6.1.1.1 Who Is The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company?

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company successfully operates in one of the most logistically complex service businesses. Targeting primarily industry executives, meeting and corporate travel planners, and affluent travelers, the Atlanta-based company manages 91 luxury hotels in 30 countries^* while pursuing the distinction of being the best in each market. The hotel builds its success on the strength of a comprehensive service quality initiative, which is integrated into its marketing and business objectives.

* www.ritzcarlton.com/ accessed 12/29/2019.

Winner of the 1992 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company operates business and resort hotels in the USA, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Australia. It has 14 international sales offices and employs 40,000 people. Restaurants and banquets are also marketed heavily to local residents. The company claims distinctive facilities and environments, highly personalized anticipatory services, and exceptional food and beverages.

6.1.1.2 Assessment of the Case Study The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company

Chapter 11, Pages 273–292

Process: Housekeeping system cycle time reduction

Summary assessment of the case study (see Figure 6.1)

• Results
  • – Five criteria are complete, and one criterion is incomplete. There is no information available for one criterion (“Trends”).
• Enabler
  • – Plan phase: seven criteria are complete, and one criterion is incomplete.
  • – Do phase: all five criteria are complete.
  • – Check phase: three criteria are complete, and there is no information available for one criterion.
  • – Act phase: all five criteria are complete.
• Process: the process description and KPIs are described.
• Format: there is a systematic approach to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

6.1.1.3 Conclusion

This case study can be considered as a Best Practice. It would be good to confirm this finding by applying the detailed BEST-tool, i.e. the complete and detailed checklist. This can’t be done on this text, because this isn’t detailed enough.

6.2.1.1 Who Is Lån & Spar Bank?

Headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark

Savings and loan bank

380 employees

Vision: We want to be the customer’s personal bank by entering into close and relevant partnerships.

6.2.1.2 Health in Business Strategy

Lån & Spar Bank’s Healthy Workplace program, “Bank I Bevægelse” (bank in motion), has been a deeply integrated and important part of the Lån & Spar Bank business strategy since 2009. This program has demonstrated positive results in multiple areas, including an increase in turnover, ­productivity, and customer satisfaction. Lån & Spar Bank focuses on ­improving the mental, social, and physical well-being of employees based on senior management’s belief that balanced and satisfied employees create the best business.

6.2.1.3 Assessment of Case Study Lån & Spar Bank

Summary assessment of the case study (see Figure 6.2)

• Results
  • – Five criteria are complete, and two criteria are incomplete.
• Enabler
  • – Plan phase: two criteria are complete, and four criteria are incomplete. No information is available for two criteria.
  • – Do phase: four criteria are complete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Check phase: two criteria are complete. No information is available for two criteria.
  • – Act phase: two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for three criteria.
• Process: the document does not mention or describe the process or KPIs.
• Format: there is no systematic approach used to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

6.2.1.4 Conclusion

The case study Lån & Spar Bank is probably not a Best Practice. Some additional on-site verification or documentation would complete the missing elements.

6.2.2.1 Who Is GSK?

Headquartered in Brentford, London

Global healthcare company

99,300 employees

Mission: To help people do more, feel better, and live longer.

6.2.2.2 Health in Business Strategy

GSK aspires to foster a healthy, resilient, high-performing workforce and ensure zero harm to people and the planet. Since 2002, GSK has implemented a global environment, health, and safety (EHS) policy, 50+ EHS standards, and high impact, enterprise-wide health programs. GSK’s EHS policy and standards are aligned to the core aims of the World Health Organization’s Healthy Workplace Model, ISO/OHSAS, and create minimum, performance-based health standards worldwide.^*

* ISO/OHSAS 18001, This is a standard for the management of Occupational Health and Safety Assessment. Compliance with it enabled organizations to demonstrate that they had a system in place for occupational health and safety. Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OHSAS_18001 accessed April 24, 2020.

6.2.2.3 Assessment of Case Study GSK

Summary assessment of the case study (see Figure 6.2)

• Results
  • – Six criteria are complete. No information is available for one criterion.
• Enabler
  • – Plan phase: all criteria are complete.
  • – Do phase: four criteria are complete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Check phase: one criterion is complete, and one criterion is incomplete. No information is available for two criteria.
  • – Act phase: one criterion is complete, and two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for two criteria.
• Process: the document does not mention or describe the process or KPIs.
• Format: there is no systematic approach used to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

6.2.2.4 Conclusion

This case study could be a Best Practice. Some additional on-site verification or documentation would complete the missing elements.

6.2.3.1 Who Is Baxter?

Headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.

Provides a broad portfolio of essential renal and hospital products, pharmacy automation, software, and services.

Employees: 48,000

Mission: To save and sustain lives inspires our work and our commitment to expanding access to care, providing cost-effective healthcare solutions, delivering quality products, and advancing innovations for the world.

6.2.3.2 Health in Business Strategy

As a global healthcare company, Baxter International Inc. has a strong commitment to the health of its employees as well as to its customers and patients. Its vision of a Zero-Harm workplace underpins the company’s strategic efforts in safety, industrial hygiene, and employee health promotion. Baxter recognizes that healthy employees are more engaged and productive and are less vulnerable to safety incidents and injuries. Through BeWell@Baxter, the company’s global health and wellness program, Baxter strives to create a culture that promotes health at work and at home, raises awareness about these issues, and supports individual accountability and engagement.

6.2.3.3 Assessment of Case Study Baxter International Inc. USA

Summary assessment of the case study (see Figure 6.2)

• Results
  • – Four criteria are complete. No information is available for three criteria.
• Enabler
  • – Plan phase: five criteria are complete, and two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Do phase: two criteria are complete, and two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Check phase: one criterion is complete, and one criterion is incomplete. No information is available for two criteria.
  • – Act phase: one criterion is complete, and two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for two criteria.
• Process: the document does not mention or describe the process or KPIs.
• Format: there is no systematic approach used to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

6.2.3.4 Conclusion

Information is missing or incomplete for most of the Quick Scan criteria. Therefore, this case study isn’t a true Best Practice as described. Some additional on-site verification or documentation might complete the missing elements.

6.2.3.5 Conclusions from Healthy Workplaces: A Selection of Global Good Practices

None of the six case studies we investigated give a description of the process or a full description of the Best Practice. It is difficult to provide this level of detail in the two pages available for each case. A company wishing to benchmark with these companies would need to go on-site to verify the Best Practice to have enough information against which to compare their own processes for improvement.

6.3.2.1 Initial Comment

The authors define Best Practices as the best available practice (i.e. a key process) that contributes to the achievement of the strategy and/or business plan of the organization and leads to excellent and sustainable results.

Nalco’s case study, although named as a Best Practice, does not correspond to our definition. The text clearly describes the tool “Connections libraries” and software such as Microsoft SharePoint 2010, Microsoft Dynamics Customers Relationship Management platform, etc. What is missing is a detailed description of how Connections libraries, etc., are part of the key process of knowledge management. It would be helpful to explain how the application of these (software) tools contributes to a better achievement of the knowledge management strategy of Nalco and offers a better support to Nalco sales and customer service processes.

The APQC text is very well written and comprehensive from the point of view of management of the tool, but it is not a description of one of Nalco’s key processes. We think that this tool is a strong instrument in the hands of Nalco’s collaborators and even Nalco’s customers. Nevertheless, we apply the BEST Quick Scan on this case study to show 1) differences between a description of Nalco’s software tool and 2) a full description of a Best Practice.

6.3.2.2 Who Is Nalco?

Nalco, an Ecolab company, specializes in water, energy, and air applications for light and heavy industries. Its products and solutions focus on treating water as it enters a site, preparing it for industrial and institutional uses, and then re-treating it so that it can be discharged safely back into the environment. By optimizing these processes, Nalco helps customers improve productivity and quality, increase the asset life of their equipment, reduce natural resource consumption, and minimize environmental releases.

6.3.2.3 Assessment of Case Study Nalco

Summary assessment of the case study Nalco (see Figure 6.3)

• Results
  • – There is no information available for any of the seven criteria.
• Enabler
  • – Plan phase: two criteria are complete, and three criteria are incomplete. No information is available for three criteria.
  • – Do phase: two criteria are complete, and two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Check phase: four criteria are incomplete.
  • – Act phase: two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for three criteria.
• Process: the document does not mention or describe the process or KPIs.
• Format: there is no systematic approach used to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

6.3.2.4 Conclusion Case Study Nalco

Descriptions of the process and results are both missing. A Best Practice always has a description of output and outcome results. Therefore, we conclude that the case study from Nalco would not be adequate to benchmark against as a Best Practice.

An extract of the text on page 148 illustrates how easily the label of “Best Practice” is used:

6.3.3.1 Who Is MWH Global Inc.?

MWH Global Inc. (MWH) is an engineering and consulting firm focused on wet infrastructure, including water treatment, supply, and power. It has approximately 7,000 employees spread across 200 offices in 35 countries. The company consists of consulting engineers, designers, and management consultants focused on all phases of the water cycle. Most of the staff (including knowledge workers) are people with scientific, engineering, design, or technical backgrounds. The type of work that MWH Global does and the skillsets of its work force determine the types of knowledge that the organization needs to manage namely, technical templates, project templates, forms, and checklists for consulting engagements.

MWH’s Knowledge Management program focuses on distributing information and expertise to its global workforce and embedding content directly into its processes and tools.

The case study describes the structure and the management of the database. It describes also the project delivery process. An overview of the process is shown in the text in a figure “Process Navigator,” where the different phases and project steps are presented.^*

* Ibid: p. 124

6.3.3.2 Assessment of Case Study MWH Global Inc.

Summary assessment of the case study (see Figure 6.3)

• Results
  • – One criterion is incomplete. No information is available for six criteria.
• Enabler
  • – Plan phase: one criterion is complete, and three criteria are incomplete. No information is available for four criteria.
  • – Do phase: one criterion is complete, and two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for two criteria.
  • – Check phase: one criterion is complete, and two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Act phase: two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for three criteria.
• Process: one criterion is complete, and one criterion is not available.
• Format: there is no systematic approach used to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

6.3.3.3 Conclusion Case MWH Global Inc.

The text of the case study is 23 pages long. Yet little information relates to the characteristics of a Best Practice listed in the table of the BEST Quick Scan.

The text uses wording which does not describe a Best Practice. Some examples:

• “particularly because content management is often not a department’s top priority.”
• “Some of the Yammer groups have popped up because SharePoint became too cumbersome for dynamic discussions.”
• “training, while the other half of the room says, ‘I will never use this, it’s the worst thing ever.’”
• “Standard templates were not consistently applied, and project teams were also using decentralized project storage and filing with inconsistent filing structures.”
• “not every global standard was adhered to.”^*

* Ibid: pp. 122–145.

Best Practices are documented to share performance excellence that serves as benchmarking targets. Affirmative and positive language is expected. In this case, the BEST Quick Scan provides guidance on how the MWH processes can be improved to approach the level of a Best Practice. The Quick Scan does not validate that the process is already at Best Practice level.

6.3.3.4 Global Conclusion on the APQC Case Studies (Nalco and MWH Global Inc.)

It is remarkable that neither case study defines clearly what they want to enter into the knowledge management database and what the minimum criteria are for an excellent knowledge management database. Without a clear definition of the intended content, the reader could assume that “everything that could be interesting” should be entered into the database.

Although both case studies use the term “Best Practice” several times, these cases do not contain enough information to be used as Best Practices. They focus on a tool (Knowledge Management Database) while a Best Practice focuses on the assessment of a process, including corresponding results, which support the achievement of the strategy and/or business plan of the company.

6.3.4.1 Who Is Metro Public Health Department (MPHD) Nashville, Tennessee?

The mission of the Metro Public Health Department is to protect, improve, and sustain the health and well-being of all people in Metropolitan Nashville. Metro Public Health Department (MPHD) serves the Nashville metro and surrounding Davidson County areas and municipalities. Davidson County, Tennessee is 526 square miles in size and has a total population of 679,000 persons.^*

* www.nashville.gov/Health-Department/About-Us.aspx, Nashville, TN Health Department website, accessed 12/29/2019.

6.3.4.2 Assessment of Case Study Metro Public Health Department (MPHD) Nashville, Tennessee

6.3.4.2.1 Summary Assessment of the Case Study (see Figure 6.4)

This is an interesting case because at first view it appears that this is a complete Best Practice. When the BEST Quick Scan is applied, there is not enough information to conclude that this is a true Best Practice. The case study is well written. It is a very good project description. It would not be enough for another Health Department to use for benchmarking to improve their own related processes.

The following overview gives an idea to what extent the case study can be considered a Best Practice.

• Results
  • – Five criteria are complete. No information is available for two criteria.
• Enabler
  • – Plan phase: three criteria are complete, and four criteria are incomplete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Do phase: four criteria are complete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Check phase: two criteria are complete, and one criterion is incomplete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Act phase: one criterion is complete, and two criteria are incomplete. No information is available for two criteria.
• Process: two criteria are incomplete.
• Format: there is no systematic approach used to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

6.3.4.3 Conclusion of the Nashville, TN Case Studies

Too many criteria in the enabler component are missing. Therefore, this case study cannot be considered as a Best Practice. We are convinced that the case study would qualify as a Best Practice if the author of this chapter had the BEST Quick Scan tool as a guide while writing the case study. One of the authors of this Best Practice text assisted in the editing of this case study when originally written. The data existed in the project files. The BEST Quick Scan tool was not yet available for reference.

6.3.5.1 Assessment of Case Study Singapore’s School System

Summary assessment of the case study 8 (see Figure 6.5)

• Results
  • – Seven criteria are complete.
     The important results here are the international PISA^† tests of OECD.^‡
• Enabler
  • – Plan: seven criteria are complete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Do: five criteria are complete.
  • – Check: three criteria are complete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Act: five criteria are complete.
• Process: both criteria are incomplete, although it is possible that the process is well described and reviewed on a regular basis based upon the completeness of other criteria.
• Format: there is no systematic approach used to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

† PISA: Programme for International Student Assessment. www.oecd.org/pisa/ accessed 12/29/2019.

‡ The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): www.oecd.org/about/ accessed 12/29/2019; www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa accessed 12/29/2019. This is an international and standardized test that is executed on a regular basis in 24 Western countries.

6.3.5.2 Conclusion

The results and enabler criteria are nearly complete. If the process and format criteria would have been described, we could consider this case study as a Best Practice. Some additional on-site verification or documentation would complete the missing elements.

This case study warrants the application of the detailed BEST-tool because the BEST Quick Scan gives a positive indication that this is truly a Best Practice.

6.3.5.3 Additional Comments

A Best Practice assessment is usually performed by the organization itself. The organization must know its requirements, plans, and objectives. An analysis of the Singapore educational system from a Western point of view (the USA or Europe) could be clouded by cultural differences rather than learning from this case study. The educational system in Singapore differs from the Western context, but nevertheless Singapore’s students are performing at high levels. A benchmarking partner should learn from the differences.

An on-site visit would be appropriate to verify that this is truly a Best Practice. The Quick Scan provides the justification for a more in-depth benchmarking partnership. A face-to-face working relationship with the Singapore educational system will provide the details and insight to finalize a complete BEST-assessment.

The BEST Quick Scan would be useful for the Minister of Education in Singapore to identify where further improvements are possible. As this case study is a Best Practice, we recommend the application of the detailed BEST-tool, which will generate an effective gap analysis for continuous improvement.

6.4.3.1 Summary Assessment of Case Study 9 (see Figure 6.6)

• Results
  • – Seven criteria are complete.
• Enabler
  • – Plan phase: four criteria are complete, and one criterion is incomplete. No information is available for three criteria.
  • – Do phase: four criteria are complete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Check phase: two criteria are complete. No information is available for two criteria.
  • – Act phase: three criteria are complete. No information is available for two criteria.
• Process: both criteria are incomplete.
• Format: there is no systematic approach used to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

The approach is not process-oriented. The approach applied by HRCI & TEI is focused on the development of skills and experiences of staff, building a culture of trust and respect, development of leadership and in creating the right environmental context (workplace flexibility, opportunities for learning, autonomy, etc.).

6.5.1 Who Is ExxonMobil?

ExxonMobil Corporation is an American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas. ExxonMobil is the largest of the world’s Big Oil companies, or super majors, with daily production of 3.92 million BOE (barrels of oil equivalent); but it is significantly smaller than a number of national companies. With 37 oil refineries in 21 countries, constituting a combined daily refining capacity of 6.3 million barrels (1,000,000 m³), ExxonMobil is the largest refiner in the world. ExxonMobil consists of upstream, downstream, and chemical activities.

Title: Corporate Citizenship Report: Safety, Health and the Workplace

Website: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/community/corporate-citizenship-report/safety-and-health-and-the-workplace

Interesting aspects of this case study: every staff member of ExxonMobil has worldwide access to the experiences and Best Practices of their colleagues. ExxonMobil has a clear goal on safety: “Nobody Gets Hurt.” Prevention and lessons learned are characteristics that are clearly present.

6.5.2 Assessment of Case Study ExxonMobil Safety, Health, and the Workplace

Summary assessment of case study 10 (see Figure 6.7)

• Results
  • – Five criteria are complete, and two criteria are incomplete.
• Enabler
  • – Plan: eight criteria are complete.
  • – Do: five criteria are complete.
  • – Check: three criteria are complete. No information is available for one criterion.
  • – Act: five criteria are complete.
• Process: one criterion is complete. No information is available for one criterion.
• Format: there is no systematic approach used to describe the Best Practice in all its aspects and details.

6.5.3 Conclusion

Many of the criteria are fulfilled. However, we have no written evidence of the process (exception KPI) and format criteria. If these two criteria would have been present, we could say that the Exxon Safety, Health, and the Workplace case study can be considered as a Best Practice. An on-site visit would be helpful to validate details and confirm the existence of a Best Practice.

6.6 Observations Gained from the Assessment of Ten BEST Quick Scan Studies

Choosing and documenting the approach and method (the Enabler) is generally the easy part of developing a Best Practice. There are many excellence models available based on leadership preferences. The authors use the PDCA model as a universally flexible approach. Other models, such as the US Malcolm Baldrige Performance Model (MBA), the European Foundation for Quality Management Model (EFQM), Hoshin Kanri, or the ISO Quality Management System are also frequently used enablers.

Most important is to see positive results caused by the application of the enabler. Many times, results are not included in Best Practice descriptions. It is challenging to sustain positive results from an improved process. Consider how many organizations publish case studies of their improvement efforts. We reviewed a good many case studies. These studies document methods, procedures, and approaches while including very few output and outcome results. Showing positive, sustained results for at least 5 years after a process improvement is a true indicator of a Best Practice.

The reverse can also be seen. An organization can document the results of their process improvement but not share the enabler they used to achieve the results. The authors observe this omission in private production companies (mainly small- and medium-sized enterprises).

Organizations that are lower on the corporate maturity ladder are just beginning to define their processes. They may not have controls in place to standardize activities and measures. These organizations are small enough that leadership is brute-forcing positive results through intense effort rather than a systematic approach to process improvement.

When we speak about Best Practices, we refer to a formal, documented approach with detailed process descriptions, output and outcome indicators, and corresponding results. Every building block of a Best Practice consists of a series of criteria. A Best Practice is only a Best Practice when at least 80% of the BEST-tool criteria are fulfilled. We experienced over the last year that only a few of investigated case studies fulfill this requirement.

All case studies we investigated have one thing in common: there is no evidence of a process description. Those familiar with MBA or EFQM know that processes, enablers, and results are linked and need to be described explicitly. A process works within a system to effectively meet organizational and customer expectations. All three components, process, enabler, and results are required for the system to function correctly.

The length of the case study is not an important factor. The APQC case studies included in this chapter are each more than 20 pages long. But even these case studies fail to describe or include a flowchart of the processes that are being targeted for improvement.

The ten case studies investigated in this chapter demonstrate that only four of these can be considered as Best Practice. For the six others, as is also true for the hundreds of other case studies we investigated, there is proof only that we need a framework where we can assess the extent to which the case study can be considered as a real Best Practice. Up to now no one has developed such a framework. It is clear why so few published cases can be considered as a Best Practice.

Are we too severe? We think we are not, because what we have done is apply our experience with Total Quality Management and excellence models on one specific process. Once again, note that a process documented as a Best Practice case study must be a core process and critical for the success of the organization.

Do not conclude that the investigated case studies which we find not to be a real Best Practice with the BEST-method are badly managed. This is not the conclusion at all. We can only draw a conclusion from the documents we have at hand. In reality, these cases probably have much more evidence of fulfillment of the BEST-method criteria. That information is simply not in the text available to us without contacting the company.

Each of the descriptions assessed in this chapter was called a Best Practice by their author. However, when applying the BEST Quick Scan tool, only four case studies contained enough information to be considered a Best Practice. How do we explain this discrepancy? The perception and interpretation of the concept of a “Best Practice” vary across organizations. The authors define a Best Practice as an excellent process leading to the achievement of the strategy and/or business plan, while most authors have documented the functioning of a tool and considered it a Best Practice. The management of Knowledge Management databases by Nalco and WMH Global Inc. are two clear examples of this disparity. Sharing how these companies use the Knowledge Management database is helpful to another company only if there is enough information for the benchmarking company to integrate the tool into their system of processes to obtain exceptional results.

The value of the BEST-tool is the ability to describe a Best Practice in a complete and objective way that can be understood and translated into the overall system of the benchmarking company. A Best Practice is intended to contribute to the achievement of strategic goals.