Driving Organizational Behavior Change Using The ‘Qualume’ Score

Forbes - Apr 23rd, 2025

Mendel's Clinical Data Labeling Operations faced challenges due to strategic misalignment and a lack of accountability, leading to inconsistent results. In response, Mendel developed the 'Qualume' score, a new accountability framework designed to enhance both quality and throughput without sacrificing one for the other. This system, which evaluates quality through audit accuracy and volume through throughput, ensures fairness by benchmarking against universal baselines. The implementation of Qualume led to significant operational changes, including standardized workstreams and a blended promise model for output commitments. As a result, team performance became more transparent and proactive, with cross-functional alignment improving tool maintenance urgency.

The introduction of Qualume transformed organizational behavior at Mendel, connecting performance to incentives and recognition. By aligning fiscal year bonuses with transparent, objective metrics, the framework encouraged a culture of coaching and growth, rather than blame. This operational shift eliminated the false choice between speed and quality, establishing a common language and incentive model across the organization. As a result, Mendel's Clinical Data Labeling Operations exceeded throughput targets while maintaining quality standards, illustrating how strategic leadership and systemized accountability can drive meaningful transformation. The initiative was driven by a shared vision, led by Mendel's CEO, Karim Galil, and embraced by the team, demonstrating the power of structural clarity and governance precision in overcoming operational inefficiency.

Accountability Mendel Clinical Data Labeling Operations Qualume Score Pradeep Kanagaraj Karim Galil Performance Management Organizational Transformation

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides an interesting narrative about the implementation of the Qualume score framework at Mendel, offering insights into its development and perceived benefits. It is well-written and accessible, with a clear structure and professional tone. However, it lacks balance and source diversity, relying heavily on the author's perspective without sufficient independent verification or input from other stakeholders. The absence of detailed explanations for some technical aspects of the framework may leave readers with unanswered questions. While relevant to ongoing discussions about organizational efficiency, its impact is primarily limited to business management circles. Overall, the article is informative but would benefit from additional perspectives and external validation to enhance its credibility and broader appeal.

Accuracy

The article presents a detailed account of the implementation of the Qualume score framework at Mendel. It claims that this framework has significantly improved throughput and quality in the Clinical Data Labeling Operations. The factual accuracy of these claims is somewhat supported by general principles of organizational behavior and performance management, such as the benefits of structural empowerment and transparent metrics. However, the article lacks independent verification of specific outcomes, such as the exact increase in throughput from under 30% to over 100% of targets. The narrative relies heavily on internal insights, which are not corroborated by external sources, leaving some areas, such as the precise mechanics of the Qualume score and its impact, needing further verification.

Balance

The article primarily presents a singular perspective, focusing on the positive outcomes of the Qualume score implementation from the viewpoint of Mendel's leadership. It lacks input from other stakeholders, such as employees who experienced the changes or external experts who could provide a broader context. The narrative is heavily weighted towards the benefits and successes, with minimal discussion of potential challenges or downsides, which suggests a degree of bias in favor of the Qualume framework.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and clearly written, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the narrative of the Qualume score's development and implementation. The language is accessible and the tone is professional, making it easy for readers to follow along. However, the lack of detailed explanation of some technical aspects of the Qualume score may leave some readers with unanswered questions.

Source quality

The article is authored by an individual with a vested interest in promoting the success of the Qualume framework, which may affect its impartiality. There is a lack of diverse sources, as the narrative is primarily based on the author's experiences and observations. The absence of third-party validation or commentary from independent experts limits the reliability and credibility of the claims made.

Transparency

The article provides some transparency regarding the author's role and the context in which the Qualume framework was developed and implemented. However, it does not sufficiently disclose potential conflicts of interest, such as the author's vested interest in promoting the framework. Additionally, the methodology behind the Qualume score is not fully explained, leaving readers without a clear understanding of how it functions or its broader applicability.