Anda di halaman 1dari 30

Improve Quality

Staff Ability to Drive


Business Action
Webinar
29 January 2016

CEB Quality Leadership Council

PUSHING QUALITY TO OVERWHELMED PARTNERS


Issues That Reduce Business Partner Willingness to Act on Quality Initiatives

Accelerating Pace of Business

Growth of Unplanned Projects

Assurance Fatigue

65% of executives indicate

51% of all new SG&A spend

83% growth in compliance

is dedicated to ad hoc and


project-based work.

that the speed required to


deliver results to customers
has increased.

& ethics staff auditing and


protecting the business
since 2008.

Implication for Business Partner Action


Time pressures reduce willingness
to implement Quality initiatives.

Business partners are already


overloaded when Quality
approaches.

Growth in second line audit


functions leads to business
frustration with endless risk-related
projects.

n = 23,339.

n = 86 finan e professionals.

n = 200.

Source: CEB High Performance Survey, 2012.

Source: CEB General and Administrative


Benchmarking.

Source: State of the Compliance & Ethics


Function Survey, 2008, 2010, 2012,
and 2014); CEB analysis.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

A SHIFT TO BE MORE BUSINESS-MINDED


Quality Leaders Desired Staff Transition

Current State

Goal

Process Pat

Business-Minded Sam

Detects and resolves errors and potential


errors thoroughly

Thinks critically about the true drivers


of business problems

Designs technically sound solutions

Designs easy-to-implement solutions

Comprehensively documents solutions


in the QMS

Clearly communicates solutions to


business partners

From technical-minded Quality staff

to business-minded Quality staff.

Source: CEB analysis.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

WHAT BEING BUSINESS-MINDED LOOKS LIKE


Actions That Indicate Staff Are Business-Minded
Developed in Partnership with CEB Quality Leadership Council Members

Come Up with
Creative Solutions
to Business
Problems
Why It Matters

Example
Observable
Actionsa

Ensures solutions that


fully meet the needs
of the business

Develop unique/
unexpected
solutions to business
problems

Design Easyto-Implement
Solutions

Reduces the burden


on business partners
to implement new
solutions.

Ensure execution
support resources
Adapt requirements
to business
capability

Clearly
Communicate
Solutions

Business-Minded
Quality Staff

Accelerates business
partner understanding
and acceptance of
proposed solutions

Clarify why the old


way was bad for the
business
Communicate in the
business terms and
language

Source: CEB analysis.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

TOO FEW BUSINESS-MINDED STAFF

Quality Line

Quality Directors

Quality Leadership Views on the Desired Versus Actual Proportion of Quality Staff Who Are Able
to Be Business-Minded

88%

Desired

58%

Actual

63%

Desired

Actual

34%

0%

45%

90%

n = 27 Quality leaders.
Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test for Heads of Quality.

Qualitys Goal: Close the Gap


Quality executives desire a higher proportion of Quality staff who ta e a more business-minded approach
when designing and communicating quality initiatives.
2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

LOW BUSINESS-MINDEDNESS UNDERMINES QUALITY


Impact of Being Business-Minded on Business Partner Action and Culture of Quality

Business Partner
Action on Quality
Initiatives

Culture of
Quality

Low Business-Mindedness

High Business-Mindedness

Process Pat

Business-Minded Sam

44% of proposals put forward

= 16%

40/100

= 43%

to business partners are acted on

Culture of Quality Index Score

60% of proposals put forward

to business partners are acted on

57/100

Culture of Quality Index Scorea

Why Low Business-Mindedness = Low Culture


Mistakes go unaddressed, leading employees to see and hear more bad behavior.
Employees see and hear fewer positive behaviors as the business acts less often to fix mi takes and improve
Quality.

n = 405 Quality staff.


Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test.
a
Measured using the CEB Quality Leadership Councils Culture of Quality Index questions, assessing extent to which employees hear, feel, see,
and transfer quality within the organization.
2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

ASSESSED QUALITY COMPETENCIES


Universal Competency Framework
CEB SHL and CEB Quality Leadership Council Example Skills for Each Competency Group

1 Supporting and Coordinating

Demonstrates integrity
Encourages others to share
their views
Is supportive of others

4 Analyzing and Interpreting

Probes for further information


or greater understanding of a
problem
Makes rational judgments from
the available information and
analysis

7 Enterprising and Performing

Demonstrates awareness of the


market the organization works
within
Anticipates business needs

2 Organizing and Executing

Identifies priorities and action


steps for achieving objectives
Encourages others to follow
policies and procedures

5 Functional Expertise

Knowledge of QMS and internal


processes
Knowledge of relevant
regulatory requirements
Knowledge of Quality tools and
techniques (e.g., CAPA, SPC)

8 Creating and Conceptualizing

Produces imaginative solutions


Thinks creatively
Anticipates changes in the
business environment

3 Leading and Deciding

Takes responsibility for actions,


projects and people
Acts on own initiative
Provides others with a clear
direction

6 Adapting and Coping

Copes with disappointments


Stays calm under pressure
Handles criticism well and
learns from it

9 Interacting and Presenting

Expresses opinions, information,


and key points of an argument
clearly
Quickly establishes relationships
with others

Note: See the Appendix for a more detailed description of each competency grouping.

Staff Competency Assessment Instruction: Relative to others at your level or role within your Quality organization,
please rate your personal performance on the following competencies (Scale ranging from Considerably Below
Average to Considerably Above Average).
2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

NEEDING MORE OF WHAT MATTERS MOST


Impact of Tested Competencies on Quality Staff Business-Mindedness
Relative Contributiona to Staff Business-Mindedness, R-Squared 0.25
20%
20%

16%
16%

14%
14%

14%
14%

12%
12%

12%
12%

10%
10%

10%
10%

9%
9%

8%
8%

6%

Interacting and
Presenting

Adapting and
Coping

Leading and
Deciding

Organizing and
Executing

Supporting and
Coordinating

Functional
Expertise

Rank Ordering of
Average Performance

Enterprising and
Performing

Current Staff
Performance

Analyzing and
Interpreting

0%
0%

Creating and
Conceptualizing

6%

Strongest Where We Need It Least


The three competencies with the lowest impacte.g., Supporting and Coordinatinghave the three highest
performance ratings.
n = 405 Quality staff.
Source: 2015 CEB Quality Talent Test.
a
Total does not equal 100 due to rounding.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

HIRING AND DEVELOPING BUSINESS-MINDEDNESS


Conventional Wisdom on How to Improve Quality Staff Business-Mindedness

Hire Business-Minded Staff

Hire higher-competency
professionals as existing staff
retire or leave the organization
Bring in high-performers from
other function
Hire external staff o fill specific
business-facing roles

Develop Existing Staff

Business-Mindedness
Competencies

Send staff o business acumen


training
Provide staff with men ors who
can coach them
Assign staff o projects where
they can work on improving
business-mindedness

Source: CEB analysis.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

GETTING THE RETURNS WE EXPECT?


Expected Relationship Between Hiring and Development Focus and Competency Performance
Illustrative

High
Competency Performance

Expected Relationship:
The more Quality leaders focus
on hiring and development
activities, the more Quality staff
competencies will improve.

Low
Low

High
Level of Focus on Competency
Improvement Activities

Source: CEB analysis.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

10

GETTING THE RETURNS WE EXPECT? (CONTINUED)


Expected Versus Actual Relationship Between Hiring and Development Focus
and Competency Performance

Expected Relationship

Competency Performance

High

Hiringa
Slope = .05

Actual Relationship:
Hiring results in virtually no
competency improvement, in part,
because it is only done on the margins
(e.g., as employees slowly leave).

Low
Low

High
Level of Focus on Competency
Improvement Activities

n = 405 Quality staff.


Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test.
a
Hiring measured as an index of: focusing on senior level hiring, quality of employment package, and importance placed on external expertise.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

11

GETTING THE RETURNS WE EXPECT? (CONTINUED)


Expected Versus Actual Relationship Between Hiring and Development Focus
and Competency Performance

Expected Relationship

Competency Performance

High

Developmentb
Slope = .20
Hiringa
Slope = .05

Actual Relationship:
Hiring results in virtually no
competency improvement.
Development activity results
in only small competency
improvement.

Low
Low

High
Level of Focus on Competency
Improvement Activities

n = 405 Quality staff.


Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test.
a
Hiring measured as an index of: focusing on senior level hiring, quality of employment package, and importance placed on external expertise.
b
Development measured as an index of: training hours, manager accountability to develop staff, use of skilled staff as oaches, mentorship focus,
speed of staff d velopment, application of competency models.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

12

ENABLING ENVIRONMENT DRIVES MORE IMPROVEMENT


Expected Versus Actual Relationship Between Hiring and Development Investment
and Competency Performance

Expected Relationship

High
Competency Performance

Enabling
Environmentc

Slope = .40
Developmentb
Slope = .20
Hiringa

Quality leadership can


achieve twice as much
improvement in staff
performance across
critical competencies by
investing in an enabling
environment.

Slope = .05

Low
Low

High
Level of Focus on Competency
Improvement Activities

n = 405 Quality staff.


Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test.
a
Hiring measured as an index of: focusing on senior level hiring, quality of employment package, and importance placed on external expertise.
b
Development measured as an index of: training hours, manager accountability to develop staff, use of skilled staff as oaches, mentorship focus,
speed of staff d velopment, and application of competency models.
c
Enabling environment measured as an index of: message relevancy, peer support, incentive alignment, message clarity, clarity of actions required
to act on messages, level of organizational barrier removal, leadership support to make it easy, leadership emphasis, and leadership help with
translating messages.
2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

13

ENVIRONMENT ACTIVATES DEVELOPMENT


Distribution of Staff in the Top Quintile of Competency Performance
By Development Investment and Strength of Enabling Environment
Development alone has little to no impact on
overall staff performance.
High

Development Investment

Enabling Environment
Amplifies Success
1% of Top
Competency
Performers

72% of Top
Competency
Performers

5% of Top
Competency
Performers

22% of Top
Competency
Performers

Nearly three-quarters of
top performers work in
organizations that both invest
highly in their development
and provide them with an
enabling environment.

Low
Low

High
Enabling Environment

n = 405 Quality staff.


Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test.
2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

14

WHAT AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT IS


Core Elements of an Enabling Environment
Culture
Deeply held assumptions and
beliefs of a company and its employees
Enabling
Environment
Employees perceptions of
and the meaning attached to the
policies, practices, and procedures
they experience in the organization

Signals
Specific Elements
of an Enabling
Environment

Leaders send clear messages


Leaders send relevant messages
Leader priorities are clear
Leaders clarify actions needed
Leaders align staff in entives
Peers support leadership
messages

Processes and Practices

Leaders make execution easy


Leaders remove execution barriers
Leaders provide direct support with
tools and processes

Source: Macey, William et al. Organizational Climate and Culture, Annual Review of Psychology, 19 July 2012; CEB analysis.
2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

15

ENABLING ENVIRONMENTS ARE RARE IN QUALITY


Distribution of Quality Staff Based on Level of Agreement That They Work in an
Environment That Enables Them to Be Business-Minded

Level of Staff Agreement That Their


Work Environment Is Enabling

7
Strongly
Agree

79% of staff

eport that the


environment they currently
work in falls short of enabling
business-mindedness.

5.5

4
Neutral

1
Strongly
Disagree
Quality Staff Respondents
n = 405 Quality staff.
Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test.
Note: Staff ere asked a battery of questions on a 7-point agreement scale across the following: message
relevancy, peer support, incentive alignment, message clarity, clarity of actions required to act on messages,
organizational barrier removal, leadership support to make it easy, leadership emphasis, and leadership help
with translating messages.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

16

REASON 1: LEADERSHIP SENDS CONFLICTING SIGNALS


Proportion of Staff Who Receive Conflicting
Signals in Day-to-Day Work

72% of Quality staff

eport
conflicting signals f om Quality
leadership about their work priorities.
n = 405 Quality staff.

Typical Conflicting Signals Staff Hear in Their


Day-to-Day Work

Look for a mentor to help you with presentations.


 ou need to improve your ability to co-develop
Y
solutions with the business.

Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test.

 e need you to improve your abilities in


W
statistical process control.
I dont have time for your design ideas, just
identify a fix or all of these customer complaints.
Source: CEB analysis.

Impact on Quality Staff


Conflicting signals ma e it hard for Quality staff o dedicate themselves to business-minded, and encourages
staff o play it safe by favoring their technical competencies out of both uncertainty and inertia.
2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

17

REASON 2: STAFF DONT KNOW WHAT GOOD LOOKS LIKE


Staff Versus Leadership Perceptions on Performance Across Competencies
Percentage of Staff Assessing Themselves as Above Average, Compared with Percentage
of Quality Leaders Assessing Staff as Meeting Expectations
80%

79%

= 40%

39%

40%

Performance Messages Arent Getting


Through
A 40% difference in perceptions
about performance suggests Quality
leadership hasnt done enough to
clarify what they truly expect from staff.

0%
Quality Staff
Self-Assessment

Leadership Assessment
of Quality Staff

n = 405 Quality staff; 7 Quality leaders.


Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test; CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test for Heads of Quality.

Impact on Quality Staff


Staff are less likely to put their heart and soul into improving if they already believe they are good at businessminded competencies.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

18

REASON 3: NEW EXPECTATIONS ARENT SUPPORTED


Evolution of Quality Staff Job Expectations and Provided Support
Past Functional Expectations

Error detection and prevention


Process control and improvement

New Functional Expectations

Tools and
Methods
Provided
and Used

What Staff
Perceive

Quality policies and procedures


Statistical process control
Root cause analysis

Error detection and prevention


Process control and improvement
Customer experience
Quality culture
Design for quality
Quality policies and procedures
Statistical process control
Root cause analysis
APQP tools

While functional
expectations
have grown

quality tools
have largely
stayed the same.

82% of Quality staff eport that a lack of tools, process and direct
leadership support makes it hard to be business-minded.
Impact on Quality Staff
Lack of a supporting infrastructure prevents staff f om applying learnings
from development activities, and discourages them from applying
competency strengths due to the significant e ort required.

n = 405 Quality staff.


Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test; CEB analysis.
2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

19

THREE ACTIONS TO CREATE AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT


Three Areas of Focus For Quality Leaders Seeking to Create a More Enabling Environment

Enabling
Environment
Quality leaders must create an
enabling environment that drives Quality
staff per ormance in the competencies that
lead to business-mindedness.

Provide Clear Signals

Leadership
Imperative

Reduce
Conflicting
Signals

Help Quality Staff


Understand What
Signals Mean in
Practice

Provide Supportive
Processes and Practices

Provide Direct Support to Reduce


Quality Staff E ecution Barriers

Source: CEB analysis.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

20

BUILD AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR QUALITY STAFF

Provide Clear Signals


Reduce Conflicting
Signals

Alignment
Inc.

Help Quality Staff Understand


What Signals Mean in Practice

Provide Direct Support to Reduce


Quality Staff Execution Barriers

Principles Inc.

Signal Coordination
Exercise

Signal Clarification
Exercises

Development Options
Roadmap

True Peer Consulting


Groups

Streamlined
Process Documents

Pseudonym.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

21

NOT SENSING BUSINESS-MINDEDNESS AS A PRIORITY


Is Being More Creative a Big Leadership Priority?
Percent of Quality Staff Agreeing

Is Communicating Clearly a Big Leadership


Priority?
Percent of Quality Staff Agreeing

25%
High to Very
High Priority

75%
Neutral to Very
Low Priority

59%
Neutral to Very
Low Priority

n = 405 Quality staff.

n = 405 Quality staff.

Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test.

Source: CEB 2015 Quality Talent Test.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

41%
High to Very
High Priority

22

CONFLICTING SIGNALS CREATE UNCERTAINTY


Emphasis of Quality and Business Leaders During Different Types of Staff Interaction

Leaders Emphasis When Discussing


Strategic Direction and Ambitions

Leaders Emphasis During


Day-to-Day Execution

Create solutions with the


business

Identify insight from data


Develop initiatives to
improve customer loyalty

Train on new regulatory


standards

Close customer complaints

Ensure QMS compliance

Quality Staff

Why the Disconnect Happens

Quality leaders ambitions for advancing the function


run into the objectives that the business sets for Quality.
Quality leaders fall back to what they know, and what
must get done, in the signals they send to staff.

Source: CEB analysis.


2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

23

SIGNAL COORDINATION EXERCISE

Alignment
Inc.

OVERVIEW

Quality leaders at Alignment Inc. use signal coordination exercises to align with business
leadership on the signals they send to Quality staffeither di ectly through, e.g.,
communications, or indirectly through, e.g., work prioritizationabout the behaviors
they must exhibit to achieve mutual goals.
SOLUTION HIGHLIGHTS

Signal Coordination Exercise: Quality leaders work with the business to define a specifi
goal, identify Quality staff beh viors that support that goal, and coordinate the signals they
will send to reinforce the goal.
Trigger-Based Planning: Quality and business leaders create a list of events that would
likely trigger inconsistent signals, and agree to meet and review the signaling plan if a
trigger event occurs.
Performance Gap Root Cause: Quality discusses signals as one of the main potential root
causes of performance gaps to understand why Quality staff actions a e not aligning with
overall joint objectives.

Pseudonym.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

24

TURN GOALS INTO COORDINATED SIGNALS

Alignment
Inc.

Typical Goal Alignment Process and Alignment Inc.s Addition to the Approach

1. Align Quality and Business Objective


Example: Bottom-Line Contribution

High-level objectives can be interpreted


and acted on in various ways by leaders.

2. D
 efine Ope ational Performance Metric
Example: Reduce Product Returns by 35%

Signals to Quality staff ary by the


interpretation of the leader.
Signals do not map to clear action
steps or behaviors to exhibit for
Quality staff.

3. Communicate High-Level Objective to Quality Staff


STOP
4. Define desired behaviors needed to achieve the high
level plan
Example: Applying voice of the customer to quality
solutions

5. Identify signals that leaders need to send to promote


desired behaviors
Example: Management will ask Quality staff to review
related customer input before solving a Quality
problem.

Most Quality organizations stop here.

Alignment Inc. breaks high-level


objectives down into discrete signals
about desired changes in behavior.
Leaders send consistent signals
that clearly reinforce expected
Quality staff beh viors and
contribute to the overall objective.

Source: Alignment Inc.; CEB analysis.


1
Pseudonym.
2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

25

AGREE ON HOW TO SIGNAL DESIRED


BEHAVIORS

Alignment
Inc.

Alignment Incs Signal Coordination Exercise

Signal Coordination Exercise Worksheet


Joint Goal: Bottomline contribution
Qualitys Performance Metric: Reduce Product Returns by 35%
Section 1: Define Desired Behaviors:
What definition can (1) leaders observe and (2) Quality staff find relatable to their day-to-day work?

Applying Voice of Customer to Quality Solutions


______________________________________________
______________________________________________

Section 2: Decide on Signals to Send and Avoid


What signals will emphasize desired behaviors?
From who? How?

Management will ask Quality staff to review


__________________________________________
related customer input before solving a Quality
__________________________________________
problem
__________________________________________

What signals (1) reinforce the wrong behaviors


or (2) contradict the objective?

__________________________________________
Managers prioritizing product inspection
Expectations for staff to resolve customer issues
__________________________________________
quickly
__________________________________________

Source: Alignment Inc.; CEB analysis.


1
Pseudonym.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

26

IDENTIFY WHAT TRIGGERS INCONSISTENCY

Alignment
Inc.

Sample Events Used by Quality and Business Leaders As Triggers to Monitor for
Signal Inconsistencies
Missed Milestone
Financial Underperformance

Compensation Policy Change


Workload Change

Increase in Customer Complaints


Significant Quality Inciden

Business misses
strategic milestone

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

Jun.

Example Trigger Review Discussions Targeted at Preventing Inconsistent Signals Before They Happen
Objective: Bottom-line contribution
1. Who do we anticipate is most likely to send divergent signals?
Middle management on both teams
2. What type of divergent signal do we think will be sent?
Managers will push staff to focus on checking Quality after production
ratherthancontinuingtodosoduringproduction..
3. What will that make staff do?
Staff will confuse their priorities and shift attention to reactive work.
4. What preventative measures will we take?
Managers advocate for Quality performance earlier in the process.
Source: Alignment Inc.; CEB analysis.
1

Pseudonym.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

27

CONSIDER SIGNALS IMPACT ON


PERFORMANCE

Alignment
Inc.

Quality Staff Performance Assessments Used to Evaluate Signal Consistency


Expectations
Rating Scale:
1: Not Met
3: Met
5: Exceeded

Mid-Year Performance Assessment: Adam


Mid-Year Performance Assessment: Mark
Mid-Year Performance Assessment: Sarah
Score Objective: Bottom-Line Contribution
2
Behavior 1: Accounts for line stoppage in solutions
3
Behavior 2: Discusses implementation resource requirements
1
Behavior 3: Seeks ways to shorten the process

Quality adds signaling to its list of potential root causes of staff performance gaps.
Signals

Resources

Available Tools

Staff Skill Level

...

Signaling Key Root Cause Questions


Did we send conflicting signal ?

Yes

No

Unsure

Did staff misin erpret our expectations?

Yes

No

Unsure

 ave signals to others undermined desired behaviors?


H
(e.g., Cost-cutting pressures to plant manager)

Yes

No

Unsure

...
Quality and business leaders root cause why signals are affecting Quality staff to
determine how to realign them with the objective.
Source: Alignment Inc.; CEB analysis.
1

Pseudonym.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

28

EARLY POSITIVE TRENDS


Early Indicators After Year One
In business units that have implemented signal
coordination exercises, Quality has observed the
following trends:

Improved alignment on behavioral priorities within


Quality
Lower instances of conflicting leadership signals o
staff
Better Quality staff oncentration on behaviors that
contribute to high-level objectives

Alignment
Inc.
Signal Coordination Effect on Business Relationship

The signal coordination exercise is helping


us make the process of building Quality
ownership more engaging for the business.
It improves alignment and commitment to
Quality objectives.
VP Quality
Food Safety

Solution Investments
Direct Costs

None

Time Investment

Four hours per month for senior leadership and supporting staff

Estimated Time to
Implementation

Six months to get traction with initial business partners

Source: Alignment Inc.; CEB analysis.

Pseudonym.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

29

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Quality has a shortage of business-minded staff with the ability to create and clearly
communicate easy-to-implement Quality solutions.
Increased focus on hiring and development efforts alone are unlikely to yield substantial
improvements in the number of staff with high levels of business-mindedness.
Enabling environments alone deliver more business-mindedness across Quality teams
than development investments, but for the best performance Quality must do both.
Reduce conflicting signals sent to staff, help staff understand what signals mean in
practice, and provide the right tools and support.
Engage business leaders in signal coordination exercises to agree on desired Quality
staff behaviors, and ensure Quality leaders and the business continue to emphasize them
over time.

For more information and to access additional resources please visit


www.ceb.quality.executiveboard.com or contact lzheng@executiveboard.com.

2015 CEB. All rights reserved.QUAL4588415SYN

30