California Team Excellence Awards

1
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
California Team Excellence AwardsWestern
Regional Team Excellence Awards
2009 Judges Training
2
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• Steps in Judges Training
• 1. Review the Judges Training Slides (Power
  Point)
• 2. Review the Judges Scoresheet and Consensus
  Documents (Excel)
• 3. Review the Team Excellence presentations on
  the CCE/CETA website.
• 4. Score the presentations using the Scoring
  Template.
• 5. Review the feedback reports on the CCE/CETA
  website.
• 6. Attend one of the Judges Conference calls

3
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
2009 Judges Thank you for your service!Your
participation is an important part of achieving
our goal!
4
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• Overview
• State and National Award
• The CTEA/WRTEA award process
• Your role as judges
• Provide consistency and quality of the judging
  process and deliverables
• Evaluation and scoring criteria
• Methods for accurately scoring an application
• Feedback Report Template
• Effective comment writing
• Consistency between judging panels

5
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Our Task as Judges

• Apply CTEA/WRTEA Criteria
• Assign scores for each of the criteria
• Document strengths
• Identify Opportunities for Improvement
• Provide teams with actionable feedback reports

6
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Our Customers

• The Applicant Teams
• California and Western Regional Private and
  Public Sector
• Other Judges
• NOT
• Your organization - cant copy the teams
  processes
• You, as potential employee or consultant to the
  applicant

7
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Learning Outcomes

• What will you learn?
• How the award process works
• How to evaluate and score applicant teams
• How to reach group consensus
• How to provide an effective feedback report to
  help teams improve

8
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
State International Processes
9
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• International Award
• Is administered by the American Society for
  Quality (ASQ) (www.asq.org)
• There is an annual cycle with a live competition
  and award ceremony at ASQs International
  conference in May.
• State Award
• California Council for Excellence (CCE)
  (www.calexcellence.org ) administers the
  WRTEA/CTEA. Several states administer state level
  award programs and mirror the national program.
• There is an annual cycle with a competition in
  November and an awards ceremony the following
  spring.

10
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
CTEA Mission Statement

• We promote overall effectiveness through
  team-focused management. We provide the training,
  tools, knowledge, and assessment skills needed to
  excel through team participation, recognition,
  and celebration.

11
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Award Schedule

• Intent to Apply 08/31/2009
• Team Entry Fee Presentation 10/16/2009
• Judging Period 11/1-13/2009
• Locations to be determined
• Notify ASQ of CTEA Winner 11/20/2009
• Teams Receive Feedback Reports 12/18/2009
• CTEA/WRTEA Awards Ceremony April 2010
• ASQ Intl Competition (St. Louis, MO) 05/24-26/2010

12
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Live Presentation

• The teams prepare and present a thirty (30)
  minute live presentation that
• covers one completed team project from the
  previous 24 months
• tracks team project from approach, deployment and
  results using the criteria

13
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
DVD/VHS Video Presentation

• The teams prepare a thirty (30) minute DVD/VHS
  video presentation that
• covers one completed team project from the
  previous 24 months
• tracks team project from approach, deployment and
  results using the criteria
• The filming can be home-grown or professionally
  done. However, quality needs to be such that it
  is comprehensible to the judges.

14
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Supporting Documentation

• Supporting Documentation accompanies the
  presentation
• Teams submit copies of visuals used and speaker
  notes
• Judges can review supporting documentation after
  the live or video presentation

15
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Judging Process

• Structure
• Panel of 3-5 judges
• Process
• View presentation or DVD/VHS video
• Score individually
• Develop consensus among judging panel
• Create feedback report

16
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Individual Scoring

• Take notes while watching the presentation.
• Use the notes to assign individual scores for
  each of the category factors.

17
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
What you should be looking for as a Judge

• Approach - Section 1, 2 3
• Implementation - Section 4A 4B
• Results - Section 4C
• Management Presentation - Section 5

18
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Approach - Section 1, 2 3

• The term approach refers to how a team
  addresses the methods and processes used by the
  team.
• Approaches are evaluated on the basis of the
  appropriateness of the methods and processes to
  the criteria, the effectiveness of their use, and
  their alignment with organizational needs.

19
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Approach - Section 1, 2 3

• 1A. Explain the methods used to choose the
  project.
• 1B. Explain how the project supports/aligns with
  the organization's goals, performance measures,
  and/or strategies.
• 1C. Identify the potential stakeholders (those
  impacted by the project) and explain how they may
  be impacted by the project.
• 2A. Explain the approach/ process the team used
  to identify the potential root cause(s)/improvemen
  t opportunities.

• 2B. Describe how the team analyzed information to
  identify the final root cause(s)/improvement
  opportunity(ies).
• 3A. Explain the methods used to identify the
  possible solutions/improvement actions.
• 3B. Explain how the final solution(s)/improvement
  actions(s) was/were determined.
• 3C. Explain the final solution(s)/improvement
  actions, validation, and benefits expected to be
  realized by implementing the teams
  solution(s)/improvement action(s).

20
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Implementation - Section 4A 4B

• The term implementation refers to the extent to
  which a teams approach is applied to the
  requirements of the criteria.
• Implementation is evaluated on the basis of the
  breadth and depth of application of the approach
  to relevant processes and work units throughout
  the organization.

21
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Implementation - Section 4A 4B

• 4A. Explain how buy-in/agreement was achieved for
  implementation
• 4B. Explain the approach used by the team to
  implement its solution(s)/improvement action(s)
  and to ensure the results.

22
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Results - Section 4C

• The term results refers to outputs and outcomes
  achieved by a team in addressing the purposes of
  a criteria factor.
• Results are evaluated on the basis of current
  performance, performance relative to appropriate
  comparisons the rate, breadth, and importance of
  performance improvements and the relationship to
  key organizational measures, goals, and/or
  stakeholder sharing.

23
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• Results - Section 4C
• 4C. Describe the results achieved.
• 4Ca. Indicate the types of tangible and
  intangible results that were realized.
• 4Cb. Explain how the project's results link with
  the organization's goals, performance measures,
  and/or strategies.
• 4Cc. Explain how results were shared with
  stakeholders.

24
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• Management Presentation
• 5A. Explain how the team members were selected
  and how they were involved throughout the
  project.
• 5B. Explain how the team was prepared to work
  together in addressing the project.
• 5C. Explain how the team managed its
  performance to ensure it was effective as a team.
• 5D. The team will also be judged on the
  clarity and organization of its presentation.

25
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Types of Teams

• Project Teams 2 types
• Problem Solving Teams Teams choose one or more
  specific problems where there is a definite cause
  and effect relationship.
• Improvement Team Teams either improve an
  existing product, service, or process or they
  develop and install a new product, service or
  process.

26
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Project Approaches

• A variety of approaches are used by project teams
  to work on their selected projects. Some
  possible variations include
• Different project development models
• Different presentation formats
• Different methodologies, tools and terminology

27
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Exploring Teams Approaches

• Team and approach differences exist, but all
  teams use the criteria.
• Teams use various methods to address the criteria
• Recognize how your personal experience with and
  knowledge of teams and team approaches may
  influence your judging.

28
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Evaluation Criteria - Scoring

• 5 Sections
• 27 Points each for Sections 1-4
• 18 Points for Section 5
• 126 Total Possible Points
• Criteria Sections
• 1. Project Selection and Purpose
• 2. Current Situation Analysis
• 3. Solutions Development
• 4. Project Implementation and Results
• 5. Team Management and Project Presentation

29
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Criteria

• 1. Project Selection and Purpose
• (9 factors _at_ 3 points 27 points possible)
• 1A. Explain the methods used to choose the
  project. (Provide
• specific examples of techniques and data
  used.)
• Describe the types of data and quality tools used
  to select the project, and why they were used.
• b. Explain the reasons why the project was
  selected.
• c. Describe the involvement of potential
  stakeholders in
• project selection.

30
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
1B. Explain how the project supports/aligns with
the organization's goals, performance
measures, and/or strategies. a. Identify the
affected organizational goals, performance
measures, and/or strategies. b. Identify the
types of impact the project will have on each
goal, performance measure, and/or strategy. c.
Identify the degree of impact on each goal,
performance measure, and/or strategy and how
this was determined.
31
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• 1C. Identify the potential stakeholders (those
  impacted by the project)
• and explain how they may be impacted by
  the project.
• Identify the affected internal and external
  stakeholders and explain how they were
  identified.
• b. Identify the types of potential impact on
  stakeholders and explain how these were
  determined.
• c. Identify the degree of potential impact
  on stakeholders and explain how these were
  determined.

32
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• 2. Current Situation Analysis
• (6 factors _at_ 4.5 points 27 points possible)
• 1.5 for Unclear, 3 for Meets, and 4.5 for
  Exceeds
• 2A. Explain the approach/ process the team used
  to identify the potential root cause(s)/improvemen
  t opportunities.
• Describe the methods and tools used to identify
  possible root causes/improvement opportunities.
• b. Describe the teams analysis of data to
  identify possible root causes/improvement
  opportunities.
• c. Describe how or if any of the stakeholders
  were involved in identifying the possible root
  causes/improvement opportunities.

33
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
 

• 2B. Describe how the team analyzed information to
  identify the final root cause(s)/improvement
  opportunity(ies). (Include any appropriate
  validation.)
• Describe the methods and tools used to identify
  the final root cause(s)/improvement
  opportunity(ies).
• b. Describe the teams analysis of data to
  select the final root cause(s)/improvement
  opportunity(ies).
• c. Identify the root cause(s) and explain how
  the team validated the final root
  cause(s)/improvement opportunity(ies).

34
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• Solution Development
• (9 factors _at_ 3 points 27 points possible)

3A. Explain the methods used to identify the
possible solutions/improvement actions. a.
Describe the methods and tools used to develop
possible solutions/improvement actions. b.
Describe the teams analysis of data to develop
possible solutions/improvement actions. c.
Indicate the criteria the team decided to use in
selecting the final solution(s)/improvement
action(s).
35
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• 3B. Explain how the final solution(s)/improvement
  actions(s) was/were determined.
• Describe the methods, and tools used by the team
  to select the final solution(s)/improvement
  action(s).
• b. Describe the teams analysis of data to
  select the final solution(s)/improvement
  action(s).
• c. Describe the involvement of stakeholders in
  the selection of the final solution(s)/improvement
  action(s).

36
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• 3C. Explain the final solution(s)/improvement
  actions, validation, and benefits expected to be
  realized by implementing the teams
  solution(s)/improvement action(s).
• Describe the final solution(s)/improvement
  action(s) and explain how the team validated the
  final solution(s)/improvement action(s).
• b. Indicate the types of tangible and
  intangible benefits that are expected to be
  realized by implementing the teams
  solution(s)/improvement action(s).
• c. Explain how the team used data to justify
  the implementation of the teams
  solutions/improvement action(s).

37
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• 4. Project Implementation and Results
• (9 items _at_ 3 points 27 points possible)
• 4A. Explain how buy-in/agreement was achieved for
• implementation.
• a. Indicate the types of internal and external
  (if applicable)
• stakeholder involvement in implementation.
• Describe how various types of resistance were
  identified and addressed.
• c. Explain how stakeholder buy-in was ensured.

38
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• 4B. Explain the approach used by the team to
  implement its
• solution(s)/improvement action(s) and to
  ensure the results.
• a. Describe the plan developed by the team to
  implement its
• solution(s)/improvement action(s).
• Describe the procedure, system, or other changes
  that were made to implement the
  solution(s)/improvement action(s) and to sustain
  the results.
• c. Describe the creation and installation of a
  system for measuring
• and sustaining results.

39
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• 4C. Describe the results achieved.
• a. Indicate the types of tangible and
  intangible results that were realized.
• b. Explain how the projects results link with
  the organizations goals, performance measures,
  and/or strategies.
• c. Explain how results were shared with
  stakeholders.

40
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
5. Team Management and Project Presentation
(4 items _at_ 4.5 points 18 points possible) 5A.
Explain how the team members were selected and
how they were involved throughout the
project. 5B. Explain how the team was
prepared to work together in addressing the
project. 5C. Explain how the team managed its
performance to ensure it was effective as a
team. 5D. The team will also be judged on the
clarity and organization of its presentation.
41
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Criteria Detail
Judges Please review the Criteria Detail which
is listed in the Judges Material at the end of
this presentation. The Detail will provide you
with a more complete description and discussion
of each criterion item. You will find a listing
of all materials that you should have a copy of
at the end of this presentation. You should
review and understand all of the material.
42
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Scoring Guidelines

• Scoring Guidelines

Reference ASQ Scoring Guidelines Criteria
Detail
43
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• Judging Option
• Not Covered
• Unclear
• Meets Criteria
• Exceeds Criteria

• Score
• 0 Totally missing
• 1 or 1.5 Touched upon, but not clear. Not
  enough information is provided to determine if
  the teams approach met or could meet the
  criteria requirements.
• 2 or 3 Sufficient information is provided to
  determine that the teams approach met the
  criteria requirements.
• 3 or 4.5 The teams approach goes beyond
  meeting the criteria and provides additional
  clarity indicating increased accuracy in the
  teams analysis, actions and/or conclusions.
  Integration with other criteria items is apparent
  and enhances the teams overall results. A Best
  Practice or Role Model approach.

Reference ASQ Criteria Detail page 3
44
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Questions to Consider During Scoring

• Does the team respond fully to the criteria?
• Does it show a systematic approach?
• Does it give clear and sufficient information on
  levels of implementation?
• Does it show focus on key processes and
  improvements?
• Does it indicate measurable outcomes that link to
  project and organizational goals?
• Does it demonstrate a team management approach?
• Is the presentation clear and organized?

45
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Driving Scores Up/Down

• Lack of focus on the Criteria
• Not using/understanding the Scoring Guidelines
• Beware of first impression errors
• Comparing one team to another, rather than on the
  criteria
• Impressed with neat stuff
• Similar-to-Me effect
• Central tendency error or playing it safe
• Leniency factor
• Halo effect

46
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Reducing Variability

• Stick to the criteria
• Look for best not perfect fit
• Dont block a winner - Give benefit of doubt when
  reasonably supported

47
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Reaching Consensus

• You MUST reach consensus as a team
• On scoring
• And feedback

48
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Scoring and Reaching Consensus

• Team consensus should be reached when scores
  differ by 2 or more points within the judging
  panel.
• Individual scores are averaged when individual
  scores do not vary by more than 1 point.
• Consensus no one strongly objects to the team
  score.

49
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Scoring and Reaching Consensus

• To reach consensus, distinctions and perceptions
  must be shared. Use questioning to help identify
  distinctions in judging perceptions.
• Individual scores are changed up or down when
  another judging team member points out something
  they missed or makes a distinction that allows
  the teams perspective to be viewed from a
  different vantage.

50
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Reaching Consensus

• Focus on facts and best fit
• Use facts and information from presentation
• Consider importance and relevance of issues to
  the team
• Stay within Criteria and Scoring Guidelines
• Scoring
• Scoring range is best fit
• Exception is averaging
• Listen and understand!

51
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Feedback Reports

• Actionable for the team
• Basis for developing your score
• Communicates strengths and opportunities for
  improvements (OFIs) to the team

52
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Feedback Guidelines

• Complete sentences
• Constructive
• Non-prescriptive
• Address important elements
• Succinct, specific narrative
• Reflect the score
• Stay inbound with Criteria

53
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• A single, complete thought
• 1 or 2 sentences each comment
• 2 or 3 comments per factor
• Three parts to the comment
• Specifies the strength or OFI based on the
  criteria
• Supported with specifics
• Describes impact, (so what)
• Adds value to the team
• Relevant or important to the team
• Actionable and/or reinforcing
• Appropriate to the teams level of maturity

54
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
What Makes a Good Comment?

• Statement of strength/OFI
• Addresses specific Criteria
• Uses language of the teams presentation,
  Criteria, and the scoring guidelines
• Support for the strength/OFI
• Uses specific examples from the presentation
• Clear to the team why included
• Specific about what is missing for OFI
• Impact
• Factual so what related to the team
• Links to criteria and the teams presentation

55
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Style Guidelines

• Not prescriptive
• Not could, should or would
• Nonjudgmental - use facts, not opinions
• Specific about what is missing for
• it is not clear comments
• Uses vocabulary from Criteria, Scoring
  Guidelines, the teams presentation

56
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Style Guidelines

• Polite, professional, positive tone
• Active voice, present tense
• Uses the team's terminology
• Avoids jargon or acronyms except when used by the
  team
• Refers to the team, not name
• References figure numbers when appropriate

57
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Strength Comments

• Strength responds to Criteria
• Support with examples
• Impact
• Reinforces practices of the team
• Focuses on important responses
• Considers scoring guidelines/maturity
• Supports factor score

58
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Opportunity for Improvement (OFI) Comments

• Opportunity for Improvement (OFI) Comments

59
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Review on Comments

• Single, complete thought
• 1 or 2 sentences
• Factual, specific, and positive
• Adequate support? Factual so what
• Useful to the team
• Clear why its included? Actionable
• Relates to Criteria, Scoring Guidelines
• Not prescriptive
• Present tense, active voice

60
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Sample Comments

• Poorly Written Strength Comment
• The team did a good job when they presented their
  project.

61
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Sample Comments

• Issues with Poorly Written Strength Comment
• No support with examples to let the team know
  what was good
• Does not reinforce practices
• Does not describe the impact
• Does not relate to the criteria
• Not in present tense, active voice

62
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Sample Comments

• Well Written Strength Comment
• The presentation offered multiple reasons for
  project selection. For example, reduce cycle
  time, process changes. Also, the identification
  of high scrap and customer disappointment
  reiterated the reasons for project selection.
  Data collection, measures of data-based facts
  gathered from individuals doing the work was
  evident. The specific evidence gathered verifies
  the need to select this project.

63
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards

• OFI Comments
• OFI responds to Criteria
• Support with examples
• Impact
• Shows gaps in practices of the team
• Focuses on important responses
• Considers scoring guidelines/maturity
• Supports factor score

64
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Sample Comments

• Poorly Written OFI Comment
• It was impossible for us to tell what the team
  achieved. Goals and measures were glaringly
  omitted. Without an action plan that includes
  goals it will be impossible for the team to
  achieve meaningful results. The organization
  should be using the balanced scorecard to help
  them.

65
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Sample Comments

• Issues with Poorly Written OFI Comment
• Critical tone glaringly omitted
• So what is opinion, not fact Without an action
  plan that includes goals it will be impossible
  for the team
• Prescriptive
• No linkage to criteria

66
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Sample Comments

• Well Written OFI Comment
• While the team identified the organizations
  vision, the teams mission, and several team
  targets, it is not clear what goals or objectives
  and/or performance measures or indicators were
  used to determine progress toward the targets,
  the organizations vision, or the teams mission.
  Without these goals/objectives, measures or
  indicators it may be difficult for the team to
  determine the specific impact it may have on
  these organization-level goals.

67
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Refining Your Comments

• What is the real strength or OFI?
• Is it clear?
• What team practices in the comment support the
  strength/OFI?
• Is the so what linked to the main point of the
  comment?
• Is the so what factual?

68
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Presentation Time Limit 30 Minutes

• What happens if the presentation goes beyond 30
  minutes?
• Anything presented after the 30 minute mark is
  not considered in judging and scoring.

69
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Seeking Clarification
If Time Permits The judges may ask questions of
the applicant teams or review portions of the
DVD/video to clarify or verify information in the
presentation.
70
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Scoring and Feedback Generation

• Judges may be asked to review multiple applicant
  presentations (either live or DVD/video).
• Feedback reports must be written by the judges
  panels the afternoon of the event.

71
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Typical Event Timeline
730 am - 800 am  Registration and Exhibits
800 am - 900 am     Team Power Breakfast
with Motivational Speaker in Main
Room 900 am 1200 pm    Live Team
Presentations  1200 pm - 100 pm    Team
Recognition Ceremony 100 pm 430 pm Judges
Prepare Feedback Reports 500 pm   
                 Adjourn
72
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Judges Calibration Telephone Conference Call

• Judges must participate in one of the conference
  calls
• Tuesday, October 16, 830-1030 am
• Thursday, October 18, 830-1030 am
• We will answer questions regarding the process
  that you may have at that time.
• We will discuss logistical issues, locations,
  schedules, etc.
• We will verify that you have all documentation.

73
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Judges Materials Go to the following website for
these materials

• Criteria
• Criteria Detail
• Scoring Notes
• Scoring Guidelines
• Scoring Booklet

• Scoring Template for Consensus Final Scoresheet
  Template
• Final Feedback Template

Note Examples of the above materials are on the
slides that follow. Also, they can be downloaded
at www.calexcellence.org/ctea.html.
74
Criteria/Criteria Detail(Example)

• Criteria/Criteria Detail(Example)

75
Presentation Scoring Notes (Example)
76
Scoring Guidelines(Example)
American Society for Quality 2007-08
International Team Excellence Award
Process Scoring Guidelines Note Exceeds
scoring level descriptions are cumulative. What
is looked for in Exceeds must include what is
in Meets. The scoring level of Not Covered
is not noted below. These are meant to be general
guidelines for scoring to serve as a standard for
evaluating team presentations. All teams are
still encouraged to be as creative and as
innovative as possible in sharing their stories.
77
Scoring Booklet(Example)
78
Consensus Scoresheet (Example)
79
Final Scoresheet(Example)
80
Case Study Feedback Report(Example)
2005 CTEA Team Award Process Judges Feedback
Report Team Name Transportation Tracking
Team Total Score 118.38 Company The
Boeing Company Total Possible 126 1. Purpose
(27 points) - 9 factors _at_ 3 points maximum
Score 25.63 Strengths The team provided
evidence of the use of tools used to identify
cause and effect, FEMA, and brainstorming. The
team did an effective job to describe methods
used to choose the project, how the project
supports/aligns with the organizations
goals/performance measures and/or strategies.
The team identified the potential stakeholders
and the potential impact of the project on
them. Suggestions for Improvement It was unclear
what the specific measurable goals were for the
performance measures outlined on slide 9. The
type of criteria and/or tools used to determine
high, medium, and low impact was unclear.
81
California and Western Regional Team Excellence
Awards
Thank you for taking the Judges Training.See
you in November! The California Team
Excellence Awards Council