Hi Bob,

I'm glad to learn from your article the progress that has been made in elevating the perspective of the Baldridge Performance Excellence Framework.  Incorporating the notions of core competencies, competitive capabilities, learning organizations, strategic intent, and systems thinking are all very, very important elements when it comes to being able to elevate an organization's overall performance (i.e., as a SYSTEM) in its chosen/targeted competitive arenas.  That said, it's important to realize that all of these notions are inter-related and inter-dependent.  The reason for this tight linkage is due to the fact that they are all elements/components that part of the overall SYSTEM (i.e., the business ENTERPRISE).  And given all that has been written/documented about each of these notions - typically independent of one another - it's not unusual that some level of confusion and obfuscation exists when attempting to bring them together into a concise and tightly integrated framework; ideally one that is directed toward building and sustaining continuous improvement/operational excellence "COMPETENCIES" and "CAPABILITIES."

With that thought in mind, it's been my experience - based on decades of work focused on helping organizations elevate their overall performance level by building new and/or enhancing existing CORE COMPETENCIES AND COMPETITIVE CAPABILTIIES - that a much more concise and workable definition for both notions has been of great value in framing out an SYSTEMS-oriented approach to continuously pursuing higher-order performance levels on an enterprise-wide basis.  By my experience, doing so begins with establishing what I prefer to refer to as a TRUE NORTH ORIENTATION or TNO for short.  This TNO represents a critical set of guiding/organization elements within the overall SYSTEM.  Typically, the TNO consists of: 1) a MISSION or PRIMARY PURPOSE (i.e., a clear and concise statement that provides a compelling reason or set of reasons for why the SYSTEM exists; something that serves as a compass against which all members of the organization can individually and collectively navigate over time), 2) a FUTURE-STATE VISION (i.e., a conception of the desired/targeted state-of-being for the organization in the foreseeable future), 3) VALUES (i.e., a set of beliefs about what's most important to the members of the organization in the course of fulfilling the MISSION and realizing the PURPOSE), 4) OBJECTIVES (i.e., a set of near and longer-term milestones that can be measured and used to determine the level of progress to be made and resources required).

In essence this sort of defining/guiding TNO is what positions an organization in a particular market or set of markets - typically being served by one or more industries.  It's within this competitive CONTEXT that organization needs to focus on developing and executing a viable STRATEGY or set of STRATEGIES that will help position itself in a desired proximity to its competitors.  And as part of that strategy development and execution process, it's vital for an organization to understand and manage its CORE COMPETENCIES; and do so as foundation/platform upon which it can build and evolve the needed set of COMPETITIVE CAPABILITIES.  As such, I've found that following definitions for an organization's CORE COMPETENCIES and COMPETITIVE CAPABILITIES to be most effective:

• CORE/DISTINCTIVE COMPETENCY (singular):  A body of knowledge/know-how and its supporting resources that are built and evolved within an organization over time and typically span across a range of levels (i.e., individual, group/team, department, and enterprise-wide) and disciplines.  When these bodies of knowledge (BoKs) become sufficiently mature they can - and often do - serve as the basis or foundation for building and sustaining a business.  In that regard, a CORE COMPETENCY is something that is both dynamic in nature (i.e., its specific content may change) and consistent in its function (i.e., the needs that it serves/fulfills in a targeted market space).  The more specialized it becomes, the greater its potential to distinguish/differentiate an organization's line of business from that of its competitors.

• COMPETITIVE CAPABILITY (singular):  The result of combining one or more CORE/DISTINCTIVE COMPETENCIES together with one or more mission-critical processes such that the combination of these elements or sub-systems is manifest in the marketplace as difficult-to-mimic patterns of behavior which are recognized by customer(s) AND competitor(s) alike as being superior.  In this regard, COMPETITIVE CAPABILITIES are dynamic in nature and are the key attributes of a SYSTEM that define its competitive viability in both the near and longer-term.  COMPETITIVE CAPBILITIES are an EMERGENT PROPERTY of the SYSTEM as a whole.  Their emergence and evolution is governed and directed by the combination of the organization's TNO, its chosen STRATEGIES, and the dynamic nature of the ENVIRONMENT(S) in which the SYSTEM is operating (both internal and external).  They determine the SYSTEM's overall RESPONSE-ABILITY.

With those thoughts in mind, it's possible to see how the Baldridge Excellence Framework can (and does) result in a "fractured" or "piecemeal" perspective on building, sustaining, and evolving the sorts of CORE/DISTINCTIVE COMPETENCIES and COMPETITIVE CAPBILITIES that are likely required by most organizations to attain and sustain their competitive viability well into the foreseeable future.  Where the Baldridge Excellence Framework likely falls short is in providing the know-how for organizations to go about building, evolving, and sustaining the CORE/DISTINCTIVE COMPETENCIES and COMPETITIVE CAPBILIIES that make for a truly RESPONSE-ABLE (aka a highly flexible and adaptable) enterprise; one that possesses the innate ability to transform itself in whatever ways are demanded by the prevailing conditions within the environments in which it chooses to compete.

Hope these points provide some insights that can and will open the door to a new way of THINKING and BEHAVING; particularly when it comes to figuring out how best to transform an organization from its CURRENT STATE-OF-BEING into a more desirable/sustainable FUTURE STATE-OF-BEING.