fully responsive to the
multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
X
Deployment Little or no deployment of
any systematic approach is
evident.
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.
The approach is deployed,
although some areas or work
units are in early
stages of deployment.
The approach is well deployed,
although deployment may
vary in some
areas or work units.
The approach is well deployed,
with no significant gaps.
The approach is fully deployed without
significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or
work units.
X
Learning An improvement
orientation is not evident;
improvement is
achieved through reacting
to problems.
Early stages of a
transition from reacting to
problems to a
general improvement
orientation are
evident.
The beginning of
a systematic approach to
evaluation and
improvement of key processes is
evident.
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.
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.
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.
X
Integration No
organizational alignment is
evident;
individual areas or work units
operate
independently.
The approach is
aligned with other areas or work
units largely
through joint problem solving.
The approach is in
the early stages of alignment with
basic
organizational needs identified in
response to the
Organizational Profile and other
process Items.
The approach is
aligned with overall
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is
integrated with current and future
organizational
needs identified in response to the
Organizational
Profile and other Process Items.
The approach is well
integrated with current and future
organizational needs
identified in response to the Organizational
Profile and other
Process Items.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 6.2
Overall
Scoring Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 36
7.0 Results
Your overall score in this Category is in the 10–25 percentage range. Refer to Figure 3, “Criteria Scoring
Guidelines (Results),” on page 50.
7.1 Student Learning and Process Outcomes
Your score in this Item is in the 30–45 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
7.1a Some measures of student-focused results are trending positively. For example, segmented results
for Prepared Learner Initiative (PLI) course completion show positive trends in four of seven
courses (Figure 7-1a), and the Health Sciences division also demonstrates generally positive trends
(Figures 6-1c and d). Fall-to-fall retention rates have trended positively since 2006. The percent of
part-time graduates surpasses all but one competitor (Figure 7.1k). English assessments reflect a
positive trend from 2010 to 2012 in critical thinking and communication effectiveness (Figure
7-1e).
7.1b Some measures of operational process effectiveness are showing satisfactory performance levels
and positive trends. For example, all eight measures for student satisfaction are showing
improvement from FY2008 to FY2012 (Figure 7-1s). Figure 7-1x also shows positive trends in the
use of electricity and steam since 2007.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
7.1 Results for key performance indicators (Figure 2-1c), the process requirements identified in
Figures 6.1b through 6.1h, and strategy implementation are not presented.
7.1 No comparisons to the college’s prime competitor (the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)
or the 17 identified new local competitors are provided. While the comparative data provided
from other institutions provide do provide some context for MATC’s performance in
retention rates (Figure 7-1g), part-time student graduation rates (Figure 7-1k), and full-time
three-year success rates (Figure 7-1l), comparisons to direct competitors may give MATC a
clearer focus on internal best practices and opportunities for improvement.
7.1a Flat or negative trends are seen in some key performance indicators. Most notably, the number of
program graduates is decreasing (7-1j). Pre-college course completion has also decreased since the
2008–2009 school year.
7.1 Results are not presented for some key measures identified in the application, including measures
related to the strategic plan (e.g., embedded certificates, program viability scores, call wait times,
calls placed in queue, math completion rates, and retention by department), student learning
systems (e.g., compliance requirements, industry standards, appropriateness of curriculum, courses
provided at appropriate level, book store service evaluation, student learning by course and by
program, student transfer, technical skill attainment, and student employability).
Feedback Report page 37
Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Performance
Levels (Le)
There are no organizational
performance
results or poor results in areas
reported.
A few organizational
performance
results are reported,
responsive to the
basic requirements of the Item, and
early good
performance levels are evident.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
basic requirements
of the Item.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
overall
requirements of the Item.
Good to excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
multiple
requirements of the Item.
Excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported that are fully
responsive to the
multiple requirements of
the Item.
X
Trends (T) Trend data are
either not reported
or show mainly adverse trends.
Some trend data
are reported, with
some adverse trends evident.
Some trend data
are reported, and a
majority of the trends presented
are beneficial.
Beneficial trends
are evident in
areas of importance to the
accomplishment of
the organization’s mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in most areas
of importance to
the accomplishment of
the organization’s
mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in all areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
X
Comparisons
and
Benchmarks
(C)
Comparative information is not
reported.
Little or no comparative
information is
reported.
Early stages of obtaining
comparative
information are evident.
Some current performance levels
have been
evaluated against relevant
comparisons
and/or benchmarks and show areas of
good relative
performance.
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.
Evidence of industry and
benchmark
leadership is demonstrated in
many areas.
X
Integration
(I)
Results are not
reported for any areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for a few areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for many areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, and
process
requirements.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
Organizational
performance results and
projections are
reported for most customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 7.1
Overall Scoring
Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 38
7.2 Customer-Focused Outcomes
Your score in this Item is in the 30–45 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
7.2a(1) MATC compares favorably to urban peers in student satisfaction (Figure 7-2a) and student
preference (Figure 7-2c) and shows increasing student satisfaction in most of the areas measured.
Prospective students assign a high level of importance to affordability and accessibility (Figure
7-2b), two of MATC’s strengths.
7.2a(1) Although employer survey results (Figure 7-1q) are not trended, 2009 data indicates favorable
employer satisfaction with graduates’ education and willingness to rehire graduates.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
7.2a(1) There are no trends provided for student satisfaction (Figure 7-2a), key marketplace drivers
(Figure 7-2b) or Welcome Center performance (Figure 7-2e). MATC appears to be in the
early stages of gathering and evaluating data in these areas, with limited or no comparison or
trend data provided in a number of areas (Figures 7-2b through 7-2h). The failure to
demonstrate positive trends in this area will challenge the college’s ability to achieve its
vision and mission, demonstrate continuous improvement, and address an increasingly
competitive environment. Lack of data about performance over time will challenge the
ability to address its identified strategic challenges. Without comparative data, MATC will
not have the information necessary to determine its position relative to competitors and
address increasing competition and significant fiscal challenges.
7.2 No results are provided for levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction among some key stakeholders
(e.g. Milwaukee Public Schools and other local high schools, colleges where students transfer to
and from, book publishers, food service vendors, and office supply and equipment vendors). These
partners and suppliers impact students’ decision to attend the college as well as their experience
during their education.
Feedback Report page 39
Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Performance
Levels (Le)
There are no organizational
performance
results or poor results in areas
reported.
A few organizational
performance
results are reported,
responsive to the
basic requirements of the Item, and
early good
performance levels are evident.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
basic requirements
of the Item.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
overall
requirements of the Item.
Good to excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
multiple
requirements of the Item.
Excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported that are fully
responsive to the
multiple requirements of
the Item.
X
Trends (T) Trend data are
either not reported
or show mainly adverse trends.
Some trend data
are reported, with
some adverse trends evident.
Some trend data
are reported, and a
majority of the trends presented
are beneficial.
Beneficial trends
are evident in
areas of importance to the
accomplishment of
the organization’s mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in most areas
of importance to
the accomplishment of
the organization’s
mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in all areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
X
Comparisons
and
Benchmarks
(C)
Comparative information is not
reported.
Little or no comparative
information is
reported.
Early stages of obtaining
comparative
information are evident.
Some current performance levels
have been
evaluated against relevant
comparisons
and/or benchmarks and show areas of
good relative
performance.
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.
Evidence of industry and
benchmark
leadership is demonstrated in
many areas.
X
Integration
(I)
Results are not
reported for any areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for a few areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for many areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, and
process
requirements.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
Organizational
performance results and
projections are
reported for most customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 7.2
Overall Scoring
Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 40
7.3 Workforce-Focused Outcomes
Your score in this Item is in the 10–25 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
7.3a(2) The Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE) survey shows many improvements
between 2002 and 2011, and 2011 levels are favorable relative to norms in most categories
(Figures 7-3e through 7-3g).
7.3a(1) Staffing levels appear to have been stable over the past three years for full-time employees across
all categories (Figure 7-3a). Although no trending is evident, the college reports a low employee
turnover rate of 5.9%.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
7.3a(3) Some unfavorable levels are evident in PACE survey results for perceptions of institutional
structure (Figure 7-3f) and supervisory relationships (Figure 7-3g) either relative to 2002 results,
current norms, or both. For example, ratings for “I have the opportunity for advancement within
this institution,” “Information is shared with this institution,” and “I have the opportunity to
express my ideas in appropriate forums” have all declined since 2002 and are below the norm.
7.3a(4) Employee participation in training and educational activities has generally been declining since
2009, evidenced in a decreasing budget (Figure 7-3k) and variable or declining enrollment in most
specific areas (7.3-l).
7.3a A general lack of established trends (e.g. in Figures 7-3b, 7-3d, 7-3e, 7-3f, 7-3g, 7-3h, 7-3i, and 7-
3m) suggest that MATC is in the early stages of monitoring outcomes and evaluating workforce-
focused outcomes.
7.3a Limited comparisons are provided in order to put performance metrics into a meaningful,
competitive context.
Feedback Report page 41
Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Performance
Levels (Le)
There are no organizational
performance
results or poor results in areas
reported.
A few organizational
performance
results are reported,
responsive to the
basic requirements of the Item, and
early good
performance levels are evident.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
basic requirements
of the Item.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
overall
requirements of the Item.
Good to excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
multiple
requirements of the Item.
Excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported that are fully
responsive to the
multiple requirements of
the Item.
X
Trends (T) Trend data are
either not reported
or show mainly adverse trends.
Some trend data
are reported, with
some adverse trends evident.
Some trend data
are reported, and a
majority of the trends presented
are beneficial.
Beneficial trends
are evident in
areas of importance to the
accomplishment of
the organization’s mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in most areas
of importance to
the accomplishment of
the organization’s
mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in all areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
X
Comparisons
and
Benchmarks
(C)
Comparative information is not
reported.
Little or no comparative
information is
reported.
Early stages of obtaining
comparative
information are evident.
Some current performance levels
have been
evaluated against relevant
comparisons
and/or benchmarks and show areas of
good relative
performance.
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.
Evidence of industry and
benchmark
leadership is demonstrated in
many areas.
X
Integration
(I)
Results are not
reported for any areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for a few areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for many areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, and
process
requirements.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
Organizational
performance results and
projections are
reported for most customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 7.3
Overall Scoring
Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 42
7.4 Leadership and Governance Outcomes
Your score in this Item is in the 50–65 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
7.4a(2) MATC demonstrates strong cash flow management, reduced short term borrowing, and reduced
deficit spending (Figure 7-4a) and is in compliance with its three-year Financial Accountability
Review. The college’s financial standing is trending in a positive direction, which addresses a
major organizational challenge.
7.4a(3) Of 31 claims filed against the college over the past three years, there have been no adverse findings
to date, and only two claims are still pending a decision (Figure 7-4b).
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
7.4a(1) No results are presented rating senior leaders on their communication and engagement with the
workforce to deploy vision and values, encourage two-way communication and create a focus on
action. The levels of performance on the Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE)
survey are generally average with some key questions declining from 2002 to 2011. Given only
two surveys, the organization cannot yet establish trends, and many results are below the norm. In
addition, the nine-year gap in survey results may obscure actual positive, negative, or mixed trends
in all survey results.
7.4(2) No comparisons from competitors or peer organizations are provided relative to financial
performance measures. Furthermore, leading indicators that may be initially driving financial
recovery are not evident.
7.4(2) Although adult basic education is a key strategic challenge, enrollment is trending down (Figure
7-4c).
7.4a(4) No results are presented related to breaches in ethical behavior. 2011 PACE survey results
associated with ethical communication (Figures 7-3f and 7-3g) show slight improvement but are
still slightly below the norm.
7.4a(5) Although MATC’s economic impact is quantified to some extent in Figure 7-4d, a lack of trends
and comparatives places the results in an unclear context relative to effectively fulfilling its
societal responsibilities and supporting its key communities.
Feedback Report page 43
Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Performance
Levels (Le)
There are no organizational
performance
results or poor results in areas
reported.
A few organizational
performance
results are reported,
responsive to the
basic requirements of the Item, and
early good
performance levels are evident.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
basic requirements
of the Item.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
overall
requirements of the Item.
Good to excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
multiple
requirements of the Item.
Excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported that are fully
responsive to the
multiple requirements of
the Item.
X
Trends (T) Trend data are
either not reported
or show mainly adverse trends.
Some trend data
are reported, with
some adverse trends evident.
Some trend data
are reported, and a
majority of the trends presented
are beneficial.
Beneficial trends
are evident in
areas of importance to the
accomplishment of
the organization’s mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in most areas
of importance to
the accomplishment of
the organization’s
mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in all areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
X
Comparisons
and
Benchmarks
(C)
Comparative information is not
reported.
Little or no comparative
information is
reported.
Early stages of obtaining
comparative
information are evident.
Some current performance levels
have been
evaluated against relevant
comparisons
and/or benchmarks and show areas of
good relative
performance.
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.
Evidence of industry and
benchmark
leadership is demonstrated in
many areas.
X
Integration
(I)
Results are not
reported for any areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for a few areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for many areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, and
process
requirements.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
Organizational
performance results and
projections are
reported for most customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 7.4
Overall Scoring
Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 44
7.5 Budgetary, Financial, and Market Outcomes
Your score in this Item is in the 10–25 percentage range.
Strengths:
Item reference Description
7.5a(1) Some key performance indicators for budgetary and financial performance reflect positive
performance levels and trends as evidenced by the trend of decreasing short-term liabilities as a
percentage of assets (Figure 7-5d), general fund expenditures below budget for two of the past
three years (Figure 7-5b), an improved cash position over the past three years (Figure 7-5c), and
improved overall operating results (Figure 7-4a).
7.5a(2) Transfer rates (Figure 7-5f) increased from less than 20% in 2003 to over 30% in 2008.
Opportunities for Improvement:
Item reference Description
7.5a Results for key financial requirements and measures outlined in Figure 6.1h are not presented. In
the face of a very competitive market, more comprehensive financial results may enable the
organization to better evaluate its market position.
7.5a There is a lack of comparative measures for most measures in 7.5, particularly from MATC’s chief
competitor (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee) other local institution, schools of similar size,
and organizations offering online programs.
7.5a(1) There are flat or negative trends in key area of general fund revenue (Figure 7-5a) and college
preference among district residents (Figure 7-2c).
Feedback Report page 45
Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
Performance
Levels (Le)
There are no organizational
performance
results or poor results in areas
reported.
A few organizational
performance
results are reported,
responsive to the
basic requirements of the Item, and
early good
performance levels are evident.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
basic requirements
of the Item.
Good organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
overall
requirements of the Item.
Good to excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported, responsive to the
multiple
requirements of the Item.
Excellent organizational
performance levels
are reported that are fully
responsive to the
multiple requirements of
the Item.
X
Trends (T) Trend data are
either not reported
or show mainly adverse trends.
Some trend data
are reported, with
some adverse trends evident.
Some trend data
are reported, and a
majority of the trends presented
are beneficial.
Beneficial trends
are evident in
areas of importance to the
accomplishment of
the organization’s mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in most areas
of importance to
the accomplishment of
the organization’s
mission.
Beneficial trends
have been
sustained over time in all areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
X
Comparisons
and
Benchmarks
(C)
Comparative information is not
reported.
Little or no comparative
information is
reported.
Early stages of obtaining
comparative
information are evident.
Some current performance levels
have been
evaluated against relevant
comparisons
and/or benchmarks and show areas of
good relative
performance.
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.
Evidence of industry and
benchmark
leadership is demonstrated in
many areas.
X
Integration
(I)
Results are not
reported for any areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for a few areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Results are
reported for many areas of
importance to the
accomplishment of the organization’s
mission.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, and
process
requirements.
Organizational
performance results are
reported for most
key customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
Organizational
performance results and
projections are
reported for most customer/student/
patient,
stakeholder, market, process,
and action plan
requirements.
X
The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one
which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.
Item 7.5
Overall Scoring
Range
0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%
X
Feedback Report page 46
Application Review and Evaluation Process
The process used by the Wisconsin Forward Award to review your WFA application involved three stages. Figure
1 on the next page outlines each of these stages plus further review by our Panel of Judges.
The process began with an independent review (Stage 1). During this stage, several members of the Wisconsin
Forward Award Board of Examiners, including a Team Leader and a mix of Examiners, were assigned to each of
the applications under review. Examiner assignments were made to ensure no conflict of interest and the best use
of Examiner expertise and experience. Each application was independently evaluated by the assigned Examiners.
Each application then went through a consensus review (Stage 2). At this stage, a team of Examiners conducted a
series of online correspondence, conference calls and/or face-to-face meetings to jointly review the application
and reach agreement on key review findings. This included developing consensus on each individual Item:
comments detailing strengths and opportunities for improvement and Item scoring. The Team Leader directed the
consensus review to clarify and resolve any differences resulting from the independent review and to ensure that
comments reflected the best possible analysis and thinking of the Examiner team as a whole.
The third stage of review was the site visit review. Current applicants who also applied for WFA
assessment/recognition in the previous two years and were recognized at the Mastery level or above were eligible
for a site visit upon request. New applicants were also eligible for a site visit if the consensus review resulted in a
score indicating achievement at the high Mastery level (Band 5) or Excellence level (Band 6 and above). A site
visit was conducted to clarify information in the application report, to verify that the information in the
application was correct, and to confirm the final standing, including achievement at the Excellence level.
Upon completion of the site visit review and the feedback reports by Examiner teams, the feedback reports were
then given to Wisconsin Forward Award’s Panel of Judges who were assigned to be resources for individual
teams and then reviewed the feedback reports as a group to ensure calibration in scoring and application of the
Criteria across the teams.
Feedback Report page 47
Figure 1: Evaluation Process
WFA Receives
Applications
Independent Review
(Stage 1)
Consensus Review
(Stage 2)
NO YES
Site Visit?
Consensus score is at
Commitment or Proficiency,
Examiner team has sufficient
information, or eligible returning
applicant does not want a site
visit
Consensus score is at Mastery
or Excellence level, eligible
returning applicant requests a
site visit, or WFA uses
discretion to more accurately
determine award level
Recognition Level and
Draft Feedback Report
Site Visit
(Stage 3)
Panel of Judges Reviews and
Finalizes Recognition Levels
WFA SENDS FINAL FEEDBACK
REPORT AND RECOGNITION LEVEL
TO APPLICANTS
Feedback Report page 48
Wisconsin Forward Award Recognition Levels
The Wisconsin Forward Award program provides a system for recognizing organizations in four categories
representative of progress and growth toward performance excellence. Categories are represented by a scoring
range reflecting the increasing maturity of a performance management system as defined by the Wisconsin
Forward Award Criteria for Performance Excellence.
Commitment is representative of organizations at the earliest stages of implementing quality management
practices. Organizations at this stage of development are beginning to adopt and systematically implement
performance management and improvement practices and principles as defined by the Criteria. (score range: 0–
275)
Proficiency is representative of organizations making significant progress in successful implementation of quality
management practices as defined by the Criteria. Applications scoring at this level demonstrate systematic
approaches to the primary purposes of most Items in the Criteria and show early improvement trends resulting
from their approaches. (score range: 276–475)
Mastery is representative of organizations entering or at an advanced level relative to the Criteria. Applications
scoring at this level use effective and systematic approaches. There are no major gaps in deployment, though it
may be in early stages in some areas. These organizations demonstrate fact-based improvement processes, good
results and improvement trends in most areas of importance. The good results and improvement trends can be
directly attributed to their systematic, well-deployed approaches. (score range: 476–675)
Excellence represents the highest achievement level possible under the Wisconsin Forward Award. This
achievement level is representative of organizations with mature, fully integrated performance management
systems, including improvement systems. Applicants achieving at the Excellence level demonstrate refined
approaches, good-to-excellent deployment, good-to-excellent results linked to their well-deployed approaches,
and outstanding activities in key areas of the Criteria. They are industry leaders and role models for others. (score
range: 676–1000)
Scoring System
The scoring system is designed to differentiate applicants by the degree of progress demonstrated in successfully
implementing performance management practices and principles, to identify the appropriate recognition level for
an applicant, and to facilitate feedback. The scoring guidelines, shown in Figures 2 and 3, are based on (1)
evidence that a performance management system is in place and the management approach; (2) the depth of
deployment; and (3) the results and trends it is achieving.
The applicant receives a percentage range for each Criteria Category (Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer
Focus, etc.). The percentage range is based on the scoring guidelines, which describe the characteristics typically
associated with specific percentage ranges. When assessing your organization’s results, note that Criteria
Categories 1 through 6 consider process scoring guidelines (Figure 2); Category 7 considers results scoring
guidelines (Figure 3).
The scoring band descriptors, shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6, provide a gauge of the overall score for an applicant.
WFA provides three aggregated scoring bands: one each for all process Items, all results Items, and all Items
overall. There are eight scoring bands in each scale, ranging from the lowest to the highest total score possible
under the Criteria. The bands describe characteristics typically associated with organizations that have an overall
score—which may differ from the disaggregated scores for process and results Items—falling in the specific
range listed in each scoring band. An applicant’s overall score, represented by the scoring band, is derived from
the aggregated percentage range scores determined for each Criteria Item.
Feedback Report page 49
Figure 2: Criteria Scoring Guidelines (Process)
SCORE Process (Categories 1-6)
0% or 5%
No systematic approach to Item requirements is evident; information is anecdotal. (A)
Little or no deployment of any systematic approach is evident (D)
An improvement orientation is not evident; improvement is achieved through reacting to problems (L)
No organizational alignment is evident; individual areas or work units operate independently. (I)
10%, 15%,
20%, or 25%
The beginning of a systematic approach to the basic requirements of the Item is evident. (A)
The approach is in the early stages of deployment in most areas or work units, inhibiting progress in achieving the basic 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)
30%, 35%,
40%, or 45%
An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the basic requirements of the Item, is evident. (A)
The approach is deployed, although some areas or work units are in early stages of deployment. (D)
The beginning of a systematic approach to evaluation and improvement of key processes is evident. (L)
The approach is in the early stages of alignment with your basic organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other process Items. (I)
50%, 55%,
60%, or 65%
An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the overall requirements of the Item, is evident. (A)
The approach is well deployed, although deployment may vary in some areas or work units. (D)
A fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process and some organizational learning, including innovation, are in place for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of key processes. (L)
The approach is aligned with your organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other process Items. (I)
70%, 75%,
80%, or 85%
An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the multiple requirements of the item, is evident. (A)
The approach is well deployed, with no significant gaps. (D)
Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning, including innovation, are key management tools; there is clear evidence of refinement as a result of organizational-level analysis and sharing. (L)
The approach is integrated with your current and future organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other process Items. (I)
90%, 95% or 100%
An effective, systematic approach, fully responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item, is evident. (A)
The approach is fully deployed without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or work units. (D)
Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning through innovation are key organization-wide tools; refinement and innovation, backed by analysis and sharing, are evident throughout the organization. (L)
The approach is well integrated with your current and future organizational needs identified in response to the the Organizational Profile and other process Items. (I)
Feedback Report page 50
Figure 3: Criteria Scoring Guidelines (Results)
SCORE RESULTS (Category 7)
0% or 5%
There are no organizational performance results or poor results in areas reported.
Trend data are either not reported or show mainly adverse trends.
Comparative information is not reported.
Results are not reported for any areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.
10%, 15%,
20%, or 25%
A few organizational performance results are reported, responsive to the basic requirements of the Item, and early good performance levels are evident.
Some trend data are reported, with some adverse trends evident.
Little or no comparative information is reported.
Results are reported for a few areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.
30%, 35%,
40%, or 45%
Good organizational performance levels are reported, responsive to the basic requirements of the Item.
Some trend data are reported, and a majority of the trends presented are beneficial.
Early stages of obtaining comparative information are evident.
Results are reported for many areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.
50%, 55%,
60%, or 65%
Good organizational performance levels are reported, responsive to the overall requirements of the Item.
Beneficial trends are evident in areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.
Some current performance levels have been evaluated against relevant comparisons and/or benchmarks and show areas of good relative performance.
Organizaional performance results are reported for most key customer, market, and process requirements.
70%, 75%,
80%, or 85%
Good to excellent organizational performance levels are reported, responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item.
Beneficial trends have been sustained over time in most areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.
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.
Organizational performance results are reported for most key customer, market, process, and action plan requirements.
90%, 95% or 100%
Excellent organizational performance levels are reported that are fully responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item.
Beneficial trends have been sustained over time in all areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.
Evidence of industry and benchmark leadership is demonstrated in many areas.
Organizational performance results and projections are reported for most key customer, market, process, and action plan requirements.
Feedback Report page 51
Figure 4: Process Scoring Band Descriptors Band Band
Score Number PROCESS Descriptors
0–150 1 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 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.
201–260 3 The organization 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.
261–320 4 The organization demonstrates effective, systematic
approaches responsive to the 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
overall organizational needs.
321–370 5 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 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 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 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.
Figure 5: Results Scoring Band Descriptors Band Band
Score Number RESULTS Descriptors
0–125 1 A few results are reported responsive to the basic Criteria
requirements, but they generally lack trend and
comparative data.
126–170 2 Results are reported for several areas responsive to the
basic 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.
171–210 3 Results address areas of importance to the basic Criteria
requirements and accomplishment of the organization’s
mission, with good performance being achieved.
Comparative and trend data are available for some of
these important results areas, and some beneficial trends
are evident.
211–255 4 Results address some key customer/stakeholder, market,
and process requirements, and they demonstrate good
relative performance against relevant comparisons. There
are no patterns of adverse trends or poor performance in
areas of importance to the overall Criteria requirements
and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission.
256–300 5 Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market,
and process requirements, and they demonstrate areas of
strength against relevant comparisons and/or benchmarks.
Improvement trends and/or good performance are
reported for most areas of importance to the overall
Criteria requirements and the accomplishment of the
organization’s mission.
301–345 6 Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market,
and process requirements, as well as many action plan
requirements. Results demonstrate beneficial trends in
most areas of importance to the Criteria requirements and
the accomplishment of the organization’s mission, and the
organization is an industry* leader in some results areas.
346–390 7 Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market,
process, and action plan requirements. Results
demonstrate excellent organizational performance levels
and some industry* leadership. Results demonstrate
sustained beneficial trends in most areas of importance to
the multiple Criteria requirements and the
accomplishment of the organization’s mission.
391–450 8 Results fully address key customer/stakeholder, market,
process, and action plan requirements and include
projections of future performance. Results demonstrate
excellent organizational performance levels, as well as
national and world leadership. Results demonstrate
sustained beneficial trends in all areas of importance to
the multiple Criteria requirements and the
accomplishment of the organization’s mission.
*Industry refers to other organizations performing substantially the same functions, thereby facilitating direct comparisons.
Feedback Report page 52
Figure 6: Scoring Band Descriptors (Overall Score)
Score
Band
# Descriptors WFA Recognition Level
0-275 1 The organization demonstrates the early
stages of developing and implementing
approaches to Item requirements, with
deployment lagging and inhibiting progress.
Improvement efforts focus on problem
solving. A few important results are reported,
but they generally lack trend and comparative
data.
Commitment
Organizations at the earliest stages of
implementing quality management
practices. Organizations at this stage of
development are beginning to adopt
and systematically implement
performance management and
improvement practices and principles
as defined by the Criteria.
276-375 2 The organization demonstrates effective,
systematic approaches responsive to the basic
requirements of the Items, 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. The organization obtains
results stemming from its approaches, with
some improvements and good performance.
The use of comparative and trend data is in
the early stages.
Proficiency
Organizations making significant
progress in successful implementation
of quality management practices as
defined by the Criteria. Applications
scoring at this level demonstrate
systematic approaches to the primary
purposes of most Items in the Criteria
and show early improvement trends
resulting from their approaches.
376-475 3 The organization demonstrates effective,
systematic approaches responsive to the basic
requirements of most 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.
Results address many areas of importance to
the organization’s key requirements, with
improvements and/or good performance being
achieved. Comparative and trend data are
available for some of these important results
areas.
Continued on next page.
Feedback Report page 53
Figure 6: Scoring Band Descriptors (Overall Score, Continued)
Score
Band
# Descriptors WFA Recognition Level
476-575 4 The organization demonstrates effective,
systematic approaches responsive to the
overall requirements of the Items, 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.
Results address key customer/stakeholder,
market, and process requirements, and they
demonstrate some areas of strength and/or
good performance against relevant
comparisons. There are no patterns of adverse
trends or poor performance in areas of
importance to the organization’s key
requirements.
Mastery
Organizations entering or at an
advanced level relative to the Criteria.
Applications scoring at this level use
effective and systematic approaches.
There are no major gaps in deployment,
though it may be in early stages in
some Areas. These organizations
demonstrate fact-based improvement
processes, good results and
improvement trends in most Areas of
importance. The good results and
improvement trends can be directly
attributed to their systematic, well
deployed approaches.
576-675 5 The organization demonstrates effective,
systematic, well-deployed approaches
responsive to the overall requirements of the
Items. The organization demonstrates a fact-
based, systematic evaluation and improvement
process and organizational learning that result
in improving the effectiveness and efficiency
of key processes. 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 organization’s key
requirements.
Continued on next page.
Feedback Report page 54
Figure 6: Scoring Band Descriptors (Overall Score, Continued)
Score
Band
# Descriptors WFA Recognition Level
676-775 6 The organization demonstrates refined
approaches responsive to the multiple
requirements of the Items. These approaches
are characterized by the use of key measures,
good deployment, evidence of innovation, and
very good results in most areas.
Organizational integration, learning, and
sharing are key management tools. Results
address many customer/stakeholder, market,
process, and action plan requirements. The
organization is an industry* leader in some
results areas.
Excellence
Represents the highest achievement
level possible under the Wisconsin
Forward Award. This achievement
level is representative of organizations
with mature, fully integrated
performance management systems,
including improvement systems.
Applicants achieving at the Excellence
level demonstrate refined approaches,
good to excellent deployment, good to
excellent results linked to their well-
deployed approaches, and outstanding
activities in key areas of the Criteria.
They are industry leaders and role
models for others. No major red flags
exist.
776-875 7 The organization demonstrates refined
approaches responsive to the multiple
requirements of the Items. It also
demonstrates innovation, excellent
deployment, and good-to-excellent
performance levels in most areas. Good-to-
excellent integration is evident, with
organizational analysis, learning, and sharing
of best practices as key management
strategies. Industry* leadership and some
benchmark leadership are demonstrated in
results that address most key
customer/stakeholder, market, process, and
action plan requirements.
876-1000 8 The organization demonstrates outstanding
approaches focused on innovation, full
deployment, and excellent, sustained
performance results. There is excellent
integration of approaches with organizational
needs. Organizational analysis, learning, and
sharing of best practices are pervasive.
National and world leadership is demonstrated
in results that fully address key
customer/stakeholder, market, process, and
action plan requirements.
† “Industry” refers to other organizations performing substantially the same functions, thereby facilitating direct
comparison.