FIRST GLOBAL ASSESSMENT ON THE CURRENT STATE ......On March 31, 2015, the Organizational Excellence Technical Committee QMD, ASQ (OETC) launched the ‘first global assessment on the

FIRST GLOBAL ASSESSMENT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE

April 4, 2019

2

Table of Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

2 INTRODUCTION 9

2.1 Background 9

2.2 Benefits 10

2.3 Assessment Tool 10

2.4 Volunteer Commitment 13

3 FINDINGS 15

3.1 Teaser Assessment

3.1.1 Overall Principles 18

3.1.2 Role 20

3.1.3 Size 21

3.1.4 Type 22

3.1.5 General Industry Sector 23

3.1.6 Specific Industry Sector 24

3.1.7 Region 25

3.1.8 Comparison 27

3

3.1.9 Summary 28

3.2 Full Assessment 29

3.2.1 Overall Principles 31

3.2.2 Overall Key Management Areas 33

3.2.3 Role 34

3.2.4 Size 36

3.2.5 Type 38

3.2.6 General Industry Sector 40

3.2.7 Specific Industry Sector 42

3.2.8 Region 44

3.2.9 Key Management Areas and Related Practices 48

3.2.9.1 Governance 48

3.2.9.2 Leadership 50

3.2.9.3 Planning 52

3.2.9.4 Customers 54

3.2.9.5 Employees 56

3.2.9.6 Work Processes 58

4

3.2.9.7 Suppliers & Partners 60

3.2.9.8 Resource Management 62

3.2.9.9 Continuous Improvement & Performance Measurement 64

3.2.9.9.1 Continuous Improvement by Key Management Area 64

3.2.9.9.2 Performance Measurement by Key Management Area 66

3.2.9.9.3 Performance Measurement for Organization 67

3.2.9.10 Comparison 69

3.2.9.11 Summary 70

4 CONCLUSIONS 72

APPENDIX 1 – World Bank Analytical Grouping 75

APPENDIX 2 - International Standard Industrial Classification 77

APPENDIX 3 - List of Contributors 79

5

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 31, 2015, the Organizational Excellence Technical Committee QMD, ASQ (OETC) launched the ‘first global assessment on the current state of organizational excellence. This research was supported by the Global Benchmarking Network, International Academy for Quality and ISO Technical Committee 176. The project was intended to provide data on the extent to which organizations are characterized by the Principles and had deployed the best management practices of high performing organizations that are found in excellence models.

Over 20 years of global research has validated the positive relationship between implementing an excellence model and developing a culture committed to excellence and improving organizational performance across a balanced system of measurement. Much of this research has focused on high performing organizations that have successfully applied excellence models.

This particular research project was more robust in that it aimed to gather data from a more varied population including leadership and management roles with varying awareness about excellence models, four different size organizations, 21 industry sectors and 218 countries (7 regions).

An integrated excellence model (Organizational Excellence Framework ©2010 Dawn Ringrose & Associates Inc) was used in the assessment and 1,029 respondents participated in the study.

The aggregated findings provided a preliminary snapshot on the current state of organizational excellence around the world and there were four conclusions reached.

First, for the excellence community this snapshot has provided some preliminary insights about how study respondents rated the culture of excellence and deployment of best management practices in their organizations:

• Most organizations rated the culture of excellence quite positively with:

o Strengths on the Principles of ‘Leadership involvement’ and ‘Focus on the customer’ and opportunities for improvement for ‘Prevention based process management’ and ‘Data based decision making’

o The highest ratings from Leadership role, Micro size, Business type, Service as a general sector, Professional Scientific Technical as a specific sector and East Asia & Pacific as a region

6

• The Principles or culture of excellence was rated significantly higher than the Key Management Areas

• The highest rated Key Management Areas were ‘Governance’ and ‘Customers’ and the lowest rated were ‘Suppliers & Partners’ and ‘Resource Management’

• The Key Management Areas:

o Had higher ratings provided by the Leadership role, Small size and Non-profit and Business types

o Showed negligible difference in ratings by Service and Manufacturing as a general sector

o Had higher ratings for Professional Scientific Technical and Education as specific sectors

o Showed some variation in the ratings for the regions which should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size

o Of the best management practices, the highest rated practices were ‘Ensure governance system meets obligations’ and ‘Take corrective action when problems occur’ and the lowest rated practices were:

Empowerment related - ‘Encourage employees to be innovative and take risks’

Future oriented - ‘Develop contingency plans for unforeseen events’, ‘Conduct capability gap for resources’

Collaborative - ‘Involve customers, suppliers and partners in designing and analyzing processes’, ‘Use external data to compare performance to other organizations’

• The comparison tables for multiple respondents from an organization showed it was important to invite all employees to participate in the self-assessment so that variation could be monitored and ratings and open-ended comments from the entire workforce could be considered and used to build on strengths and address opportunities for improvement

The path is clear for the excellence community. To work together and create more awareness, understanding and application of excellence models so that more organizations can improve performance.

Second, this study has provided some meaningful insights for the working population at large. This population includes, but is not limited to:

• Governments providing support to industry and growing their economy and trade

7

• Businesses attracting and serving their customers

• Non-profit associations delivering value for members

• Educational institutions developing skills with students that will be valued by future employers

• Industry sectors strengthening overall performance

• Research entities conducting follow-on studies

The next step for the foregoing organizations is to explore in more detail what can be done to add value for their cause.

Third, this study was received well by respondents that were willing to participate as evidenced by their comments. These comments have reinforced the study should be continued and organizations should be encouraged to participate in self-assessment. Examples of such comments included:

• Micro size organizations:

o “Good and insightful survey, gives a framework for self-assessment”

o “I would love to receive a copy of the result of this great study”

o “Very thorough high-level survey. Eager to see the combined responses. I sense a lot of opportunity for improvement in more areas”

o “Though I'm a single person company, the questions by themselves put into perspective issues I need to consider to grow the business and leave the legacy to my kids and grand-kids”

o “If nothing else this simple survey points out just how ad hoc and unstructured our company is - and this may be one of the reasons that we seem to be adrift at the moment”

• Larger size organizations:

o “Survey was good self- assessment. It allowed me to look again at performance in various elements”

o “We are indeed on a journey leading to improved results”

8

• Organizations that have recently embarked on the excellence journey:

o “It's inspiring to see a focus on excellence. Continued focus on this should have a good payback. It's been really neat to see how much things have changed and improved in a year. The future looks bright!”

o “Company X has a lot to work towards but also has come a long way within the last year”

In doing so, this enthusiasm can be expanded and an annual index can be published so the current state of organizational excellence can be monitored and used by the excellence community to provide training programs and by the working population to improve performance and to gauge progress internally and externally.

Fourth, the study should move from an informal research approach with well qualified volunteers to a more formal research study with paid researchers so that a significant sample size can be achieved by organization size, industry sector and country (region).

This change will lead to developing a valid and reliable index that can be confidently used from year to year.

By leveraging these conclusions, the excellence community and working population can work together to monitor and build on the results in a manner that allows different size organizations, industry sectors and countries to participate in a more competitive and sustainable way in the global economy. Such an effort will ultimately make the world a better place for future generations.

A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step – Laozi, Tao Te Ching

9

2 INTRODUCTION

A major research undertaking over the past four years has provided a global snapshot about the current state of organizational excellence by size, industry sector and region. This paper provides background to the study and shares the findings and conclusions.

2.1 Background

On March 31, 2015, the Organizational Excellence Technical Committee QMD, ASQ (OETC) launched the ‘first global assessment on the current state of organizational excellence’. This research was supported by the Global Benchmarking Network, International Academy for Quality and ISO Technical Committee 176. The project was intended to provide data on the extent to which organizations are characterized by the Principles and had deployed the best management practices of high performing organizations that are found in excellence models.

Over 20 years of global research has validated the positive relationship between implementing an excellence model and developing a culture committed to excellence and improving organizational performance across a balanced system of measurement. Much of this research has focused on the organizations that have successfully applied excellence models such as EFQM, Baldrige, the Canadian Framework for Excellence and the Australian Business Excellence Framework (note: five of these research studies are available at http://www.oes-learning.ca/resources.html)

This particular research project is more robust in that it aims to gather data from a more varied population:

Leadership and Management personnel (up to two people per organization)

Different size organizations (number of employees: Micro (1-25), Small (25-100), Medium (101-999), Large (1000+)

Different types of organizations (Government, Business, Non-profit)

218 countries or 7 regions (World Bank Analytical Grouping – Appendix 1)

21 industry sectors (International Standard Industrial Classification – Appendix 2)

Organizations with and without awareness of excellence models

http://www.oes-learning.ca/resources.html

http://www.oes-learning.ca/resources.html

10

With 1,029 respondents, the aggregate findings have provided a preliminary snapshot about the current state of organizational excellence around the world and provided a summary of the strengths and opportunities for improvement by organization size, industry sector and region.

2.2 Benefits

The aggregate findings were intended to provide benefits for the excellence community in general and for the working population at large:

Uniting the excellence profession on a common project

Encouraging organizations to start or continue their excellence journey, using an excellence model

Providing dashboard results to show aggregate ratings on Principles and best management practices by organization size, industry sector and geographical region

Sharing aggregate results on the OETC https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4369749/

Encouraging organizations to benchmark their performance with others

Making organizations aware of national (excellence) and international (best practice, benchmarking) awards

Envisioning that organizations improving their performance will make a positive contribution to a local economy, trade and resident quality of life

Enabling all countries to participate, in a more competitive and sustainable way in the global economy

Making the world a better place for future generations

2.3 Assessment Tool

The assessment tool used in the research was based on the Organizational Excellence Framework publication (© 2010 Dawn Ringrose). The publication ‘integrates the leading global excellence models’ that define the Principles and best management practices of high performing

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4369749/

11

organizations and is unique in that it ‘provides implementation guidelines’ that are used by management consulting professionals. The publication is available for download at no charge at https://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/ and a high level version of the assessment tool is found in Appendix 3 of the publication. A listing of Principles and best management practices found in the Organizational Excellence Framework, with applicability to micro size and larger size organizations, is provided here https://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Overview-of-the-Organizational-Excellence-Framework.pdf

Figure 1. Organizational Excellence Framework (©2010 Dawn Ringrose)

The automated assessment tool was powered by www.QLBS.com . The tool shares the Principles and practices to rate using a five and four point scale respectively, allows the respondent to obtain more information by holding their cursor over the item in question, captures the self-assessment ratings and open-ended comments and generates dashboards.

https://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/

https://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Overview-of-the-Organizational-Excellence-Framework.pdf

https://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Overview-of-the-Organizational-Excellence-Framework.pdf

http://www.qlbs.com/

12

Figure 2. Automated Assessment & Reporting Tool

Two rating scales were used in the assessment to provide a subjective rating on the Principles (e.g. observation, experience) and an objective rating on the best management practices (i.e. approach, deployment, results). When completing the assessment, the respondent used a descriptive category and corresponding percentage range. On the aggregated results charts in the report, the percentage range was converted to a corresponding point scale:

Principle

Assessment

Chart

Low

0%-20%

0.0 - 2.0

Low-Medium

21%-40%

2.1 - 4.0

Medium

41%-60%

4.1 - 6.0

Medium-High

61%- 80%

6.1 - 8.0

High

81%-100%

8.1 - 10.0

13

Practice

Assessment

Chart

Just Beginning

0%-25%

0.0 - 2.5

Good Start

26%-50%

2.6 - 5.0

Doing Well

51%-75%

5.1 - 7-5

High Performance

76%-100%

7.6 - 10.0

There were two assessments for respondents to choose from https://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/workshops-events/global-oe-index/:

a. The Teaser Assessment on the nine Principles that depict a culture committed to excellence. This assessment took five minutes to complete and delivered a free feedback report to the respondent’s inbox

b. The Full Assessment on the Principles and the deployment of best management practices across nine Key Management Areas took between 15 and 30 minutes to complete, depending on organization size. For micro size organizations, there were fewer practices to rate (50%, depicted by * at the end of the practice statement in the charts)

Respondents were promised that individual organization data would be held in strict confidence and only aggregate data would be reported.

There were five interim reports shared throughout the course of the study so that respondents could compare their assessment results with the aggregate ratings by size, industry sector and country (region).

2.4 Volunteer Commitment Organizational Excellence Specialists Inc agreed to conduct this research project on a volunteer basis and had to recruit a talented team of researchers from around the world to work on the project. There were two groups of researchers: Core Research Professionals that worked for a longer duration and Support Research Professionals that each tried to attract ten respondents. Appendix 3 provides a list of these contributors by name and LinkedIn or ResearchGate address where available.

Three important roles amongst these volunteers included: Project Leader – Dawn Ringrose, Assistant to Project Leader – Mohammad Hossein Zavvar Sabegh and Project Advisor – Dr. Paulo Sampaio.

https://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/workshops-events/global-oe-index/

14

A project charter described the study for the researchers and covered topics such as: authorization, project overview and project risks, assumptions and constraints.

A number of promotional tools were provided to the researchers throughout the course of the study that could be used to create awareness and invite potential respondents to participate. These tools included:

• Content messaging for email, text, LinkedIn and Facebook • Electronic postcard with a clickable link • Variety of posts on LinkedIn and Facebook that featured national excellence award recipients across sectors and from around the world • Hashtag #GlobalOEIndex for posting and supporting posts • Powerpoint presentations that described the study and shared the interim results

The researchers invited their network to participate in the study and also reached out to ISO Technical Committee 176 members, international associations and learned societies, and national excellence programs in the hopes these larger organizations would extend an invitation to their members.

Throughout the course of the study, the researchers also had opportunities to make presentations on the results at international conferences hosted in countries such as: Canada, China, India, Iran, New Zealand, Slovenia, Spain, United Arab Emirates and United States.

15

3 FINDINGS Findings included aggregate results for the Teaser Assessment and the Full Assessment. The Teaser Assessment asked respondents to self-assess nine Principles that described the culture of excellence in their organization:

1. Leadership involvement – ensuring senior management is committed and actively involved in establishing and communicating direction.

2. Alignment – understanding the organization is a system of interrelated and interconnected work processes and all activities need to be aligned with the established direction.

3. Focus on the customer – ensuring the primary aim of everyone in the organization is to understand and meet the needs of the customer.

4. People involvement – nurturing and reinforcing cooperation and teamwork and giving employees the opportunity to develop their full

potential.

5. Prevention based process management – establishing consistency in work processes and developing a mindset of prevention.

6. Partnership development – developing and maintaining value-adding relationships with suppliers and partners.

7. Continuous improvement – harnessing the collective knowledge, skills, and creativity of stakeholders to relentlessly pursue improvement.

8. Data based decision making – basing decisions on performance measurement findings.

9. Societal commitment – striving to understand and demonstrate corporate commitment to society.

The Full Assessment included a self-assessment against the Principles and also the best management practices across nine Key Management Areas. Each of the Key Management Areas is described below:

16

1. Governance – focuses on defining and implementing good governance practices. It includes: identifying governance responsibility to stakeholders, implementing an effective governance system and acting as a model of good practice to internal and external stakeholders.

2. Leadership – focuses on defining and implementing strong leadership practices. It includes: creating a culture committed to excellence,

developing a strategic plan and communicating it to stakeholders, sharing responsibility and accountability throughout the organization, communicating openly about organizational performance, and removing barriers to organizational effectiveness.

3. Planning – focuses on defining and implementing solid planning practices. It includes: creating a business plan that aligns with strategic

direction, communicating the plan to stakeholders, allocating resources to ensure effective implementation, monitoring and reviewing the plan regularly and making changes as required.

4. Customers – focuses on defining and implementing good customer practices. It includes: understanding the customer, aligning

employees on the importance of the customer, making it easy for the customer to do business and provide feedback, and reaffirming the organization’s presence and approach in the marketplace.

5. Employees – focuses on defining and implementing strong employee practices. It includes: undertaking human resource planning that

supports organizational plans, recruiting, selecting, training, and developing employees, encouraging employees to share suggestions and ideas aimed at improvement, rewarding and recognizing strong performance of individuals and teams, and ensuring a healthy workplace environment.

6. Work Processes – focuses on defining and implementing solid work process practices. It includes: designing, documenting, and

managing work processes, analyzing and improving work processes, taking corrective action when problems occur, preventing recurrence of problems by making changes to work processes, and using benchmarking to evaluate performance.

7. Suppliers & Partners – focuses on defining and implementing mutually beneficial supplier and partner practices. It includes: using

criteria to select suppliers and partners, developing win-win relationships, sharing information about strategic and business plans, and working together to develop products, services and standards.

8. Resource Management – focuses on defining and implementing solid resource management practices. It includes: defining resource

requirements, developing a strategy to manage resources wisely, managing the adverse impact of operations on the environment and society, and preparing for resource interruptions.

17

9. Continuous Improvement and Performance Measurement - focuses on evaluating and improving the approach to each management area, measuring performance in each management area, and measuring overall organizational performance.

It is important to note there was an abbreviated assessment tool used for micro size organizations as compared to larger size organizations (i.e. small, medium, large) that was triggered when respondents entered the number of employees in the demographic information that was collected about their organization.

3.1 TEASER ASSESSMENT Table 1. Teaser Assessment Statistics

ORGANIZATIONS 791 ROLE: Respondents

INDUSTRY SECTORS 21 Leadership 283

REGIONS 7 Management 274

Staff 164

Other 70

TYPE: Respondents SIZE: Respondents

Business 523 Micro 290

Non-Profit 129 Small 105

Government 139 Medium 197

Large 199

18

In total, 791 respondents completed the Teaser Assessment and represented 21 industry sectors and 7 regions. The majority of respondents were:

• Engaged in Leadership and Management roles followed by Staff and Other (e.g. Board member) roles • Involved in the Business sector followed by Government and Non-profit sectors • Worked with Micro size organizations followed by Large, Medium and Small size

Overall, the research team was pleased with the response rate and anticipated it would provide a good preliminary snapshot on the culture of excellence by organization size, industry sector and region.

3.1.1 OVERALL PRINCIPLES Figure 3. Overall Average Ratings on the Principles for the Teaser Assessment

N=791

7.3

6.7

7.5

6.5

5.9

6.5

6.3

5.8

6.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Leadership involvement

Alignment

Focus on the customer

People involvement

Prevention based process management

Partnership development

Continuous improvement

Data based decision making

Societal commitment

Principles

19

All the Principles received ratings in the ‘medium’ and ‘medium high’ range.

The most highly rated were ‘Focus on the customer’ and ‘Leadership involvement’ and the lowest rated were ‘Prevention based process management’ and ‘Data based decision making’.

These ratings were supported by the open-ended comments:

• Strengths: o “Great leadership and excellent team” o “Senior management actively participate in team building activities” o “Management commitment to ethics, quality and customer delight at all levels” o “Focusing on customer requirements. Relationship management” o “We are 100% customer focused. Most of our client engagements over the past 23 years have been customized”

• Opportunities for improvement:

o “Work processes typically of a small business are more fresh thinking using earlier work and diverse experiences rather than rigid templates which can lead to less consistency in work processes”

o “Prevention based – too much fire- fighting” o “Improved processes across the company. Need metrics to measure how we’re doing” o “Better capture and use of performance measurement findings such as utilization rates, non-billable time, advisory effectiveness

rates) (i.e. success for client)” o “Our organization is new to this kind of approach; strengths are few, opportunities are multiple”

One respondent indicated all principles reflected their organizational culture: “Principles are in the organization culture of the company”.

Another respondent suggested their organization had a very good management system: “Experienced professionals with zealous commitment to excellence using proven leading edge leadership and management best practices. Broad base of experienced examiners trained to evaluate organizational maturity and craft action oriented reports with strengths and opportunities”.

20

3.1.2 ROLE Figure 4. Principles by Role in the Organization

N= Leadership (283) , Management (274) , Staff (164) , Other (70)

By role, respondents provided ratings on the Principles in the ‘medium-high’ range.

Leadership had a tendency to rate the Principles slightly higher than other roles. This was particularly evident when rating:

• ‘Leadership involvement’ where the average for Leadership was 7.9, Management was 7.1, Staff was 7.2 and Other was 6.8 • ‘Continuous improvement’ where the average for Leadership was 6.9, Management was 5.9, Staff was 6.4 and Other was 6.1

6.9

6.3

6.6

6.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Leadership

Management

Staff

Other

Principles - By Role

21

3.1.3 SIZE

Figure 5. Principles by Size of Organization

N = Micro (290 ), Small (105 ), Medium (197 ), Large (199)

The average rating on the Principles for Medium size organizations was in the ‘medium range’ while Micro, Small and Large size organizations were in the ‘medium-high range’.

Micro size organizations provided the highest rating on the Principles followed by their Large, Small and Medium counterparts. This tendency persisted across the nine Principles.

7.1

6.1

5.8

6.8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Micro

Small

Medium

Large

Principles - By Size

22

3.1.4 TYPE

Figure 6. Principles by Type of Organization

N = Business (523 ), Government (129 ), Non-profit (139 )

By type, organizations provided average ratings on the Principles in the ‘medium-high’ range.

Business organizations provided the highest rating on the Principles followed closely by Non-profit and then Government. This tendency persisted across the nine Principles with the exception of:

• ‘Continuous improvement’ where Business and Non-profit ratings were the same (6.4) • ‘Societal commitment’ where Non-profit had the highest rating (7.0) followed by Government (6.7) and Business (6.4)

6.7

6.1

6.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Business

Government

Non-Profit

Principles - By Type

23

3.1.5 GENERAL INDUSTRY SECTOR

Figure 7. Principles by General Industry Sector

N = Service (594), Manufacturing (197)

For the most part, respondents from the Manufacturing and Service sectors provided average ratings in the ‘medium’ and ‘medium-high’ range.

In all cases but one, the Service sector rated the Principles higher than the Manufacturing sector. The only exception was ‘Partnership development’ where the ratings were equal (6.5).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Alignment


People involvement





Societal commitment

Principles - By General Industry Sector

Manufacturing Service

24

3.1.6 SPECIFIC INDUSTRY SECTOR

Figure 8. Principle Ratings by Specific Industry Sector

N = Construction (19), Education (115), Financial (31), Human Health (65), Information & Communication (56), Manufacturing (156), Other Services (65), Professional Scientific Technical (124), Public Administration (40)

Most ratings on the Principles were in the ‘medium’ and ‘medium-high’ range.

There were nine sectors that had a larger number of respondents (25+) which provided additional insights on these sectors. The Professional Scientific Technical and the Financial and Insurance sectors had the highest overall rating and the Construction and Public Administration sectors had the lowest.

5.7

6.6

7.0

6.5

6.8

6.3

6.7

7.1

5.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Construction

Education

Financial

Human Health

Information & Communication

Manufacturing

Other Services

Professional Scientific Technical

Public Administration

Principles - Specific Industry Sector

25

On the individual Principles, high and low ratings included:

• ‘Leadership involvement’ for Financial and Insurance (8.2) • ‘Leadership involvement’ for Professional Science Technical (8.1) • ‘Prevention based process management’ and ‘Data based decision making’ for Public Administration (4.8) • ‘Data based decision making for Construction (4.7)

3.1.7 REGION Figure 9. Principles by Region

N= East Asia (52), Europe & Central Asia (126), Latin America & Caribbean (73), Middle East (85), North America (301), South Asia (91), Sub-Saharan Africa (61), Unknown (2)

7.1

6.6

6.4

6.6

6.4

6.5

7.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

East Asia & Pacific

Europe & Central Asia

Latin America & Caribbean

Middle East & North Africa

North America

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Principles - by Region

26

All regions rated the Principles in the ‘medium-high’ range.

The Principles were rated highest by organizations in the ‘East Asia & Pacific’ and ‘Sub-Saharan Africa’ regions and slightly lower in the remaining regions.

High and low points in the ratings included:

• ‘Leadership involvement’ (8.1) and ‘Focus on the customer’ (8.0) for East Asia & Pacific • ‘Prevention based process management’ (5.3) for North America • ‘’Data based decision making’ (5.7) for Latin America & Caribbean

Figure 10. High Responding Countries

10 21

174

21 25

70

17 12 9 11 14 13 11 23 23 20 18 10

127

020406080

100120140160180200

High Responding Countries

27

The highest responding countries on the Teaser Assessment were Canada, (174), United States (109), India (69), Greece (25), Saudi Arabia (23), Tanzania (23), Brazil (21) and Colombia (21). A number of other countries were quite high responding and included between 10 and 23 respondents.

3.1.8 COMPARISON Table 2. Variation in Ratings for Respondents Within an Organization

# Leadership Management Staff Other Size Type General Sector Specific Sector Country STDEV

1 0 0 0 2 Large Business Service Financial Colombia 2.14

2 2 3 2 0 Large Business Manufacturing Manufacturing INDIA 2.19

3 5 4 1 0 Large Government Service Human Health Saudi Arabia 2.19

4 0 3 3 0 Large Business Manufacturing Manufacturing Turkey 1.72

5 0 0 1 1 Large Government Service Education Turkey 1.29

6 0 0 2 1 Large Government Service Education Ethiopia 2.73

7 0 1 6 0 Medium Business Manufacturing Manufacturing Canada 2.83

8 1 1 0 0 Medium Non-Profit Service Other Service United States 1.37

9 1 1 0 0 Medium Business Service Information Canada 1.76

10 0 1 1 1 Medium Government Service Public Administration Canada 2.17

11 2 0 0 0 Medium Business Manufacturing Manufacturing India 1.35

12 0 2 0 0 Medium Government Service Water Supply United States 2.45

28

13 0 1 1 0 Medium Government Service Professional India 2.75

14 0 0 1 1 Medium Business Manufacturing Manufacturing Turkey 1.25


16 1 4 0 0 Small Business Manufacturing Manufacturing United States 2.53

17 1 0 1 0 Micro Non-Profit Service Education Greece 2.41

18 0 1 1 0 Micro Non-Profit Service Financial Canada 2.73

19 0 0 3 0 Micro Non-Profit Service Other Service Canada 3.42

20 1 0 4 0 Micro Non-Profit Service Other Service Nigeria 2.16

21 0 2 0 0 Micro Business Service Other Service Brazil 1.28

22 1 0 0 1 Micro Business Service Information Canada 0.96


N = 23 organizations, 78 respondents, Leadership (16), Management (24), Staff (29), Other (9)

When examining the variation in ratings for respondents within an organization, there were 23 organizations that provided a comparison. The number of respondents per organization ranged from two to five and the standard deviation for their ratings ranged from 0.96 to 3.42.

These statistics reinforce the importance of including most employees in the self-assessment:

• To ensure the entire organization is engaged and involved in the excellence culture • To gauge the degree of understanding and agreement that exists throughout the organization • To examine the open-ended comments that provide rationale for the ratings

29

In high performing organizations that have successfully implemented an excellence model and sustained improvement there is less variation across employees on the ratings. It signals there is good communication about the management system and/or the deployment of practices throughout the organization.

It is often through the open-ended comments that leadership finds valuable feedback, suggestions and ideas that provide opportunities for improvement. And some of these opportunities, when tested and implemented, result in quick wins and longer term initiatives that provide a good return on investment.

3.1.9 SUMMARY The Principles depicting a culture committed to excellence were rated more positively by respondents in:

• Leadership role • Micro size organization • Business type organization • Service as a general sector • Professional Scientific Technical as a specific sector • East Asia & Pacific region

The most highly rated Principles were ‘Leadership involvement’ and ‘Focus on the customer’ and the lowest rated were “Prevention based process management’ and ‘Data based decision making’.

The comparison exercise showed differing degrees of variation in the ratings for respondents from the same organization. It reinforced the importance of including all employees in a self-assessment of the organization in order to get a good snapshot of the culture.

30

3.2 FULL ASSESSMENT Table 3. Full Assessment Statistics ORGANIZATIONS 238 ROLE: Respondents

INDUSTRY SECTORS 18 Leadership 92

REGIONS 7 Management 93

Staff 39

Other 14

TYPE: Respondents SIZE: Respondents

Business 169 Micro 81

Non-Profit 41 Small 33

Government 28 Medium 61

Large 63

There were fewer respondents to the Full Assessment compared to the Teaser Assessment. This was likely due to two factors:

• Time required to complete each assessment - the Teaser Assessment required about five minutes and the Full Assessment required 15 to 30 minutes depending on organization size

• Incentive to complete each assessment – while all respondents were invited to download a copy of the Organizational Excellence Framework publication, the Teaser Assessment automatically delivered a complementary feedback report to the respondent’s inbox but

31

the Full Assessment required the respondent to keep track of ratings and to compare ratings with others when interim and final reports were prepared and made available

In total, 238 respondents completed the Full Assessment and represented 18 industry sectors and 7 regions. The majority of respondents were:

• Engaged in Management and Leadership roles followed by Staff and Other roles

• Involved in the Business sector followed by Non-profit and Government sectors

• Worked with Micro size organizations followed by Large, Medium and Small size

Of the 21 possible industry sectors, three sectors were not represented (i.e. Agriculture forestry & fishing, Households as employers and producers of goods and services for own use, Extraterritorial organizations and bodies) and five respondents chose not to report the sector.

Overall, the research team was pleased with the response rate and anticipated it would provide a good preliminary snapshot on the culture of excellence and deployment of best management practices by organization size, industry sector and region.

32

3.2.1 OVERALL PRINCIPLES

Figure 11. Overall Average Ratings on the Principles for the Full Assessment

N = 238

Overall ratings on the Principles for the Full Assessment averaged 6.4 and almost mirrored those of the Teaser Assessment which averaged 6.6. All ratings were slightly higher on the Teaser Assessment by a margin of 0.1 to 0.3 and followed a similar pattern with ‘Leadership involvement’ and ‘Customer focus’ being the highest rated and ‘Prevention based process management’ and ‘Data based decision making’ being the lowest rated.

The ratings were supported by the open-ended comments:

• Strengths:

7.1

6.4

7.4

6.3

5.6

6.4

6.1

5.6

6.4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Alignment


People involvement





Societal commitment

Principles

33

o “We have leaders, but not the normal control management like other companies. Respect is high for all”

o “Leadership involvement in setting the direction of the company and pursuing better and better alignment”

o “We have a strong culture throughout our company. Communication is easy and the focus is to deliver the best product and services to our customers”


o “The organization does not yet have a strong process perspective”

o “We do a lot of fire-fighting and often don't know where the next fire will occur and when”

o “To quote Edwards Deming, we are trying to drive the car by looking in the rear view mirror. Complete management by financials is the norm; metrics on processes don't exist and are hard to get people to adopt”

o “Company X needs to grow our performance-based measurement and decision making processes. We have not done a good job historically of collecting and analyzing the right data to put us in the best position to address concerns when they arise”

34

3.2.2 OVERALL KEY MANAGEMENT AREAS Figure 12. Overall Average Ratings on Key Management Areas for the Full Assessment

N = 238

Most average ratings for the Key Management Areas were in the ‘good start’ range and there were several ratings in the ‘doing well’.

The overall average on the Key Management Areas was 5.0 and significantly less than the Principles which averaged 6.4.

The highest rated areas were ‘Governance’ and ‘Customers’, followed closely by ‘Leadership’ and ‘Performance Measurement for the organization’ and the lowest rated areas were ‘Suppliers & Partners’ and ‘Resource Management’. The remaining areas received ratings in the 4.7 to 4.9 range.

5.6 5.2

4.7 5.4

4.9 4.7

4.6 4.6

4.8 4.7

5.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

GovernanceLeadership

PlanningCustomersEmployees

Work ProcessesSuppliers & Partners

Resource ManagementContinuous Improvement

Performance Measurement (KMA)Performance Measurement (O)

Key Management Areas

35

3.2.3 ROLE Figure13. Key Management Area Ratings by Role

N = Leadership (92), Management (93), Staff (39), Other (14)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Governance

Leadership

Planning

Customers

Employees

Work Processes

Suppliers & Partners

Resource Management

Continuous Improvement

Performance Measurement (KMA)

Performance Measurement (O)

Key Management Areas - By Role

Leadership Management Staff Other

36

Overall, Leadership had a tendency to rate the Key Management Areas higher (5.5) as compared to Management (4.9), Staff (4.2) and Other (4.5) roles.

The most pronounced difference in ratings was evidenced between the Leadership and Other (e.g. Board) roles on four of the Key Management Areas including:

• Planning • Work Processes • Resource Management • Continuous Improvement

While each role provided the highest rating to Governance, there was a difference in the lowest rated area (s):

• Leadership – Suppliers & Partners, Resource Management • Management – Planning, Suppliers & Partners, Resource Management • Staff – Performance Measurement by key management areas • Other - Continuous Improvement

37

3.2.4 SIZE Figure 14. Key Management Area Ratings by Size of Organization

N = Micro (81), Small (33), Medium (61), Large (63)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Governance

Leadership

Planning

Customers

Employees

Work Processes


Resource Management




Key Management Areas - By Size

Micro Small Medium Large

38

Small size organizations provided a higher average rating (5.9) on the Key Management Areas as compared to Micro (4.7), Medium (4.3) and Large (4.9) size organizations. This tendency was particularly evident in four areas: ‘Customers’, ‘Work Processes’, ‘Resource Management’ and ‘Continuous Improvement & Performance Measurement’.

There was a difference by size of organization for the highest and lowest rated areas respectively:

• Micro – Governance, Resource Management • Small – Customers, Suppliers & Partners • Medium Governance, Suppliers & Partners • Large – Governance, Work Processes

39

3.2.5 TYPE Figure 15. Key Management Area Ratings by Type of Organization

N = Business (169), Government (28), Non-Profit (41)

Non-profit (5.2) and Business (5.1) organizations had higher average ratings on the Key Management Areas compared to Government (4.4).

The difference in ratings was most pronounced for the ‘Leadership’, ‘Customers’ and ‘Suppliers & Partners’ areas.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Governance

Leadership

Planning

Customers

Employees

Work Processes


Resource Management




Key Management Areas - by Type

Business Government Non-Profit

40

Each type of organization varied in the highest and lowest rated areas respectively:

• Business – Governance, Performance Measurement by key management areas • Government – Governance, Suppliers & Partners • Non-Profit – Governance, Resource Management

41

3.2.6 GENERAL INDUSTRY SECTOR Figure 16. Key Management Area Ratings by General Industry Sector

N = Service (162), Manufacturing (76)

The Service and Manufacturing sectors were quite closely aligned on ratings across the Key Management Areas with overall averages of 4.8 and 4.7 respectively.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Governance

Leadership

Planning

Customers

Employees

Work Processes


Resource Management




Key Management Areas by General Industry Sector

Service Manufacturing

42

This finding remained consistent for different size organizations within each of these sectors as well.

However, when looking at the highest and lowest rated areas by organization size, there was some variability:

• Micro size organizations: o Service – Governance, Resource Management o Manufacturing – Customers, Suppliers & Partners

• Larger size organizations: o Service – Governance, Suppliers & Partners o Manufacturing – Governance, Suppliers & Partners

43

3.2.7 SPECIFIC INDUSTRY SECTOR Figure 17. Key Management Area Ratings by Specific Industry Sector

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Governance

Leadership

Planning

Customers

Employees

Work Processes


Resource Management




Key Management Areas by Specific Industry Sector

Education Manufacturing Professional Science Technical

44

Table 4. Key Management Area Ratings by Specific Industry Sector

Key Management Area Education Manufacturing Professional Scientific Technical

Governance 5.7 4.6 5.9

Leadership 5.6 3.8 6.1

Planning 5.4 3.4 4.7

Customers 5.9 4.5 5.9

Employees 6.0 3.8 5.8

Work Processes 5.4 3.8 5.3

Suppliers & Partners 5.8 3.4 5.1

Resource Management 5.1 3.7 5.4

Continuous Improvement 5.5 3.8 5.4

Performance Measurement (KMA) 4.9 4.2 6.4

Performance Measurement (O) 6.0 4.3 5.9

N= Education (33), Manufacturing (69), Professional Science Technical (42)

With respect to specific industry sectors, there were three high responding sectors. The highest ratings across Key Management Areas were provided by the ‘Professional Scientific Technical’ and ‘Education’ sectors with an average of 5.6 and the Manufacturing sector was considerably lower at 4.0.

Highest and lowest ratings were evidenced for:

45

• Professional Scientific Technical sector - ‘Performance Measurement’ by Key Management Area (6.4), ‘Planning’ (4.7) Manufacturing sector - ‘Governance’ (4.6), both ‘Planning’ and’ Suppliers & Partners’ (3.4)

• Education sector - ‘Employees’ and ‘Performance Measurement for organization’ (6.0), ‘Performance Measurement by Key Management Area’ (4.9)

3.2.8 REGION Figure 18. Key Management Area Ratings by Region

Most average ratings were in the ‘good start’ to ‘doing well’ ranges for Micro size and Larger size organizations. The overall average rating was 5.2 for Micro size and 5.6 for Larger size organizations.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

East Asia & Pacific

Europe & Central Asia

Latin America

Middle East & North Africa

North Amercia

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Full Assessment by Region

Micro Small.Medium.Large

46

However, the overall average ratings for the Key Management Areas varied by region (4.1 to 6.7 for Micro size, 4.0 to 5.8 for Larger size) and within each region by size of organization (e.g. Middle East & North Africa 6.7 to 5.0).

It is important to note, there was only one respondent from a larger size organization from Sub-Saharan Africa and so caution should be exercised in drawing any conclusions about such in either the chart above or the table below (*).

Table 5. Key Management Area Ratings by Micro Size Organizations and Region Micro Size East Asia &

Pacific Europe &

Central Asia Latin America Middle East &

North Africa North America South Asia Sub-Saharan

Africa

Governance 3.7 6.5 5.4 5.8 6.4 5.9 5.4

Leadership 5.4 5.3 5.0 6.8 6.1 5.2 4.9

Planning 4.6 4.9 5.5 6.3 4.4 5.0 4.0

Customers 4.9 6.3 5.6 7.1 5.4 5.1 4.4

Employees 5.1 5.8 5.4 6.7 5.2 5.3 4.3

Work Processes 5.0 4.5 5.5 6.6 4.5 4.9 3.7

Suppliers & Partners 5.5 4.7 4.2 8.1 4.9 3.4 3.1

Resource Management 5.0 4.4 5.4 6.5 4.4 4.7 3.4

Continuous Improvement 4.5 5.1 5.4 6.5 4.5 5.6 4.3


Performance Measurement (O) 4.8 5.7 6.0 6.9 5.2 5.2 4.0

Average 4.9 5.3 5.3 6.7 5.1 5.0 4.1

47

N = 81 micro size organizations. East Asia & Pacific (7), Europe & Central Asia (13), Latin America & Caribbean (9 ), Middle East & North Africa (5), North America (32), South Asia (5), Sub-Saharan Africa (9 ), Unknown (1)

With respect to Micro size organizations, Governance area was the most frequently high rated area for four regions (Europe & Central Asia, North America, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa) and Resource Management was lowest rated area for three regions (Europe & Central Asia, North America, Sub-Saharan Africa).

Table 6. Key Management Area Ratings by Larger Size Organizations and Region Larger Size East Asia &

Pacific Europe &

Central Asia Latin America &

Caribbean Middle East & North Africa

North America South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa

Governance 5.6 5.3 5.8 5.5 4.9 6.5 8.3*

Leadership 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.0 4.1 6.0 8.4*

Planning 5.3 5.1 4.7 4.9 3.7 5.4 8.8*

Customers 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.0 4.4 6.3 9.2*

Employees 4.5 4.9 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.1 9.4*

Work Processes 5.1 4.6 5.3 4.9 3.7 5.7 9.7*

Suppliers & Partners 4.9 4.5 5.0 4.6 3.7 5.4 9.3*

Resource Management 4.6 4.9 4.8 5.2 3.9 5.6 9.1*

Continuous Improvement 5.6 4.8 5.1 4.7 3.8 6.1 9.1*

Performance Measurement (KMA) 5.6 4.8 5.0 5.1 3.5 5.8 8.7*

Performance Measurement (O) 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.2 4.4 6.3 8.5*

Average 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.0 4.0 5.8 9.0*

48

N = 157 larger size organizations (i.e. small, medium, large). East Asia & Pacific (15), Europe & Central Asia (24), Latin America & Caribbean (24), Middle East & North Africa (20), North America (50), South Asia (23), Sub-Saharan Africa (1*)

For Larger organizations, Governance was the most frequently high rated area for four regions (Latin American & Caribbean, Middle East & North Africa, North America, South Asia) and the most frequently low rated area was Employees for three regions (East Asia & Pacific, Middle East & North Africa, South Asia).

It is important to note once again that given the small sample size, these ratings should be interpreted with caution.

Figure 19. High Responding Countries

41

10 10

24

12

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Canada Colombia Greece India Trinidad & Tobago United States

High Responding Countries

49

Similar to the Teaser Assessment, the highest responding countries on the Full Assessment were Canada (41), United States (41), India (24), Columbia (10) and Greece (10). Another high responding country was Trinidad & Tobago (12).

3.2.9 KEY MANAGEMENT AREAS AND RELATED PRACTICES

3.2.9.1 Governance Figure 20. Ratings on the Key Management Area of Governance

N = 238

The Governance area was the highest rated Key Management Area with an average rating of 5.6.

All practices in the Governance area had average ratings in the ‘doing well’ range.

It was comforting to see the highest rated practice was applicable to organizations of every size, ‘Ensure governance system meets obligations’ (e.g. ethical, financial. legal, reporting).

5.4

5.3

6.2

5.4

5.3

5.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1.1 Governance responsibility to stakeholders

1.2 System of leadership, authority, decision making, accountability, control

1.3 Governance system meets obligations*

1.4 Governance processes at all appropriate levels in organization

1.5 Model of good practice for employers & people in the community

1.6 Communicate policy & strategy to stakeholders

Governance

50

By size of organization, this practice was rated a bit lower in Micro size (5.8) compared to Larger size (6.4) organizations).

Open-ended comments suggested:

• Strengths: o “We are privately owned but 3rd party audited and have been audited by the government with no issues” o “One of our key partners and past board member is a non-profit attorney. Legal compliance is always in the forefront of our

decision making. We also have a broad cross-section of experienced professionals with a good diversity of age and gender mix. All of which live by shared sound ethical and moral value system. Our Bylaws guide the foundation issues (all members and volunteers are familiar with the bylaws)”


o “Governance is all internal (the board is composed of the president and faculty chairs with no presence of other stakeholders). Board minutes are not published”

51

3.2.9.2 Leadership Figure 21. Ratings on the Key Management Area of Leadership

N = 238

About one-third of the Leadership practices were rated in the ‘good start’ range while the remainder were in the ‘doing well’ range.

Overall the Leadership area received an average rating of 5.2.

5.5

5.2

5.3

5.4

4.5

5.0

5.5

5.0

4.2

5.4

5.0

4.6

4.7

5.4

4.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2.1 Corporate statements (vision, mission, core values)*

2.2 Communicate corporate statements to all levels*

2.3 Factors that will contribute to organizational success

2.4 Strategic plan with goals & objectives

2.5 Risk management to assess strategic goals & objectives

2.6 Monitor & review the strategic plan

2.7 Senior management commitment to improvement*

2.8 Senior management participates in professional bodies & events

2.9 Remove barriers to organizational effectiveness

2.10 Promote teamwork amongst employees*

2.11 Communicate openly about organizational performance

2.12 Share responsibility, accountability, & leadership

2.13 Link senior management rewards & recognition to performance

2.14 Demonstrate responsibility to society & the environment*

2.15 Learn from ideas & good practices & share internally & externally

Leadership

52

The highest rated practices were ‘Develop corporate statements’ and ‘Ensure senior management demonstrates commitment to continual improvement’ while the lowest rated practice was ‘Remove barriers to organizational effectiveness’.

When comparing different size organizations, it was noted that ‘Develop corporate statements’ was rated lower by Micro size (4.7) as compared to Larger size (5.9) and both ‘Ensure senior management demonstrates commitment to continuous improvement’ and ‘Promote teamwork amongst employees’ was rated higher by Micro size (6.3 and 6.4) as compared to Larger size organizations (5.1 and 4.9).

Several open-ended comments supported the ratings:

• Strengths:

o ‘We regularly review and refresh our Vision, Mission, Values statements to ensure common understanding and buy-in. Everyone is familiar with these statements and fundamentally are compliant and aligned to support them”

o “Great commitment to building a culture of continuous improvement”

• Opportunities:

o “Funding for proper staff development”

o “Education. Education. Education. Or, if you prefer, re-education. We must empower human beings. We must empower human potential“

o “Many of our 'workers' are volunteers and often have other full time employment. This challenges us to move quickly on agreed upon strategies and tactics (with conflicting interests). I am working on improving volunteer recruiting, on-boarding, training, engaging, rewarding and otherwise retaining volunteers”

o “We should embrace and communicate a continuous improvement model - that can be clearly communicated to associates and clients and become part of our brand”

53

3.2.9.3 Planning Figure 22, Ratings on the Key Management Area of Planning

N = 238

Planning was one of the lowest rated Key Management Areas with an overall average score of 4.7.

While most practices were rated in the ‘good start’ range, there was one practice in the ‘doing well’ range, ‘Use factual information to provide input to the business planning process’.

The lowest rated practices were future oriented practices such as ‘Develop contingency plans for unforeseen events’ and ‘Conduct a capability gap analysis for resources’.

Open-ended comments supported the ratings and included:

• Strengths: o “Strong planning capabilities”

5.2 4.9

3.9 4.6

4.8 3.9

4.6 4.8 4.8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.1 Factual information as input to business planning*3.2 Business plan that supports strategic direction*

3.3 Contingency plans for unforeseen events3.4 Communicate & integrate business plan internally & externally3.5 Allocate resources to ensure implementation of business plan

3.6 Conduct capability gap analysis for resources3.7 Reallocate resource requirements to adjust for change3.8 Monitor & review the business plan on a regular basis*

3.9 Make changes to the business plan aimed at improvement*

Planning

54

o “All staff engaged and educated on planning” o “Great business planning process, we review everyday 90 days and make changes if need it“ o “We have business planning that is flexible to changing environments - this is an asset unique to small "sole proprietor" or small

companies. We have a terrific network and knowledgeable team leaders/board that help to provide input into priorities” o “Require that the board members are from various sectors and bring their knowledge to the table that we can pool from” o “Individual & informal ways to collect data through connections & word of mouth and observations. Defined targets for main

departments, discussed between heads of departments and top management. Yearly plan for some departments. Flexible in changing plans to meet market needs and managers quickly adapt”

• Opportunities: o “I don't know that there is a business plan. I don't know that there are good measures for success, or even what the objectives

are” o “Contingency planning is limited to disaster recovery” o “Allocate resources to ensure effective implementation of the business plan” o “More active risk management” o “Company is more reactive than planful” o “Risk assessment, emergency management, updating contingency plans”

55

3.2.9.4 Customers Figure 23. Ratings on the Key Management Area of Customers

N = 238

The Customers area received an overall average rating of 5.4.

Most practices were rated in the ‘doing well’ range with the exception of ‘Use research to define and segment customers’ and ‘Train employees to be advocates for the customer’ that were rated in the ‘good start’ range.

The highest rated practices were ‘Communicate the value of products and services to the customer’ and “Align employees on the importance of the customer’.

When examining the ratings for different size organizations, it was noted that ‘Use research to define and segment customers’ was rated lower by Micro size (4.1) as compared to Larger size (5.3) and that ‘Train and empower employees to be advocates for the customer’ was rated higher by Micro size (5.6) as compared to Larger size (4.5) organizations.

4.9

5.6

5.7

5.7

4.9

5.2

5.3

5.6

5.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4.1 Research to define & segment customers*

4.2 Determine customer needs & expectations*

4.3 Communicate value of products & services to customer*

4.4 Align employees on importance of customer*

4.5 Train & empower employees to be advocates for customer*

4.6 Positive customer experiences by managing contact points*

4.7 Make it easy for customer to do business & provide feedback*

4.8 Respond successfully to customer feedback*

4.9 Reaffirm presence in established markets

Customers

56

Amongst the open-ended comments, it was noted:

• Strengths: o “We are a committed - even zealous team of leaders with full commitment to customer value. We are all empowered to act on

behalf of our customer needs, wants, suggestions and complaints” o “We always seek to understand the customer and their needs, with dialogue, diagnosis tools, strategic thinking and feedback

with a collaborative warm and genuine style” o “We do a very good job at communicating the value of the products and services because we do not aim to be the least expensive

supplier”

• Opportunities o “Need to access more relevant and detailed information, and evidence based data“ o ”Customer segments are not defined” o “Lack of adequate training for sales people on benefits of products” o “Need to segment customers and put more focus on VIP to identify needs and expectations” o “We should assess client needs formally at the outset of the relationship, and we should always conduct an exit survey to ensure

we are building on our strengths and identifying weaknesses for continuous improvement” o “We don't put the customer first above all else; we sometimes treat them like an interruption; we never talk about how to

improve it for them - only how to avoid tax impacts; staff could be more proactive in dealing with customers”

57

3.2.9.5 Employees Figure 24. Ratings on the Key Management Area of Employees

N = 238

The Employees area received an overall average rating of 5.0. Ratings were evenly divided between the ‘good start’ and ‘doing well’ categories.

Overall the Employees area received an average rating of 4.9.

4.7

5.1

5.1

4.5

4.6

5.3

3.8

5.0

5.0

4.6

5.3

4.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.1 Human resource planning that supports goals & objectives*

5.2 Recruit & select people for mutual success*

5.3 Promote equal opportunity & diversity

5.4 People understand & commit to the strategic direction

5.5 Get people involved with improvement initiatives

5.6 Encourage employees to share ideas & suggestions

5.7 Encourage employees to be innovative & take risks

5.8 Determine and deliver training to employees*

5.9 Employees have adequate compensation & benefits*

5.10 Reward & recognize performance of individuals & teams *

5.11 Ensure healthy workplace environment*

5.12 Remove barriers to employee effectiveness

Employees

58

The highest rated practices were ‘Encourage employees to share ideas and suggestions’ and ‘Ensure healthy workplace environment and involve people in addressing issues related to health and wellness’. The lowest rated practice was ‘Encourage employees to be innovative and take risks’.

For different size organizations, there were two practices rated quite differently. ‘Encourage employees to share ideas and suggestions’ and ‘Reward and recognize strong performance of both individuals and teams’ were rated higher by Micro size (6.4 and 5.4) as compared to Larger size (4.7 and 4.2) organizations.

Open-ended comments included:

• Strengths: o “Our strength is our people. We celebrate milestones and ownership does the talking about them. Employees make changes to

make things better and can offer ideas and be responsible for them” o “Employees are encouraged to share ideas” o “Over half of all employees have actually been on improvement events and actively worked in teams to enhance the performance

and capabilities of their fellow workers” o “Staffs been able to accommodate the different cultures and background to each” o “Health and wellness is good! Excellent safety programs; a great amount of effort is put into keeping employees safe, healthy

and engaged” o “We have had 1 time loss accident in 26 years”

• Opportunities:

o “Learning from those we interview and work with” o “Remove fear of failures” o “Support employees to take risk aligned with mission” o “Working with employees to become more self- regulated and directed in making decisions to advance vision, mission and stated

purposes” o “We need to engage more people from the membership with skills and talents that can be more useful, the membership as a

whole should be more engaged. How do we do that? Ongoing problem, I think”

59

3.2.9.6 Work Processes Figure 25. Ratings on the Key Management Area of Work Processes

N = 238

Work processes was one of the lowest rated areas with an overall average rating of 4.7.

All practices were rated in the ‘good start’ category with the exception of ‘Take corrective action when problems occur’ and ‘Design and document key processes which were rated in the ‘doing well’ category.

The lowest rated practices were collaborative activities such as ‘Involve customers, suppliers and partners in designing and analyzing processes’ and “Use external data to compare performance to other organizations’.

When examining different size organizations, ‘Design and document key processes’ was rated lower for Micro size (4.5) as compared to Larger size (5.4) organizations.

5.1 4.8 4.8

4.6 5.8

4.8 4.6

4.8 3.6

3.9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.1 Design & document key processes*6.2 Monitor & control processes to ensure service standards met *6.3 Monitor & control processes to ensure system standards met*

6.4 Processes are in place to anticipate or adjust for change6.5 Take corrective action when problems occur*

6.6 Prevent recurrence of problems by making changes to processes*6.7 Analyze processes on regular basis & improve*

6.8 Communicate changes in process to relevant employees*6.9 Involve customers, suppliers, & partners in processes *

6.10 Use external data to compare performance to others

Work Processes

60

The open-ended comments supported the ratings and included:

• Strengths:

o “We have some very good stable processes for our key products in documents, examples, flowcharts etc”

o “Critical work processes well defined”

o “All processes mapped as cross functional flowcharts and turtle diagrams that provide clear picture”

o “Commitment to documenting processes”

• Opportunities:

o “Break down silos. Too many reorganizations“

o “Need to get back to basics, better train our people in processes and how they are interconnected across the value stream. No real understanding of continuous improvement ideology. Need top-down education”

o “We have less of a focus to routinely analyze our processes, keep them contemporary with all the products we have”

o “We need to involve our suppliers in our culture of excellence journey”

o “Get more input from suppliers and customers on how they think we preformed”

o “Benchmarking is limited and could be expanded ”

61

3.2.9.7 Suppliers & Partners Figure 26. Ratings on the Key Management Area of Suppliers & Partners

N = 238

Suppliers & Partners was one of the lowest rated areas with an overall average rating of 4.6.

All practices were rated in the ‘good start’ category with the exception of ‘Select supplies on the basis of criteria’ which were rated in the ‘doing well’ category.

The lowest rated practices were collaborative activities such as ‘Involve suppliers and partners in the development of new products and services’ and “Involve suppliers and partners in the development of social and environmental standards’.

When considering the data for different size organizations, ’Select suppliers on the basis of criteria’ was rated lower by Micro size (4.4) as compared to Larger size (5.5) organizations.

5.1

4.9

4.5

4.1

3.8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.1 Select suppliers & partners on the basis of criteria*

7.2 Develop win-win partnering arrangements*

7.3 Share information with suppliers & partners that links to plans*

7.4 Involve suppliers & partners in new products & services

7.5 Involve suppliers & partners in social & environmental standards


62

Amongst the open-ended comments:

• Strengths:

o “We have a few very strong sustained partnerships that are facilitating our growth and reputation. Partners have been selected and retained based on their past and current performance”

o “Clear process of supplier selection and purchasing function”

o “Hard data for analyzing supplier performance”

o “We have a solid supplier selection and supplier development program. We do a good job sharing our business plans with our suppliers”

o “Strong relationships with suppliers. Evaluate them holistically, not just on price”

• Opportunities:

o “Involve suppliers in planning and development stages”

o “Additional collaborative relationships. Corporate social responsibility”

o “We don't often collaborate with suppliers for new products or services”

o “Running at less than 30 % of potential as a whole. Leadership seems oblivious and must only be focussing on numbers not what is actually happening ”

63

3.2.9.8 Resource Management Figure 27. Ratings on the Key Management Area of Resource Management

N = 238

Resource Management was one of the lowest rated areas with an overall average rating of 4.6.

All practices were rated in the ‘good start’ category with the exception of ‘Manage the security if resources’ and ‘Manage the maintenance and utilization of assets to improve life cycle performance’ which were rated in the ‘doing well’ category.

The lowest rated practices were collaborative and future oriented activities such as ‘Provide appropriate access for stakeholders to relevant knowledge and information’ and ‘Identify alternative and emerging technology and related cost benefit’, ‘Prepare for resource interruptions’ respectively.

Examining different size organizations, ‘Define resource requirements’ was rated slightly lower by Micro size (4.4) as compared to Larger size (5.2) organizations.

4.9 4.5

5.0 4.8

5.0 4.4 4.4

4.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.1 Define resource requirements*8.2 Develop a strategy to manage resources effectively*

8.3 Manage the security of resources8.4 Minimize the adverse impact of products & services*

8.5 Manage assets to improve life cycle performance8.6 Identify emerging technology & cost-benefit

8.7 Access for stakeholders to knowledge & information8.8 Prepare for resource interruptions

Resource Management

64


• Strengths:

o “We effectively steward our resources and minimize any negative impact on our communities” o “Good resource allocation and management” o “Strong resource utilization and maintenance schedules”

• Opportunities:

o “Lack of resources management, including availability and maintenance” o “Identify more current technologies and invest in the future as opposed to applying band aids to aging equipment” o “We have not spent as much as we should on using emerging technology to our benefit in the manufacturing process” o “We are catching up with technology and we have very limited budgets so this is a challenge” o “Client service is still a bit old school (limited online access)” o “We need to be more proactive about sharing our news, strengths and successes” o “Departments need to develop a mindset of sharing information with residents” o “Some resistance to new ideas/processes/innovation” o “Currently working on business continuity process”

65

3.2.9.9 Continuous Improvement & Performance Measurement

3.2.9.9.1 Continuous Improvement by Key Management Area Figure 28. Ratings on Continuous Improvement by Key Management Area

N = 238

Reflecting on Continuous Improvement by Key Management Areas had an overall average rating of 4.8.

All areas were rated in the ‘good start’ category with the exception of ‘Leadership’ and ‘Customers’ which were rated in the ‘doing well’ category.

The lowest rated areas were ‘Suppliers & Partners’ and ‘Resource Management’.

4.8

5.3

4.8

5.4

4.9

4.8

4.3

4.4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9.1.1 Governance

9.1.2 Leadership

9.1.3 Planning

9.1.4 Customers

9.1.5 Employees

9.1.6 Work Processes

9.1.7 Suppliers & Partners

9.1.8 Resource Management

Continuous Improvement by Key Management Area

66


• Strengths:

o “Company willingness to improve overall performance” o “Culture for continuous improvement appears strong” o “Laser focus strategy based upon customer needs, Strategy deployment. Partnership with all stakeholders”

• Opportunities:

o “Need for more internal resource development” o ”All of the above would be great if we had additional revenue and staff” o “Implement the system of continuous improvement across all levels and ensure proper measurement and monitoring”

67

3.2.9.9.2 Performance Measurement by Key Management Area Figure 29. Ratings on Performance Measurement by Key Management Area

N = 157 (note: includes small, medium and large size organizations)

Overall the Performance Measurement by Key Management Areas had an average rating of 4.7.

Larger organizations with more than 25 employees should have a balanced system of measurement in place, a handful of measures that provide feedback on how well the management system is performing across Key Management Areas.

Respondent ratings were in the ‘good start’ category for most Key Management Areas with the exception of ‘Customer measures’ which was in the ‘doing well’ category. The lowest rated areas were ‘Supplier and Partner’ and ‘Resource Management’ measures.

Open-ended comments suggested:

• Strengths:

4.6

4.7

4.9

5.0

4.8

4.8

4.4

4.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9.2.1 Governance measures

9.2.2 Leadership measures

9.2.3 Planning measures

9.2.4 Customer measures

9.2.5 Employee measures

9.2.6 Work process measures

9.2.7 Supplier & partner measures

9.2.8 Resource management measures

Performance Measurement by Key Management Area

68

o “Continuous improvement and measurement with customers and partners with satisfaction feedback is important to us, great testimonials, referrals, further opportunities to impact and influence the customer organization and the wider community at large”

o “We have had good success in our business. We have high employee satisfaction and a low turnover of employees. We review with customers to ensure we are delivering the value to them. Our warranty rate is quite low”

• Opportunities:

o “Internal measurement of our planning and work processes could be improved” o “Performance measurements are lacking. No continual improvement process in place”

3.2.9.9.3 Performance Measurement for Organization Figure 30. Ratings on Performance Measurement for the Organization

N = 238 (note: micro size organizations only include responses to four measures quality of products or services, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, financial performance)

5.4 4.7

5.1 4.8

6.0 5.0

5.7 5.3 5.4

4.7 4.7

5.1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9.3.1 Organizational relevance to the marketplace9.3.2 Organizational capability to manage change

9.3.3 Meeting stakeholder objectives9.3.4 Organization as model of excellence or employer of choice

9.3.5 Quality of products or services *9.3.6 Performance accomplishments & program outcomes

9.3.7 Customer satisfaction *9.3.8 Customer loyalty

9.3.9 Customer confidence9.3.10 Employee satisfaction *

9.3.11 Employee morale9.3.12 Financial performance *

Performance Measurement for Organization

69

Overall the Performance Measurement for organization had an average rating of 5.2.

In this area, Micro size organizations should have four organization wide measures in place (i.e. Quality of product and service, Customer satisfaction, Employees satisfaction, Financial performance) while Larger organizations should use a more robust set of measures. In both cases, using the same measures as high performing organizations sets the stage for internal tracking external comparison.

Respondent ratings suggested organizations were using a fairly balanced system of measurement, particularly to gauge the ‘Quality of products and services’ and ‘Customer satisfaction’ and, for larger size organizations, ‘Organizational relevance to the marketplace’. The lowest rated measures by respondents from Larger size organizations were ‘Organizational ability to manage change’ and ‘Employee morale’ and for all size organizations was ‘Employee satisfaction’. In addition, there was a slight difference in ratings on ‘Financial performance’ where the rating was lower for Micro size (4.5) as compared to Larger size (5.3) organizations.

• Strengths: o “Strong financial performance with limited risk” o “High level of customer satisfaction” o “Superior work-life balance” o “An employee satisfaction survey is done every other year”

• Opportunities:

o “There is ongoing assessment of performance but in a financial and inventory control context. There is not specific culture of ongoing quality improvement across various elements of operations. We have not been thinking in that context”

o “Enhanced culture of quality, excellence and improvement that goes beyond compliance with registration and accreditation criteria, standards and requirements”

o “Need to do more work in the area of employee morale and satisfaction”

70

3.2.9.10 Comparison Table 7. Variation in Ratings for Respondents Within an Organization on the Full Assessment # Leadership Management Staff Other Size Type General Sector Specific Sector Country STDEV

1 0 0 0 2 Large Government Service Public Administration Canada 1.11

2 1 1 0 0 Large Government Service Human Health Saudi Arabia 0.77


4 2 0 0 0 Medium Business Manufacturing Manufacturing India 1.11


6 0 2 0 0 Medium Business Manufacturing Manufacturing Iraq 1.12

7 1 3 0 0 Medium Business Manufacturing Manufacturing Columbia 0.92

8 2 0 0 0 Small Non-Profit Service Education Lebanon 0.45

9 0 2 0 0 Small Business Service Construction India 1.03


11 0 2 0 0 Micro Business Service Professional Chile 1.93

12 1 0 1 0 Micro Non-Profit Service Education Greece 1.88

13 0 1 1 1 Micro Non-Profit Service Professional Canada 1.96

N = 13 organizations. Leadership (9), Management (14), Staff (7), Other (4)

On the Full Assessment, thirteen organizations had more than one respondent and provided an opportunity to see the variability in the ratings. Ideally, with high performing organizations there should be little variability in the ratings as employees are well aware of the management system, engaged and involved in initiatives and well informed about organizational performance.

71

The foregoing table itemizes the roles of the respondents and describes the organization with respect to size, type, sector and country. Once again, the standard deviation was used to measure the variability in the respondent ratings overall and ranged from 0.45 to 2.1.

As stated earlier in the report, these statistics reinforce the importance of including most employees in the self-assessment to gauge the degree of agreement and to examine the open-ended comments that provide rationale for the ratings. In addition, open-ended comments provide suggestions and ideas that describe opportunities for improvement that can be tested and often lead to quick wins and longer term initiatives that provide a good return on investment.

Important to note with the Full Assessment that each principle is directly related to specific best management practices in the Key Management Areas and the analysis of results will provide additional information with respect to where the organization should concentrate effort. For example, if an organization is experiencing a low rating (or issues) on ‘People involvement’ it may discover that all touch points are rated quite favorably with the exception of one practice in the Planning area, ‘Share responsibility, accountability, and leadership throughout the organization’ and when this practice is successfully implemented leads to a higher rating on the principle.

More information on the interrelationships between the Principles and best management practices is available here https://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/OES_RelationshipDocument_March28.pdf

3.2.9.11 Summary

The ratings on the Principles for the Full Assessment were similar to the ratings on the Principles for the Teaser Assessment. ‘Focus on the customer’ and ‘Leadership involvement’ were rated the highest and ‘Prevention based process management’ and ‘Data based decision making’ were rated the lowest.

On the Full Assessment, there was a significant drop in the ratings between the Principles and the Key Management Areas.

Of the Key Management Areas, ‘Governance’ was rated the highest and both ‘Suppliers & Partners’ and ‘Resource Management’ were rated the lowest.

The Key Management Areas were rated more positively by respondents in:

• A Leadership role

https://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/OES_RelationshipDocument_March28.pdf

72

• Small size organizations • Non-profit and business type organizations • Education and Professional Science Technical as specific industry sectors • Micro size organizations in the Middle East & North Africa and Larger size organizations in South Asia

The highest rated practices (5.7 to 6.2) across the Key Management Areas were:

• Governance – ‘Ensure governance system meets legal, financial, ethical and reporting obligations’ • Customers – ‘Communicate the value of products and services to the customer’, ‘Align employees on the importance of the customer’ • Performance Measurement for the Organization – ‘Quality of products or services’, ‘Customer satisfaction’

The lowest rated practices (3.6 to 3.9) across the Key Management Areas were:

• Planning – ‘Develop contingency plans for unforeseen events’ , ‘Conduct a capability gap analysis for resources’ • Employees – ‘Encourage employees to be innovative and take risks’ • Work Processes – ‘Involve customers, suppliers and/or partners in designing and analyzing processes’ , ‘Use external data to compare

performance to other organizations’ • Suppliers & Partners – ‘Involve suppliers & partners in the development of social and environmental standards’

The comparison exercise showed differing degrees of variation in the ratings for respondents from the same organization. It reinforced the importance of including all employees in a self-assessment of the organization in order to get adequate feedback on the culture, deployment of best management practices and interrelationships between the Principles and the practices.

73

4 CONCLUSIONS

As intended, this study has added to the literature by examining the current state of excellence in organizations along a wider continuum that spans low to high awareness about excellence models. With 1,029 respondents, the study has provided a preliminary snapshot that will be valuable for the excellence community in general and the working population at large.

Reflecting on the study, conclusions have been fourfold.

First, for the excellence community this snapshot has provided some preliminary insights about how study respondents rated the culture of excellence and deployment of best management practices in their organizations. While the respondents rated the culture of excellence quite positively, their ratings on the Key Management Areas were significantly lower.

Both micro size and business organizations responded with greater frequency which may suggest this segment is particularly receptive to the topic of organizational excellence and to gauging how their organizations measures up.

Considering the ratings on both the Teaser and Full Assessments, many organizations appear to be moving toward a culture of excellence and the deployment of best management practices. On the culture of excellence or the nine Principles, the greatest strengths were ‘Leadership involvement’ and ‘Focus on the customer’ and the greatest opportunities for improvement were ‘Prevention based process management’ and ‘Data based decision making’. With respect to the Full Assessment and the Key Management Areas, there appear to be strengths to build on in the Key Management Areas of ‘Governance’ and ‘Customers’ and the greatest opportunities for improvement in:

• Empowerment practice – ‘Encourage employees to be innovative and take risks’ • Future oriented practices - ‘Develop contingency plans for unforeseen events’, ‘Conduct capability gap for resources’ • Collaborative practices - ‘Involve customers, Suppliers & Partners in designing and analyzing processes’, ‘Use external data to compare

performance to other organizations’

The comparison exercise for both the Teaser and Full Assessment showed variability and reinforced the importance of inviting all employees in the organization to participate in the self-assessment so the ratings and open-ended comments from the entire workforce could be considered and leveraged to realize improvement.

74

The path is clear for the excellence community. To work together and create more awareness, understanding and application of excellence models so that organizations can improve performance.

Second, for the working population this study provided some meaningful insights for:

• Governments providing support to industry and growing their economy and trade

• Businesses attracting and serving their customers

• Non-profit associations delivering value for members

• Educational institutions developing skills with students that will be valued by future employers

• industry sectors strengthening overall performance

• Research entities conducting follow-on studies

The next step for these segments is to explore in more detail what can be done to add value for their cause.

Third, this study was received well by respondents as evidenced by their positive comments. It has reinforced the research should be continued. Examples of such comments included those from:

• Micro size organizations:

o “Good and insightful survey, gives a framework for self-assessment”

o “I would love to receive a copy of the result of this great study”

o “Very thorough high-level survey. Eager to see the combined responses. I sense a lot of opportunity for improvement in more areas”

o “Though I'm a single person company, the questions by themselves put into perspective issues I need to consider to grow the business and leave the legacy to my kids and grand-kids”

o “If nothing else this simple survey points out just how ad hoc and unstructured our company is - and this may be one of the reasons that we seem to be adrift at the moment”

75

• Larger size organizations:

o “Survey was good self- assessment. It allowed me to look again at performance in various elements”

o “We are indeed on a journey leading to improved results”

• Organizations that have recently embarked on the excellence journey:

o “It's inspiring to see a focus on excellence. Continued focus on this should have a good payback. It's been really neat to see how much things have changed and improved in a year. The future looks bright!”

o “Company X has a lot to work towards but also has come a long way within the last year”

By continuing the research, this enthusiasm can be expanded and an annual index can be published so the current state of organizational excellence can be monitored and used by the excellence community to provide programs and by the working population to improve performance and gauge progress internally and externally.

Fourth, the study should move from an informal research approach with well qualified volunteers to a more formal research study with some of the same professionals so that a significant sample size can be achieved by organizations size, industry sector and country (region).

This change will lead to developing a valid and reliable index that can be confidently used from year to year by the excellence community and the working population.

By leveraging these conclusions, it is suggested the excellence community and working population can work together to monitor and build on the results in a manner that allows different size organizations, industry sectors and countries to participate in a more competitive and sustainable way in the global economy. Such an effort will ultimately make the world a better place for future generations.

76

APPENDIX 1 – World Bank Grouping

World Development Indicators 2017 viivi World Development Indicators 2017

Romania

Serbia

Greece

Bulg

aria

Ukra

ine

Germ

any

FYRMacedonia

Croatia

Bosnia andHerzegovina

CzechRepublic

Poland

Hungary

Italy

Austria

Slovenia

SlovakRepublic

KosovoMontenegro

Albania

SanMarino

Europe Inset

Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

Sint Maarten (Neth.)

Saint-Martin (Fr.)

Aruba (Neth.)

Curaçao (Neth.)

Dominica

Grenada

Saint Kitts and Nevis

U.S. VirginIslands (U.S.)

British VirginIslands (U.K.)

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent &the Grenadines

DominicanRepublic

R.B. de VenezuelaTrinidad andTobago

Puerto Rico(U.S.)

Anguilla (U.K.)

Martinique (Fr.)

Guadeloupe (Fr.)

Saint-Barthélemy (Fr.)

Montserrat (U.K.)

Saba (Neth.)Sint Eustatius (Neth.)

Bonaire(Neth.)

Caribbean Inset

BurkinaFaso

SolomonIslands

Vanuatu

United States

Canada

Costa RicaNicaragua

El SalvadorGuatemala

Mexico

Colombia

R.B. deVenezuela

Ecuador

Peru Brazil

Bolivia

Paraguay

Chile Argentina Uruguay

Norway

Iceland

Sweden Finland

Denmark

Poland Belarus

UkraineMoldova

Romania

Bulgaria

Greece

Germany

Morocco

Tunisia

Algeria

MauritaniaMali

Senegal

Guinea

Côted’Ivoire

Ghana

Togo

Benin

Niger

Nigeria

LibyaArab Rep.of Egypt

Chad

Cameroon

CentralAfrican

Republic

Equatorial Guinea

Gabon

Angola

Dem.Rep.of Congo

Eritrea

Djibouti

Ethiopia

Somalia

KenyaUganda

RwandaBurundiTanzania

ZambiaMalawi

MozambiqueZimbabwe

BotswanaNamibia

Swaziland

LesothoSouthAfrica

Madagascar

Rep. ofYemen

Oman

United ArabEmirates

QatarSaudiArabia

Kuwait

IsraelJordan

Lebanon

SyrianArabRep.

Cyprus

Iraq Islamic Rep.of Iran

Turkey

Azer-baijanArmenia

GeorgiaTurkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Kazakhstan

Afghanistan

Tajikistan

KyrgyzRep.

Pakistan

India

BhutanNepal

Bangladesh

Myanmar

SriLanka

Thailand

LaoPDR

Vietnam

Cambodia

Malaysia

Philippines

PapuaNew Guinea

Indonesia

Australia

NewZealand

JapanRep.ofKorea

Dem.People’sRep.of Korea

Mongolia

China

Russian Federation

Sudan

SouthSudan

GuyanaSuriname

CubaHaiti

JamaicaHonduras

Cuba

Belize

Netherlands

Ireland

Portugal Spain

U.K.Belgium

Switzerland

Lithuania

EstoniaLatviaRussian

Fed.

Panama

Rep. ofCongo

Fiji

KiribatiNauru

Fiji

Tuvalu

MarshallIslands

Palau

Kiribati

Federated Statesof Micronesia

Tonga

Samoa

Timor-Leste

The BahamasCayman Is. (U.K.)

Andorra

Monaco

France

Malta

Bahrain

BruneiDarussalam

Singapore

Seychelles

Mauritius

MaldivesSão Tomé and Príncipe

CaboVerde

Comoros

N. Mariana Islands (U.S.)

Guam (U.S.)

Turks and Caicos Is. (U.K.)

Bermuda(U.K.)

FrenchPolynesia (Fr.)

AmericanSamoa (U.S.)

Mayotte(Fr.)

La Réunion(Fr.)

West Bank and Gaza

Hong Kong SAR, ChinaMacao SAR, China

Liechtenstein

LuxembourgChannel Islands (U.K.)

Gibraltar (U.K.)

Isle of Man (U.K.)

FaroeIslands(Den.)

KosovoMontenegro

Sierra LeoneLiberia

Guinea-Bissau

TheGambia

NewCaledonia

(Fr.)

Greenland(Den.)

WesternSahara

French Guiana (Fr.)

Note: These regions include economies at all income levels, and may differ from common geographic usage or from regions defined by other organizations. For more information see https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org /knowledgebaserticles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.

Grenada Upper middle incomeGuatemala Lower middle incomeGuyana Upper middle incomeHaiti Low incomeHonduras Lower middle incomeJamaica Upper middle incomeMexico Upper middle incomeNicaragua Lower middle incomePanama Upper middle incomeParaguay Upper middle incomePeru Upper middle incomePuerto Rico High incomeSint Maarten High incomeSt. Kitts and Nevis High incomeSt. Lucia Upper middle incomeSt. Martin High incomeSt. Vincent and the Grenadines Upper middle incomeSuriname Upper middle income

Trinidad and Tobago High incomeTurks and Caicos Islands High incomeUruguay High incomeVenezuela, RB Upper middle incomeVirgin Islands (U.S.) High income

Middle East and North AfricaAlgeria Upper middle incomeBahrain High incomeDjibouti Lower middle incomeEgypt, Arab Rep. Lower middle incomeIran, Islamic Rep. Upper middle incomeIraq Upper middle incomeIsrael High incomeJordan Upper middle incomeKuwait High incomeLebanon Upper middle incomeLibya Upper middle income

Malta High incomeMorocco Lower middle incomeOman High incomeQatar High incomeSaudi Arabia High incomeSyrian Arab Republic Lower middle incomeTunisia Lower middle incomeUnited Arab Emirates High incomeWest Bank and Gaza Lower middle incomeYemen, Rep. Lower middle income

North AmericaBermuda High incomeCanada High incomeUnited States High income

South AsiaAfghanistan Low incomeBangladesh Lower middle income

Bhutan Lower middle incomeIndia Lower middle incomeMaldives Upper middle incomeNepal Low incomePakistan Lower middle incomeSri Lanka Lower middle income

Sub- Saharan AfricaAngola Upper middle incomeBenin Low incomeBotswana Upper middle incomeBurkina Faso Low incomeBurundi Low incomeCabo Verde Lower middle incomeCameroon Lower middle incomeCentral African Republic Low incomeChad Low incomeComoros Low income

Congo, Dem. Rep. Low incomeCongo, Rep. Lower middle incomeCôte d’Ivoire Lower middle incomeEquatorial Guinea Upper middle incomeEritrea Low incomeEthiopia Low incomeGabon Upper middle incomeGambia, The Low incomeGhana Lower middle incomeGuinea Low incomeGuinea-Bissau Low incomeKenya Lower middle incomeLesotho Lower middle incomeLiberia Low incomeMadagascar Low incomeMalawi Low incomeMali Low incomeMauritania Lower middle incomeMauritius Upper middle income

Mozambique Low incomeNamibia Upper middle incomeNiger Low incomeNigeria Lower middle incomeRwanda Low incomeSão Tomé and Principe Lower middle incomeSenegal Low incomeSeychelles High incomeSierra Leone Low incomeSomalia Low incomeSouth Africa Upper middle incomeSouth Sudan Low incomeSudan Lower middle incomeSwaziland Lower middle incomeTanzania Low incomeTogo Low incomeUganda Low incomeZambia Lower middle incomeZimbabwe Low income

The world by regionClassified according to World Bank analytical grouping

East Asia and Pacific

Europe and Central Asia

Latin America and Caribbean

Middle East and North Africa

North America

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

78

APPENDIX 2 – International Standard Industrial Classification

79

ISIC Overview

A. Agriculture, Forestry, & Fishing – crop, animal production, hunting; forestry and logging; fishing and aquaculture B. Mining and Quarrying – coals and lignite; crude petroleum, natural gas; metal ores; other mining and quarrying; mining support C. Manufacturing – food; beverage; tobacco; textile; wearing apparel; leather and related; wood, cork, straw, plaiting; paper and

related; printing, recorded media; coke, refined petroleum; chemical and related; pharmaceuticals, medicinal, botanical; rubber, plastics; other non-metallic mineral; basic metals; fabricated metal; computer, electronic, optical; electrical equipment; machinery and equipment; motor vehicles, trailers, semi- trailers; other transport equipment; furniture; other manufacturing; repair and installation machinery and equipment

D. Electricity, Gas, Steam and Air Conditioning Supply – electricity, gas, steam, air conditioning E. Water Supply, Sewerage, Waste Management and Remediation Activities - water collection, treatment, supply; sewerage; waste

collection, treatment, disposal; remediation, waste management F. Construction – construction of buildings; civil engineering; specialized construction G. Wholesale and Retail Trade, Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles – wholesale, retail, repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles;

other wholesale trade; other retail trade H. Transportation and Storage – land, pipelines; water; air; warehousing and support; postal and courier I. Accommodation and Food Service Activities – accommodation; food and beverage J. Information and Communication – publishing; film, video, television, sound, music; programming, broadcasting;

telecommunications; computer programming and consulting; information K. Financial and Insurance Activities – financial; insurance, pension funding; auxiliary activities L. Real Estate Activities – real estate activities M. Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities – legal, accounting; management consulting; architectural, engineering, technical

testing; scientific research and development; advertising and market research; other professional; veterinary N. Administrative and Support Service Activities – rental, leasing; employment; travel agency, tour operator, reservation; security,

investigation; services to buildings and landscape; office administrative, support O. Public Administration and Defence and Compulsory Social Security – public administration, defence, social security P. Education – education Q. Human Health and Social Work Activities – human health; residential care; social work without accommodation R. Arts Entertainment and Recreation – creative, arts, entertainment; libraries, archives, museums, cultural; gambling, betting; sports,

amusement, recreation S. Other Service Activities –membership organizations; repair computers and household goods; other personal service T. Households as Employers and Producers of Goods-And-Services for Own Use -employers of domestic personnel; producers of goods

and services U. Activities of Extraterritorial Organizations and Bodies – extraterritorial organizations, bodies

80

APPENDIX 3 – List of Contributors

81

Name LinkedIn profile A. (Nima) Mirzazadeh https://www.linkedin.com/in/a-mirzazadeh-48459936/

Aamir Abbas https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aamir_Abbas1

Abdoukhadre Diao https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-abdoukhadre-diao-phd-09354077/ Abdullah Bany Hamdan https://www.linkedin.com/in/abdullah-bany-hamdan-8844a962/

AbdulRajak Rajvada https://www.linkedin.com/in/abdulrajak-rajvada-7505b510/

Abe Lucky https://www.linkedin.com/in/abe-lucky-6a973b168

Abraham Cyril Issac https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abraham_Issac

Achraf Harras https://www.linkedin.com/in/achrafharras/

Adeshola Kukoyi https://www.linkedin.com/in/adeshola-kukoyi-8862b52a/

Adianuar Azmin https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adianuar_Azmin Aditya Gupta https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-gupta-67a0bb5/ Adnan Nazir https://www.linkedin.com/in/adnan-nazir-88716836/

Adriana B. Rodriguez https://www.linkedin.com/in/adrianabrodriguez/ Ahmed A. El-Masry https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-ahmed-a-el-masry-64900810/

Ahmed Al-Ashaab https://www.linkedin.com/in/ahmed-al-ashaab-a4505410/ Ahmed Fakhry https://www.linkedin.com/in/ahmadfakhry/ Alaa Garad https://www.linkedin.com/in/alaagarad/

Alejandra Vicenttin https://www.linkedin.com/in/alejandravicenttin/ Alex Corral https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexcorral/ Alex Kogei https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexkogei/ Alexander Luckow https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexanderluckow/ Alexandre Edward Carlovich https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandrecarlovich/ Alfredo Ruggiero https://www.linkedin.com/in/alfredo-ruggiero-amicheme-8997ab5/ Ali Ghazi https://www.linkedin.com/in/ali-ghazi-891b0327/ Ali Kar https://www.linkedin.com/in/alirezakarb/ Alison Hughes https://www.linkedin.com/in/alisonhughes1/ Alka Maurya https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-alka-maurya-b13086b/ Altair Ciro Moraes https://www.linkedin.com/in/altairciro/

Aly B. Moreno https://www.linkedin.com/in/aly-b-moreno-h-b515b882/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/a-mirzazadeh-48459936/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aamir_Abbas1

https://www.linkedin.com/in/abdullah-bany-hamdan-8844a962/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/abdulrajak-rajvada-7505b510/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/abe-lucky-6a973b168

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abraham_Issac

https://www.linkedin.com/in/achrafharras/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/adeshola-kukoyi-8862b52a/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/adnan-nazir-88716836/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-ahmed-a-el-masry-64900810/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/alaagarad/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/altairciro/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/aly-b-moreno-h-b515b882/

82

Amit Kr. Dwivedi https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-amit-kr-dwivedi-72532217/ Amit Pal https://www.linkedin.com/in/amitpal17/ Amit S. Chakarpani https://www.linkedin.com/in/amit-s-chakarpani-phd-8399b7b/ An Kint https://www.linkedin.com/in/an-kint-0929103/ Ana Ferreras https://www.linkedin.com/in/ana-ferreras-93419a6/ Andy Kwong https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-kwong-268190164/ Annabelle Palladas https://www.linkedin.com/in/annabellepalladas/

André de Carvalho Sotero https://www.linkedin.com/in/acsotero/

Andre Medes de Carvalho https://www.linkedin.com/in/andremc/

Andrea Stefano Patrucco https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrea-stefano-patrucco-175a3239/ Andres Camilo Donosso https://www.linkedin.com/in/andres-camilo-donosso-tovar-66450b60/ Andrew Barrett https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-barrett-58a1071b/

Angappa Gunasekaran https://www.linkedin.com/in/angappa-gunasekaran-6b4170a/ Angelo Scangas https://www.linkedin.com/in/ascangas/ Anil Kumar https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-anil-kumar-2210a384/

Anirudh Duvvuri https://www.linkedin.com/in/anirudh-duvvuri-265511141/

Anna Grabowska-Grabiec https://www.linkedin.com/in/annagrabowska-grabiec/ Anna Pietraszek https://www.linkedin.com/in/pietraszekanna/ Anshuman Tiwari https://www.linkedin.com/in/anshuman/

Anslem Pessu https://www.linkedin.com/in/anslem-pessu-14136244

Anthony Miles https://www.linkedin.com/in/danthonymiles/

Anton Benc https://www.linkedin.com/in/anton-benc-33370313/

Apeksha Hooda https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Apeksha_Hooda

Arleta Guzowska-Kusaj https://www.linkedin.com/in/arleta-guzowska-kusaj-9192b922/ Ashish Khachane https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashish-khachane-ba099419/ Ata ur Rahman https://www.linkedin.com/in/ata-ur-rahman-mba-phri%E2%84%A2-cods-7631b857/

Athula Gnanapala https://www.linkedin.com/in/prof-athula-gnanapala-49024071/ Ayam Baya Harroum https://www.linkedin.com/in/ayam-baya-harroum-a2330225/ Ayca Kir https://www.linkedin.com/in/ay%C3%A7a-k%C4%B1r-1bb007136/

Ayed T. Al Amri https://www.linkedin.com/groups/103027/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-kwong-268190164/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/annabellepalladas/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/acsotero/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/andremc/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/andres-camilo-donosso-tovar-66450b60/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-barrett-58a1071b/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-anil-kumar-2210a384/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anirudh-duvvuri-265511141/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anshuman/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anslem-pessu-14136244

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danthonymiles/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anton-benc-33370313/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Apeksha_Hooda

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ata-ur-rahman-mba-phri%E2%84%A2-cods-7631b857/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ay%C3%A7a-k%C4%B1r-1bb007136/

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/103027/

83

Ayman Barakat https://www.linkedin.com/in/barakatayman/ Ayman Shoeeb https://www.linkedin.com/in/ayman-shoeeb-9318688/ Barb Semeniuk https://www.linkedin.com/in/barbsemeniuk/

Barbara Fura https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara_Fura2

Bilal Boubellouta https://www.linkedin.com/in/bilal-boubellouta-phd-12832a13a/ Bill Hefley https://www.linkedin.com/in/billhefley/ Blanca Padrino https://www.linkedin.com/in/bpadrinomsqacqa/ Brian Green https://www.linkedin.com/in/briangreen2/ Bruce Covington https://www.linkedin.com/in/bruce-covington-mba-ssbb-ba755a7/ Bruce Searles https://www.linkedin.com/in/bruce-searles-0398126b/

Bunny (Bhavikkumar) Gohil https://www.linkedin.com/in/the-bunny-gohil/ Carlos Lira Zalaquett https://www.linkedin.com/in/cliraz/

Casey Ang https://www.linkedin.com/in/caseyang/ Caterina Furia https://www.linkedin.com/in/caterina-furia-285981120/ Cathy Campanaro https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine-campanaro-cqa-cssgb-a8798bb/

Cesar Arturo Camargo Viloria https://www.linkedin.com/in/cesar-arturo-camargo-viloria-cqe-pmp-43021a24/ Chaitanya Baliga https://www.linkedin.com/in/cbaliga/ Chander Mohan Dhingra https://www.linkedin.com/in/chander-mohan-dhingra-4073b213/

Chetna Daswani https://www.linkedin.com/in/chetna-daswani-b08b2a10b/ Christian Michael Briza https://www.linkedin.com/in/christian-michael-briza-36610b17/ Christopher Chinapoo https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-chinapoo-a3b86134/ Christos Lampropoulos https://www.linkedin.com/in/christos-lampropoulos-607478141/ Cynthia St. John https://www.linkedin.com/in/cynthiastjohn/ D. Anthony Miles https://www.linkedin.com/in/danthonymiles/ D.S. Sukirno https://www.linkedin.com/in/sukirno-d-s-ph-d-00666a25/

Daisy Bo https://www.linkedin.com/in/daisy-bo-a96b161/ Dale Weeks https://www.linkedin.com/in/dale-weeks-61769b12/

Dalilis Escobar Rivera https://www.linkedin.com/in/dalilis-escobar-rivera-8a3622108/

Dan Duport https://www.linkedin.com/in/danduport/

Dan Trojacek https://www.linkedin.com/in/dantrojacek/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/barbsemeniuk/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara_Fura2

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bruce-searles-0398126b/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/cliraz/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine-campanaro-cqa-cssgb-a8798bb/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/chander-mohan-dhingra-4073b213/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sukirno-d-s-ph-d-00666a25/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dale-weeks-61769b12/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dalilis-escobar-rivera-8a3622108/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danduport/

84

Daniel Santos https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-santos-5687846/

Daniel Ulises Moreno Sánchez https://www.linkedin.com/in/iisdaniel/ Daniel Vargas https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-vargas-64210b26/ David Hoyle https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-hoyle-6686346/ David Little https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-little-99330415/ David Patrishkoff https://www.linkedin.com/in/davepatrishkoff/ Davorin Kralj https://www.linkedin.com/in/ddr-davorin-kralj-13883957/ Dawn Ringrose https://www.linkedin.com/in/dawnringrose/

Dean Hartley https://www.linkedin.com/in/dean-hartley-3394037/

Debashis Sarkar https://www.linkedin.com/in/debashissarkar/

Deborah (Lake) Dawson https://www.linkedin.com/in/linkedincomdebdawson/ Deepti Mahajan https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deepti_Mahajan3

Denis Leonard https://www.linkedin.com/in/denisleonard/

Dennis Heng https://www.linkedin.com/in/dennishengjt/

Dhatry Y https://www.linkedin.com/in/dhatry/

Dialah Hokosuja Hutabalian https://www.linkedin.com/in/dialah-hokosuja-hutabalian-10734bb9/

Dominik Zimon https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dominik_Zimon

Donna Gillespie https://www.linkedin.com/in/donnagillespie/ Douglas Peterson https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglaskpetersonphd/ Dwaine Canova https://www.linkedin.com/in/dwainecanova/ Dzintars Putnis https://www.linkedin.com/in/dzintars-putnis-06b2205/ Ed van den Heever https://www.linkedin.com/in/ed-van-den-heever-11124210/

Eddie (Edhem) Custovic https://www.linkedin.com/in/ecustovic/ Edgar Villena Achata https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarvillena/ Eduard Babulak https://www.linkedin.com/in/babulak/ Eduardo Rosas https://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardo-rosas/ Efe Otofia https://www.linkedin.com/in/efe-otofia-843a7130

Eldon Li https://www.linkedin.com/in/eldon-li-7a7240102/ Elizabeth Chell https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-chell-76235121/ Ellis Kofi Akwaa-Sekyi https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ellis_Akwaa-Sekyi

https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-santos-5687846/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dawnringrose/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dean-hartley-3394037/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/debashissarkar/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deepti_Mahajan3

https://www.linkedin.com/in/denisleonard/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dennishengjt/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dhatry/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dialah-hokosuja-hutabalian-10734bb9/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dominik_Zimon

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ed-van-den-heever-11124210/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/efe-otofia-843a7130

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ellis_Akwaa-Sekyi

85

Els Van de Water https://www.linkedin.com/in/elsvandewater/

Emad Hamdi https://www.linkedin.com/in/emadhamdi/ Eng. Omar Al Khaja https://www.linkedin.com/in/eng-omar-al-khaja-mba-402519118/

Enrique Suarez https://www.linkedin.com/in/enrique-suarez-a068114/ Enyinna Iwueze https://www.linkedin.com/in/enyinna-iwueze-6457692a

Erdogan Ekiz https://www.linkedin.com/in/erdogan-ekiz-phd-b796a660/ Eric Anderson https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-anderson-m-b-a-c-m-c-66788b4/

Erik D. Grissell https://www.linkedin.com/in/egrissell/ Ernesto D.R.S. Gonzalez https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernesto-d-r-s-gonzalez-525a0b79/

Evandro G. Lorentz https://www.linkedin.com/in/elorentz/

F. N. Kautzmann https://www.linkedin.com/in/drfnkautzmanniii/

Fanny Adams Quagrainie https://www.linkedin.com/in/fanny-adams-quagrainie-239a6651/ Fariba Fuller https://www.linkedin.com/in/faribafuller/ Fata Antariksa https://www.linkedin.com/in/fata-antariksa-30a48849/ Fin Rooney https://www.linkedin.com/in/finrooney/ Frances Tsakonas https://www.linkedin.com/in/frances-tsakonas-7034ba24/ Francis Otolo https://www.linkedin.com/in/francisotolo/

Francisca Nkadi https://www.linkedin.com/in/francisca-nkadi-ph-d-8528605/ Freddie Mbuba https://www.linkedin.com/in/freddiembuba/ Garima Trivedi https://www.linkedin.com/in/garima-trivedi-18884418/ Gary Cokins https://www.linkedin.com/in/garycokins/

Gary G. Jing https://www.linkedin.com/in/ggaryjing/ Gary Smith https://www.linkedin.com/in/gary-smith-cfpim-cscp-cltd-2974a28/

George S. Spais https://www.linkedin.com/in/spaisgeorge/ Ghada Hammad https://www.linkedin.com/in/ghadahammad/

Giulia Della Sala https://www.linkedin.com/in/giulia-della-sala-234bb486/

Giuseppe Pelliccia https://www.linkedin.com/in/giuseppe-pelliccia-48a680113/ Goodness Ndon https://www.linkedin.com/in/goodness-ndon-846a6759/ Gordana Nikolić https://www.linkedin.com/in/gordana-nikoli%C4%87-ph-d-a4225910/ Goturk Otunc https://www.linkedin.com/in/g%F6kt%FCrk-%F6t%FCn%E7-bio-msc-aaa3ab167/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/elsvandewater/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/emadhamdi/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/eng-omar-al-khaja-mba-402519118/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/enyinna-iwueze-6457692a

https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-anderson-m-b-a-c-m-c-66788b4/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernesto-d-r-s-gonzalez-525a0b79/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/elorentz/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/drfnkautzmanniii/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/francisotolo/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/garycokins/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gary-smith-cfpim-cscp-cltd-2974a28/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ghadahammad/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/giulia-della-sala-234bb486/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/g%F6kt%FCrk-%F6t%FCn%E7-bio-msc-aaa3ab167/

86

Graziella Alebrant Mendes https://www.linkedin.com/in/graziella-alebrant-mendes-3b064337/ Greg Pritchard https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregpritchard1/

Gregório Suarez https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregoriosuarez/ Gurmeet Singh https://www.linkedin.com/in/gurmeet-singh-1331976/ Gustavo Correia https://www.linkedin.com/in/gustavodbcorreia/ Guy Gordon https://www.linkedin.com/in/guy-gordon-93550511/ Guy W Wallace https://www.linkedin.com/in/guywwallace/ Halil Ibrahim Demir https://www.linkedin.com/in/halil-ibrahim-demir-1606ba60/

haya almanaseer https://www.linkedin.com/in/haya-almanaseer-b6660337/ Husam Sha'ath https://www.linkedin.com/in/husam-sha-ath-bsc-mba-cmc-pmp-ceng-a633791/

Hussin Jose Hejase https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hussin_Hejase

Ian Ris https://www.linkedin.com/in/ian-ris-a765a316/

Ik Sung Lim Ilan Alon https://www.linkedin.com/in/ilanalon/ Ilias Vlachos https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivlachos/

Iram Fatima https://www.linkedin.com/in/iram-fatima-2b42a341/

Irena Rezec https://www.linkedin.com/in/irenarezec/ Jagmohan Singh Sekhon https://www.linkedin.com/in/jssekhon/ Jairo Alberto Cárdenas https://www.linkedin.com/in/jairocardenas/ Janelle Elias https://www.linkedin.com/in/janelle-elias-95279713/ Janet Raddatz https://www.linkedin.com/in/janet-raddatz-b8764637/ Jeff Griffiths https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffgriffithsfcmc/

Jeff Veyera https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffveyera/ Jeff Weinrach https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-weinrach-555312a/ Jessica Schwarz https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessicaschwarz1/ Jim Clemmer https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimclemmer/

Jim Murray https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-murray-b8a3a4/ John Latham https://www.linkedin.com/in/drjohnlatham/

Jon Pascoe https://www.linkedin.com/in/jon-pascoe-3094b612/

Jonathan A. Jenkins https://www.linkedin.com/in/drjonathanajenkins/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregpritchard1/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/halil-ibrahim-demir-1606ba60/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/husam-sha-ath-bsc-mba-cmc-pmp-ceng-a633791/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hussin_Hejase

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ian-ris-a765a316/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivlachos/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/iram-fatima-2b42a341/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffgriffithsfcmc/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimclemmer/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/drjohnlatham/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jon-pascoe-3094b612/

87

Jorge Roman https://www.linkedin.com/in/jjroman/

Jose Benito Flores Juarez https://www.linkedin.com/in/jose-benito-flores-juarez-8a997310b/ Jose Felipe Contreras Hernandez https://www.linkedin.com/in/jos%C3%A9-felipe-contreras-hern%C3%A1ndez-b01a69136/

Joseph A. DeFeo https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadefeo/ Josue Porres https://www.linkedin.com/in/jporres/

Julie Nimmons https://www.linkedin.com/in/julienimmons/

Justin Barnhill https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-barnhill/ K.M. Ranjith https://www.linkedin.com/in/k-m-ranjith-54a8872/

Kaan Terzioglu https://www.linkedin.com/in/kaanterzioglu/ Kalyan K. Sahoo https://www.linkedin.com/in/prof-kalyan-k-sahoo-1289051a/ Kamran Moosa https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-kamran-moosa-273957ba/ Kanwaljit Singh https://www.linkedin.com/in/kanwaljitsingh/ Kathy Letendre https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyletendre/ Kaushlendra Shukla https://www.linkedin.com/in/kaushlendra-shukla-28629ba/

Kayode Adebayo https://www.linkedin.com/in/adebayo

Kelvin Crenshaw https://www.linkedin.com/in/crenshawpublicrelations/

Keval Chheda https://www.linkedin.com/in/keval-chheda-213179b4/ Kevin Bowden https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-bowden-799b1956/

Kevin Campbell https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinjcampbell1/ Kevin Schwenker https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinschwenker/

Khadidja Zerigui https://www.linkedin.com/in/khadidja-zerigui-2a8948157/ Khaled El Gohary https://www.linkedin.com/in/khaledelgohary/

Khaled Khattab https://www.linkedin.com/in/khaledkhattab/

Khalid Hafeez https://www.linkedin.com/in/khalid-hafeez-abb73940/ Khasayer Ataie https://www.linkedin.com/in/khashayar-ataie-a4549837

Khyati Shetty https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-khyati-shetty-datta-ab210392/ Kieran Mohammed https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-kieran-mohammed-lssbb/ Kim Groshek https://www.linkedin.com/in/kgroshek/

Kitson Leonard Lee https://www.linkedin.com/in/kitson-leonard-lee-69770872/ Kobi Simmat https://www.linkedin.com/in/kobisimmat/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jjroman/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jos%C3%A9-felipe-contreras-hern%C3%A1ndez-b01a69136/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jporres/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/julienimmons/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/k-m-ranjith-54a8872/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kaushlendra-shukla-28629ba/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/adebayo

https://www.linkedin.com/in/crenshawpublicrelations/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-bowden-799b1956/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinschwenker/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/khaledelgohary/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/khaledkhattab/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/khashayar-ataie-a4549837

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kgroshek/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kobisimmat/

88

KP Singh https://www.linkedin.com/in/ceoopoie/

Lantei Takona https://www.linkedin.com/in/lanteitakona/

Larry Cote https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-cote-69301914/

Latangela Crossfield https://www.linkedin.com/in/drtangi/ Len Samletzki https://www.linkedin.com/in/len-samletzki-2667b219/

Leonardo Sedevich-Fons https://www.linkedin.com/in/leonardo-sedevich-fons-199ab132/

Lien Herliani Kusumah https://www.linkedin.com/in/lien-herliani-kusumah-6b64163b/

Liliana Lopa https://www.linkedin.com/in/liliana-lopa-71036634/ Liliana Nitu https://www.linkedin.com/in/liliana-nitu-0553722/ Linda Jimenez https://www.linkedin.com/in/linda-jimenez-b65a282/ Linda Mary Simon https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-linda-mary-simon-70b76331/ Linet Ozdamar https://www.linkedin.com/in/linet-o-82abb65a/

Lionel Drouin https://www.linkedin.com/in/lionel-drouin-7aa80122/

Lisa Jones https://www.linkedin.com/in/victoria-lisa-jones-a3a60230/

Liz Menzer https://www.linkedin.com/in/lizmenzer/

Lori Schmidt https://www.linkedin.com/in/lori-schmidt-7253886/

Lotto Lai https://www.linkedin.com/in/qualityalchemist/

Luis Beltran https://www.linkedin.com/in/luis-beltran-mba-9521b914/

Luis Rabelo https://www.linkedin.com/in/luis-rabelo-b1a574/ Luz Maria Karg https://www.linkedin.com/in/luzmariakarg/ M.Nuramzan Iftari https://www.linkedin.com/in/m-nuramzan-iftari-st-mm-pfm-9286445/ Madhusmita Nayak https://www.linkedin.com/in/madhusmita-nayak-75a0a215/

Maha Sror https://www.linkedin.com/in/maha-sror-8992bb6b/

Mahboubeh Shabani https://www.linkedin.com/in/mahboubehshabani/ Mahmoud Abdel-Aty https://www.linkedin.com/in/mahmoud-abdel-aty-01566a22/ Mahmoud Garad https://www.linkedin.com/in/mahmoud-garad-mqm-efqm-1949a624/

Manoj Kumar Pattanaik https://www.linkedin.com/in/pattanaikmanoj/ Mansi Kharbanda https://www.linkedin.com/in/mansi-kharbanda-995991145/ Margarita Kefalaki https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-margarita-kefalaki-9a44b030/ Margot Barrow https://www.linkedin.com/in/margot-m-barrow-bsc-msc-cmc-345785a/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ceoopoie/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/lanteitakona/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/larry-cote-69301914/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/len-samletzki-2667b219/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/leonardo-sedevich-fons-199ab132/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/lien-herliani-kusumah-6b64163b/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/linet-o-82abb65a/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/lionel-drouin-7aa80122/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/victoria-lisa-jones-a3a60230/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/lizmenzer/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/lori-schmidt-7253886/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/qualityalchemist/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/luis-beltran-mba-9521b914/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/madhusmita-nayak-75a0a215/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/maha-sror-8992bb6b/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/margot-m-barrow-bsc-msc-cmc-345785a/

89

Maria Alejandra Pinero de Plaza https://www.linkedin.com/in/maria-alejandra-pinero-de-plaza-phd-66727428/ Mario Diaz https://www.linkedin.com/in/mario-diaz-b4719153/ Mark Lefcowitz https://www.linkedin.com/in/mclassociates/ Marusia Tirmican https://www.linkedin.com/in/marusiatirmican/ Mary Elizabeth King https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-e-king/ Matt Saloom https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-saloom-67118624/ Maureen Washburn https://www.linkedin.com/in/maureen-washburn-rn-nd-cphq-fache-3a2a1b14/ Md Asif Raja https://www.linkedin.com/in/md-asif-raja-ceng-apeng-0419b13b/ Meenakshi Narula https://www.linkedin.com/in/meenakshi-narula-53b11058/ Mehran Doulat https://www.linkedin.com/in/mehran-doulat-phd-930b973m/

Michael Jay Spearman https://www.linkedin.com/in/mjspearman/ Michael Lowenstein https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaellowenstein/ Michael Mladjenovic https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-mladjenovic-57840412/

Michael Oberemk https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-oberemk-61324620/

Michael Seller https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Seller

Michele Dassisti https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michele_Dassisti

Michelle Cloyd https://www.linkedin.com/in/michelle-cloyd-831aba19/ Michelle Eddy Ackerman https://www.linkedin.com/in/michelleeddyackerman/ Miguel Reynolds Brandão https://www.linkedin.com/in/miguelreynolds/ Mike Carnell https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-carnell-75420a1/ Mike Rudolf https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-rudolf-4803084/

Mo Kader https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-mo-kader-74826745/ Mohamed Omran https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohamed-omran-83437046/ Mohamed Rabie Elsheikh https://www.linkedin.com/in/drmohamedrabieelsheikh/ Mohammad Hossein Zavvar Sabegh https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohammad-hossein-zavvar-sabegh-87b1a6104/

Mohd Sanusi Magaji https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohd-sanusi-magaji-fmesri-phd-73031313/ Mohsin Shaikh https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-mohsin-shaikh-4b71359/ Muhammad Irfan https://www.linkedin.com/in/muhammad-irfan-bb63651b/ Muhammad Tahir https://www.linkedin.com/in/muhammad-tahir-0a074016/

Murat Çal https://www.linkedin.com/in/murat-%C3%A7al-5613a136/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mehran-doulat-phd-930b973m/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-mladjenovic-57840412/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-oberemk-61324620/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Seller

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michele_Dassisti

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-rudolf-4803084/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohammad-hossein-zavvar-sabegh-87b1a6104/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/muhammad-tahir-0a074016/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/murat-%C3%A7al-5613a136/

90

Murugan Vellimalai https://www.linkedin.com/in/murugan-vellimalai-458798101/

Mustafa Rawshdeh https://www.linkedin.com/in/mustafa-rawshdeh-lssgb-281a8528/ Mustafa Shraim https://www.linkedin.com/in/mustafashraim/

Muthuraman Annamalai https://www.linkedin.com/in/muthuramanannamalai/ Nacima Djeniba https://www.linkedin.com/in/nacima-djeniba-54a883/ Nagarian Ramesh https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-ramesh-nagarajan-16599917/

Nancy Nouaimeh https://www.linkedin.com/in/nancy-nouaimeh-cbep-tqm-efqm-cqa-csp-cssgb-215a467/

Naresh Ravula https://www.linkedin.com/in/nareshravula/

Nathan Lawrence https://www.linkedin.com/in/gr8nessattained/ Nazar Elfaki https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-nazar-elfaki-ab3a461b/

Nehal Bhatt https://www.linkedin.com/in/nehal-bhatt-994738128/

Nelson Tochukwu Odoh https://www.linkedin.com/in/nelson-tochukwu-odoh-gcpm-mnim-a43ab2121

Ngo Cong Truong https://www.linkedin.com/in/ngocongtruong/

Nguyen Thanh Hai https://www.linkedin.com/in/thanhhailean6sigma/

Nicholas Scott https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickscott42/

Nishad Nawaz https://www.linkedin.com/in/nishad-nawaz-a1818b22/ Norma Antunano https://www.linkedin.com/in/normaantunano/

Norris Krueger https://www.linkedin.com/in/norriskrueger/

Odeh Muhawesh https://www.linkedin.com/in/omuhawesh/ Okesola Moses Olusola https://www.linkedin.com/in/okesolamolusola/ Oladimeji Kazeem https://www.linkedin.com/in/oladimeji

Oluwaseun S. Akerele https://www.linkedin.com/in/oluwaseun-akerele-28664044/

Orhan Karakopru https://www.linkedin.com/in/orhankarakopru/

Oscar Bautista https://www.linkedin.com/in/oscar-bautista-64878b36/ Oscar Rodriguez-Gonzalez https://www.linkedin.com/in/rodriguezgonzalez/

Othman Ismail https://www.linkedin.com/in/othman-ismail-/ P.J. Mathews https://www.linkedin.com/in/pjmathews1947/ Pal Molnar Pankaj Kumar Gupt https://www.linkedin.com/in/pankaj-kumar-gupt-0aa30027/

Parvez Khan https://www.linkedin.com/in/parvez-khan-85551523/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/murugan-vellimalai-458798101/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mustafashraim/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-ramesh-nagarajan-16599917/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nancy-nouaimeh-cbep-tqm-efqm-cqa-csp-cssgb-215a467/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nareshravula/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-nazar-elfaki-ab3a461b/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nehal-bhatt-994738128/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nelson-tochukwu-odoh-gcpm-mnim-a43ab2121

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ngocongtruong/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/thanhhailean6sigma/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickscott42/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/normaantunano/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/norriskrueger/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/oladimeji

https://www.linkedin.com/in/oluwaseun-akerele-28664044/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/orhankarakopru/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rodriguezgonzalez/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/pankaj-kumar-gupt-0aa30027/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/parvez-khan-85551523/

91

Patricia Bradshaw https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradshawpatricia/ Patrick Slattery https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickslattery/

Paul Bellavance https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-bellavance-489b382/

Paul Grizzell https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulgrizzell/

Paul Harding https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-harding-8259081a/

Paul Ranky https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-paul-ranky-26990251/ Paul Ryan https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulryan1/

Paul Simpson https://www.linkedin.com/in/jpsimpson/ Paul Wiedmaier https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-wiedmaier-a38987106/

Paula Samara Dias https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulasamaradias/ Paulo Roberto Batista https://www.linkedin.com/in/prnbatista/ Paulo Sampaio https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulo-sampaio-phd-3736349/

Pedram Mousavi https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pedram_Mousavi

Pedro Domingues https://www.linkedin.com/in/pedro-domingues-07712327/ Pedro Martins https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pedro_Martins9 Peter Holtmann https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-j-holtmann-a925666/

Peter Joyce https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterjoyce/ Popoola Mufutau Akanmu https://www.linkedin.com/in/popoola-mufutau-akanmu-022288bb/ Prabir Kumar Bandyopadhyay https://www.linkedin.com/in/prabir-kumar-bandyopadhyay-919781a/

Pradip Burhade https://www.linkedin.com/in/pradipburhade/

Praneet Surti https://www.linkedin.com/in/praneetsurti/

Prashant Hoskote https://www.linkedin.com/in/prashant-hoskote-b228034/

Prashanth Baragi https://www.linkedin.com/in/prashanth-baragi-5k-connections-614a384a/ Priyanka Madaan https://www.linkedin.com/in/priyanka-madaan-18ab4a48/ Puji Nugroho https://www.linkedin.com/in/puji-nugroho-s-t-m-b-a-7813372a/ R.B. Kakumanu https://www.linkedin.com/in/prof-r-b-kakumanu-968b3741/ Radu Șumălan https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Radu_Sumalan

Raheel Farooqi https://www.linkedin.com/in/raheel-farooqi-b588b423/ Rahitha Dandu Rajiv Vermani https://www.linkedin.com/in/rajiv-vermani-a3bb7a24/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickslattery/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-bellavance-489b382/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulgrizzell/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-harding-8259081a/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulryan1/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-wiedmaier-a38987106/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulo-sampaio-phd-3736349/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pedram_Mousavi

https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-j-holtmann-a925666/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/prabir-kumar-bandyopadhyay-919781a/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/pradipburhade/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/praneetsurti/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/prashant-hoskote-b228034/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Radu_Sumalan

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rajiv-vermani-a3bb7a24/

92

Rajiv Virmani https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-rajeev-virmani-1a952525/

Ralph Richter https://www.linkedin.com/in/leansixsigmaralphrichter/

Ramona Kellner https://www.linkedin.com/in/ramona-kellner-7362294/ Randal Huffman https://www.linkedin.com/in/randal-huffman-b1266973/ Rassel Kassem https://www.linkedin.com/in/rassel/ Ravi Fernando https://www.linkedin.com/in/ravimfernando/

Reagan Pannell https://www.linkedin.com/in/reaganpannell/

Renuka Lenka https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Renuka_Lenka

Riad (Ray) Ardahji https://www.linkedin.com/in/ardahji/ Ricardo Bernaola https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricardobernaola/ Ricardo Espinosa https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricardo-espinosa-07173620/ Rick McDonald https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-mcdonald-cmc-69949418/

Rintar Agus Simatupang https://www.linkedin.com/in/rintar-agus-simatupang-8068a2b3/ Riny van de Donk https://www.linkedin.com/in/rinyvandedonk/ Robert R. Baattryn-Gee https://www.linkedin.com/in/drrobertgee/

Roberto Toro Perez https://www.linkedin.com/in/roberto-toro-perez-4907a554/

Robin Mann https://www.linkedin.com/in/drrobinmann/

Romila Qamar https://www.linkedin.com/in/romila-qamar-068b5048/ Rosalio Morales https://www.linkedin.com/in/rosalio-morales-mba-74887a102/ Rosli Nordin https://www.linkedin.com/in/rosli-nordin-94b41147/ Russ Timmons https://www.linkedin.com/in/russtimmons/ Sachin Garg https://www.linkedin.com/in/inpursuitofexcellence/

Saima Muneer https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Saima_Muneer

Sajid Hameed https://www.linkedin.com/in/sajid-hameed-350940134/ Salvatore Farace https://www.linkedin.com/in/salvatore-farace-972a6440/ Salvatore Moccia https://www.linkedin.com/in/salvatoremoccia/ Salwa Bouadila https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Salwa_Bouadila

Sam Thakur https://www.linkedin.com/in/samthakurlearningcontinuously/ Sameer Chougle https://www.linkedin.com/in/sameer-chougle-582a397/ Samer Ellahham https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-samer-ellahham-md-cphq-cmq-efqm-facc-faha-a2749711/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-rajeev-virmani-1a952525/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/leansixsigmaralphrichter/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ravimfernando/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/reaganpannell/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Renuka_Lenka

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-mcdonald-cmc-69949418/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/drrobertgee/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/roberto-toro-perez-4907a554/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/drrobinmann/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/inpursuitofexcellence/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Saima_Muneer

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Salwa_Bouadila

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-samer-ellahham-md-cphq-cmq-efqm-facc-faha-a2749711/

93

Samer Manneh https://www.linkedin.com/in/samermanneh/

Sanjay Patankar https://www.linkedin.com/in/sanjay-patankar-99190023/

Sanjiv Narula https://www.linkedin.com/in/sanjiv-narula-3b6603135/ Sasirekha Ramani https://www.linkedin.com/in/sasirekha-v-32927543/

Satya Saurabh Khosla https://www.linkedin.com/in/satya-saurabh-khosla-66768a5b/

Scott Morrison https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-morrison-446b918/ Sekar Gopal https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-sekar-gopal-5bb63659/

Sekar Gopal https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-sekar-gopal-5bb63659/

Shawn Flynn https://www.linkedin.com/in/shawn-w-flynn/ Sheik Khurshedulalam Forhad https://www.linkedin.com/in/sheik-khurshedulalam-forhad-88005515a/ Sheila Carruthers https://www.linkedin.com/in/sheilacarruthers/

Sherry Bright https://www.linkedin.com/in/sherry-bright-9a558111/ Shiva Moslemi https://www.linkedin.com/in/shiva-moslemi-268893127/

Shoeb Ahmad https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shoeb_Ahmad4

Sinai Londhe https://www.linkedin.com/in/sinai-londhe-b4178619/ Solomon Zakayo https://www.linkedin.com/in/solomon-zakayo-0aa36a76/

Srinath Bayya https://www.linkedin.com/in/sricqe/ Stephen (Steve) Mittelstet https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephen-mittelstet-7321a2157/ Stephen Choy https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephen-choy-2a35791/ Sterling Eddy https://www.linkedin.com/in/sterlingeddy/

Steven Leuschel https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenleuschel/ Sucilla Buchoon-Harrikissoon https://www.linkedin.com/in/sucilla-harrikissoon-a852a519/

Suhail Mohammad Ghouse https://www.linkedin.com/in/drsuhailmghouse/ Suresh Patwardhan https://www.linkedin.com/in/suresh-patwardhan-3067a912/ Surya Prakash https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-surya-prakash/ Susan Shannon https://www.linkedin.com/company/muniserv-ca/

Susanne Cappendijk https://www.linkedin.com/in/susanne-cappendijk/

Suyen Go https://www.linkedin.com/in/suyengo/

Sven Amundsen https://www.linkedin.com/in/sven-amundsen-187b6959/ Swami Reyes https://www.linkedin.com/in/swami-reyes-5a164959/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/samermanneh/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sanjay-patankar-99190023/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sasirekha-v-32927543/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/satya-saurabh-khosla-66768a5b/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-sekar-gopal-5bb63659/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-sekar-gopal-5bb63659/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sheilacarruthers/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/shiva-moslemi-268893127/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shoeb_Ahmad4

https://www.linkedin.com/in/solomon-zakayo-0aa36a76/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sterlingeddy/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sucilla-harrikissoon-a852a519/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/muniserv-ca/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/susanne-cappendijk/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/suyengo/

94

Tabassum Qureshi https://www.linkedin.com/in/tabassum-qureshi-41667777/

Tahir Munir https://www.linkedin.com/in/tahir-munir-b08b69b0/ Tanguy Vincent https://www.linkedin.com/in/tanguyvincent/ Teresa Bagaman https://www.linkedin.com/in/ma-teresa-bagaman-71598440/

Teresa Correia de Lacerda https://www.linkedin.com/in/teresacorreiadelacerda/ Teresa Whitacre https://www.linkedin.com/in/teresawhitacre/ Thomas Ammazzalorso https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-ammazzalorso-m-a-m-ed-m-s-a0a4126/

Tom Hill https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-hill-431ba78/

Tom Taormina https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-taormina-6b3ba01/ Tonnis van Dam https://www.linkedin.com/in/tonnisvandam/ Tracey Polowich https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracey-polowich-b-comm-cpa-cma-4812511b/

Tümer Ariturk https://www.linkedin.com/in/t%C3%BCmer-arit%C3%BCrk-a3220b/ Turan Paksoy https://www.linkedin.com/in/turanpaksoy/

Usman A. Ghani https://www.linkedin.com/in/usmanaghani/ V.G. Venkatesh https://www.linkedin.com/in/v-g-venkatesh-cscp-8b1923a/ Vanessa Santos https://www.linkedin.com/in/nessapsi/ Varun Gandhi https://www.linkedin.com/in/gandhii/ Venanzio Figliolino https://www.linkedin.com/in/venanziofigliolino/

Veronica Marquez https://www.linkedin.com/in/veronicabm/

Vicente G. Morenohttps https://www.linkedin.com/in/vgmoreno/

Victoria Lausberger https://www.linkedin.com/in/victoria-lausberger-78765411a/

VIdyananad Prasad Kushwaha https://www.linkedin.com/in/vidyananad-prasad-kushwaha-4913841a/

Vipin George https://www.linkedin.com/in/vipin-george-cmgr-mcmi-i-eng-mweld1-cqa-exemplar-cmss-5189a09/

Volkmar Weissig https://www.linkedin.com/in/volkmar-weissig-04a93936/

Wael Abdelaal Nasr https://www.linkedin.com/in/wael-abdelaal-nasr-52542686/ Waleed Fouad Abobatta https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Waleed_Abobatta

Washington Barbosa https://www.linkedin.com/in/washington-barbosa-4545215/

William Hefley https://www.linkedin.com/in/billhefley/

William Nunes de Aquino https://www.linkedin.com/in/williamaquino/ William S. Ruggles https://www.linkedin.com/in/wsruggles/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tabassum-qureshi-41667777/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ma-teresa-bagaman-71598440/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-ammazzalorso-m-a-m-ed-m-s-a0a4126/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-hill-431ba78/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracey-polowich-b-comm-cpa-cma-4812511b/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/turanpaksoy/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/venanziofigliolino/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/veronicabm/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/vgmoreno/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/victoria-lausberger-78765411a/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/vidyananad-prasad-kushwaha-4913841a/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/vipin-george-cmgr-mcmi-i-eng-mweld1-cqa-exemplar-cmss-5189a09/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/volkmar-weissig-04a93936/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Waleed_Abobatta

https://www.linkedin.com/in/washington-barbosa-4545215/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/billhefley/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/wsruggles/

95

Willy Vandenbrande https://www.linkedin.com/in/willy-vandenbrande-a43386/

Wilson Goncalves https://www.linkedin.com/in/wilsongoncalves/ Xianghui (Richard) Peng https://www.linkedin.com/in/xianghuipeng/ Yansha Yu-Sandstrom https://www.linkedin.com/in/yansha-yu-sandstrom-a519337b/ Yinmis Rivero https://www.linkedin.com/in/yinmis-rivero-0136339/ Yousef Bukhari https://www.linkedin.com/in/yousef-bukhari-b52a169/ Zaid Halhouli https://www.linkedin.com/in/zaid-halhouli-b4567846/ Zeynep Dereli https://www.linkedin.com/in/zeynep-dereli-101a9448/

Zhila Pirmoradi https://www.linkedin.com/in/zhilapirmoradi/

Zillay Nawab https://www.linkedin.com/in/zillayanawab/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/willy-vandenbrande-a43386/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/zeynep-dereli-101a9448/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/zhilapirmoradi/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/zillayanawab/

Documents

FIRST GLOBAL ASSESSMENT ON THE CURRENT STATE ......On March 31, 2015, the Organizational Excellence Technical Committee QMD, ASQ (OETC) launched the ‘first global assessment on the