loading...
loading...
Download the PDF View online for free Order from Amazon Order paper copy View online for free Order from Amazon Order paper copy
     
 

Key performance indicators for professional athletes

May 21st, 2013

People are driven by ambition and this means that they want to become better at what they do as time passes. In order to be the best at something, you have to start by monitoring your performance and then find ways to improve it. But the key is the measurement: you have to know what to improve, meaning you have to set goals and then attain them, one by one.

We talk about performance management and measurement in a lot of fields, from Sales to IT security, for instance. But what about sports? Those performing physical activities at professional levels also need to track their performance in order to be aware of what they have to work on in order to become the best in their field of action. This means that a football player should focus on developing different skills than an athlete. And an athlete, according to his or her category (e.g. track – sprints, middle distance, long distance, hurdles or relays; fields – jumps or throws; road running, mountain running, obstacle races etc.), should train differently. Their needs, their bodies and therefore their goals differ from one another. As a consequence, the tools that help them keep track of their performance need to be different.

As technology and sport come closer day by day, the new measurements and their relationships with success are to become more popular with coaches.

In today’s post, I am going to focus on those key performance indicators that are of use for Men’s 110m hurdles. Unfortunately, in this category, not much has changed since Renaldo Nehemiah’s extraordinary performance from 20 years ago: he managed to run the high hurdles in less than 13 seconds. Maybe the reason for this stagnation is the fact that there is a lack of meaningful split data for hurdles over touchdowns. While touchdowns are accepted measures to evaluate the hurdle clearance performance, they are not very complete since hurdle mechanics repeat 10x during a race and thus, small changes that might occur to hurdle clearance can turn into significant changes in the race. Below, there are the five key performance indicators in sprint hurdles for 110m:

  1. Air time: the period of time from toe off of the trail leg to lead leg touchdown
  2. Flight distance: the length from take-off of the trail leg to touchdown of the lead leg
  3. Pelvic projection: the distance from mid stance phase of the center of the pelvis to the highest point of the flight plan
  4. Apex displacement: The distance from the highest point of the flight path to the hurdle
  5. Hurdle Cycle Split: The duration of time between one complete hurdle sequences. Touchdowns are an example of one hurdle cycle but other options exist.

A combination of all the above mentioned measures will most likely lead to a great hurdle practice and performance. Also, measuring the angles and reviewing the sequence between opposing arms and legs, as well as the body posture during sprinting and hurdle clearance can create valuable insight, especially if the results are compared with previous performances of the athlete and with those of other athletes.

All in all, the indicators have the role to create the best hurdling technique, which lies in combining the necessary mechanics to safely position the athlete to run in and out of a 42 inch barrier ten times. In order to improve the athlete’s performance, it is essential for the coaches to understand that the main purpose of this technique is to decrease all aspects of hurdling time, the time in the air and on the ground being included. On short, they must provide practices and training elements that diminish the ground contact and the time spent in the air, by exposing the athletes to methods that encourage efficiency and power.

As a general conclusion, it is important to keep in mind the fact that through hard work, determination and motivation one can succeed. But those who work efficiently, monitoring their own performance and their progress, will be the ones to win the race. Because, after all, it is the winner that matters, and not those who took the lead the first half of the race.

References

Valle, C. (2011), Key performance indicators for the men’s 110m hurdles, available at: http://speedendurance.com/2011/08/24/key-performance-indicators-men-110m-high-hurdles/

Tags: , ,
Posted in Measure | No Comments »

KPIs in football – How do they work?

May 18th, 2013

I have recently come across an article in The Guardian related to KPIs in football. What might all that be about? Measuring performance in football? How do you do that? Well, for starters it’s all about establishing a set of goals that players must achieve in order to gain financial rewards. Then, it goes on to keeping track of all players and recording their every movement. The article presents the example of the Qatar Football Association’s trying to improve the performance measurement of their players and the advice they give for pursuing this target. They say that the method they are currently using is feasible in all football clubs, and that the results do not fail to appear.

Assessing performance in a football team is crucial for the game and further winnings. It is important to stimulate players by rewarding their performance, but this should be done according to some well-defined criteria. So let us proceed to the presentation of the method currently used by the Qatar Football Association so that we may have a better understanding of the whole process.

First of all, salaries for football players in Qatar are a lot smaller as compared to those in other regions. Therefore, the players have to show a great deal of interest for the improvement of their performance, followed by concrete attempts to hit targets and visual results. In this respect, Valter Di Salvo, director of football and science of the Qatar Football Association and its Aspire Academy, talks about the implementation of performance-related pay in the Qatar Star League. And the rewards system is constructed as it follows:

  • 40% of the maximum bonus takes into consideration the total number of appearances a player reaches. This means that every presence and activity in games is recorded. Di Salvo says that whether you are a first-team player,  a national team player or play on a regular basis carries a great deal of weight in the final division of bonuses.
  • Another 40% is attributed to players’ skill levels, to their commitment to the game and self-improvement as well as to the level of professionalism they show. This share also includes the attendance to training and charity days, and also the fulfillment of media commitments.
  • The last 20% are assigned to players’ physical performance. Each player is fitness-tested three times a season and the resulting numbers are then compared to other players.

The article also argues the possibility of KPIs being detrimental to a team’s performance, in the sense that some players may be trying to overshadow their team-mates in a vicious attempt to score points for bonuses. This is indeed a real issue, as the desired result of the whole performance assessment and rewarding process does not focus on this. The purpose of the implementation of the performance-related pay, as Blake Wooster (Business Development Director at Prozone) puts it, is to establish incentives that “reward the individual while recognizing the team”.

To put it in a nutshell, the establishment of key performance indicators is becoming more and more efficient in the development of football teams in Qatar. As in every other area of activity, team sports require a constant assessment of performance as to help them decide which aspects require improvement and which are already giving great results.

For further reading, check out the original article.

References:

Ingle, S. (2013), KPIs and GPS put the geeks in charge of players’ pay packets, The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/may/12/geeks-players-pay-packets?INTCMP=SRCH

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Top Universities 2013…. By reputation

May 14th, 2013

Recently, I have posted a top containing the best universities in the world for the academic year 2012-2013. The universities were chosen in terms of academic performance, research, innovation degree and staff, a very complex process involving performance indicators being set in place. I figured I would post an update of the top, given the fact that another year has passed and that the data have been collected. However, the top did not change that much, except the fact that Harvard got its leading position back. So, I decided to post a top of universities … by reputation. But what would be the difference between these two tops? Isn’t reputation a “sum-up word” for those mentioned above?

The Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings basically employ the world’s largest invitation-only academic survey. And that is how the first 100 most powerful universities around the globe are put down into a top. This top is based on subjective judgment. But IT IS the expert judgment of senior, published academics – those who know everything there is to know about excellence in universities.

The 2013 rankings are based on a survey carried out in April last year, receiving 16, 639 responses from 144 countries, these responses being spread among disciplines in a balanced manner: social sciences (22.1%), engineering and technology (21.3 %), physical sciences (18%), clinical subjects (15.4%), life sciences (12.7%), with arts and humanities taking the last position (10.5%).

The scholars are questioned at the level of their subject discipline, obviously. Contrary to what some might expect, they are not asked to rank or to list a large range of institutions, but to name no more than 15 universities that they consider to be the best, based on their experience. For more meaningful responses, they are asked to answer to some “action-based questions”, such as: “Which university would you send your most talented graduates to for the best postgraduate supervision?”

The questionnaire is available in 10 languages and uses data from United Nations in order to ensure that it is properly distributed to best reflect the demographics of world scholarship, while also being spread across academic disciplines. It is administered by IPsos MediaCT, a polling company for Thomson Reuters, data supplier for the ranking of Times Higher Education.

The data collected from the survey was used alongside 11 objective indicators, unveiled last October.

The reputation ranking includes universities based on a general measure of their esteem, combining data on their reputation for research and teaching. The ratio is 2:1, as more attention is given to research because the experts consider that the respondents are more accurate when it comes to this matter.

The first ten Universities, by reputation, are the following:

Rank Institution Location Overall score
1 Harvard University United States 100.0
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology United States 87.6
3 University of Cambridge United Kingdom 81.3
4 University of Oxford United Kingdom 73.0
5 University of California, Berkeley United States 72.4
6 Stanford University United States 70.6
7 Princeton University United States 36.2
8 University of California, Los Angeles United States 35.6
9 University of Tokyo Japan 32.9
10 Yale University United States 32.8

The top contains the best 100 universities, but only the first 50 have been ranked because the differentials between institutions at that point were very narrow. In the second half of the table, the institutions are listed in groups of 10, in alphabetical order.

For further information, I recommend the official site of Times Higher Education.

References:

1. Times Higher Education (2013), Top universities by reputation 2013, available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013/reputation-ranking

2. Times Higher Education (2013), Rankings methodology: Experts recognize these as the best, available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013/reputation-ranking/methodology

3. Thomson Reuters (2012), Methodology and logistics, available at: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/globalprofilesproject/gpp-reputational/methodology/

Tags: , , ,
Posted in KPIs in practice, Uncategorized, general | No Comments »

Top best universities in the world 2011-2012

May 10th, 2013

Everyone has been through this: trying to choose a university that best suits their needs. Fortunately, nowadays people can benefit from official rankings of the best universities in the world. One of the key annual events in the international higher education calendar is represented by the publication of the Times Higher Education Rankings, which helps undergraduates and postgraduates to choose their degree courses form a large “pallet of colors”. Moreover, academics can take informed decisions regarding their career, research teams can identify new partners and university managers can benchmark their performance and set their strategic objectives.

The 2011-2012 ranking published by Times Higher Education and powered by Thompson Reuters, comprises the best universities in the world, relying on input regarding their missions – teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook. The Times Higher Education World Universities Rankings contains the first 400 universities in the world, also classifying them in terms of region and subject.

Although at its 8th edition, new approaches were developed during 10 months of open consultations, involving expert input from over 50 leading figures from 15 countries. The rankings used 13 performance indicators, grouped into five main areas:

  • Teaching – referring to the learning environment (30% of the overall ranking score)
  • Researching – volume, income and reputation (30%)
  • Citations – research influence (30%)
  • Industry income – innovation (2.5%)
  • International outlook – staff, students and research (7.5%)

During the academic year 2011-2012, the best 10 universities in the world were the following:

Rank Institution Country Overall score
1 California Institute of Technology United States 94.8
2 Harvard University United States 93.9
2 Stanford University United States 93.9
4 University of Oxford United Kingdom 93.6
5 Princeton University United States 92.9
6 University of Cambridge United Kingdom 92.4
7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology United States 92.3
8 Imperial College London United Kingdom 90.7
9 University of Chicago United States 90.2
10 University of California, Berkeley United States 89.8

As it can be seen, the Top 10 is dominated by the U.S with 7 universities, the other 3 spots being occupied by universities from UK.

California Institute of Technology takes the first position, which during the previous year was occupied by Harvard. In Europe, the leading university is Oxford, ranked the 4th in the world top. Other European Universities that can be found in top 400 (besides those presented above) are ETH Zürich – Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (Switzerland), Karolinska Institute (Sweden) and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (Germany). These are in top 50.

The Asian leading university is University of Tokyo (rank 30), followed by University of Honk Kong (34). Australia is also in the first 50 positions, with University of Melbourne (37) and Australian National University (38).

For more information regarding the top, check out the official website of Times Higher Education.

References:

  1. THE Times Higher Education (2011), The World University Rankings 2011-2012, available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-12/world-ranking
  2. THE Times Higher Education (2011), THE global rankings: Change for the better, available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-12/world-ranking/methodology

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized, general | No Comments »

Community indicators for sustainable aging in place

May 7th, 2013

What does aging in place mean?

It is the ability to remain in one’s home or community, in spite of potential changes in health and functioning in later life. In a livable community, residents of all ages can maintain their independence and enjoy a high quality of life.

When people hear about this concept, they usually tend to overlook it, especially if they are young or in their prime. But they do not see the entire picture: it can bring benefits not only to the elders, but also to their families, communities and governments, as sustainable aging in place involves helping the older residents remain in their community, thus addressing the long-term economic, social and environmental health of the current and the future generations.

For older adults, the benefits come from the sense of attachment, familiarity and identity, as they cherish their homes and their neighborhood environment. Studies show that if a person is sent to a nursing home, the quality of life is reduced and the risk of mortality increased, leading to mental distress for their family. Moreover, aging in place is considerably less expensive than an institutional long-term care. Furthermore, the community as a whole can be improved, as older adults can make valuable contribution as neighbors, caregivers and volunteers.

The MetLife Mature Market Institute, in collaboration with the Stanford University Center on Longevity has developed a list of indicators that use information that is already available and adaptable to local governments. Therefore, the governments can examine the needs of their aging population, while maintaining the costs as low as possible. These indicators show how aging in place is influenced by certain community characteristics. These characteristics include a variety of social and physical features that could lead to more livable communities, ease sustainable aging in place for the elders and improve the quality of life for all residents. Communities should adapt these indicators to best suit their needs, while also pointing out what has to be changed.

A livable community:

-          offers accessible housing options so that the older adults can have a place to live;

-          promotes access to the community, including: safe neighborhoods, safe transportation options, emergency readiness;

-          provides support, services and opportunities to participate in the community life: health care, supportive services, general retail, healthy food and social integration.

According to MetLife Mature Market Institute and Stanford University Center on Longevity, specific criteria for the indicators include:

-          strength of research evidence;

-          strength of support by  aging in place experts;

-          ability to measure the indicator using existing data sources;

-          potential for multiple benefits;

-          degree of adaptability to different kinds of communities.

The indicator system developed by the above mentioned institutions represents a first step in understanding how aging in place can be influenced by the community and how both can benefit from one another.

References:

MetLife Mature Market Institute and Stanford Center on Longevity (2013), Livable community indicators for sustainable aging in place, available at: https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2013/mmi-livable-communities-study.pdf

Tags: , , ,
Posted in KPIs in practice | No Comments »

The best hospitals in the world

April 30th, 2013

People are driven by ambition and we all want to be the best: the best employee, the best company. And we want the best for us: the best phone, the best car, the best house. But what about our health? Although sometimes taken as granted, we have to admit that it is the most precious thing we have because without it, we cannot be the best. So, if we get sick, then probably we want the best care in the world. But which hospitals are the best in the world?

According to healthcareglobal.com, five of the best hospitals in the world are in U.S., three in Europe and two in Asia. The top contains the best 10 hospitals in the world, taking into account aspects like specialization, medical innovation, research, teaching, patient care, recovery and medical tourism. The top also considers their surface, conditions and how eco-friendly they are.

The top:

1. Best in the world: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, U.S

This hospital has earned its name and the first position in this top. Over the last 20 years, it has been number one in the U.S News and World Report hospital ranking, as it has provided the best services in medical care, teaching and research.

In what concerns the medical innovation, suffice to say it was the first to perform the first male-female sex reassignment. And this is not even by far the most impressive thing. The discovery of restriction enzymes and their application to problems of molecular genetics, made by Werner Arber, Daniel Nathans and Hamilton O. Smith – winning  the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1978 for it – was made in this hospital, using its resources, obviously. This discovery basically laid at the very core of the genetic engineering industry.

According to its ranking, the Johns Hopkins Hospital is in top 5 for 15 out of 16 specialties. It is ranked number one for gynecology, neurology and neurosurgery, urology and rheumatology.

2. Largest hospital: Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa

This hospital is the largest hospital in the world: it has 172 buildings, which cover 173 acres and provide  2, 964 patient beds. It serves 3.5 million people in the Soweto area of South Africa, provides 50% of hospital services in Southern Gauteng and it has 5, 000 people employed.

3. Medical innovations: Stanford Hospitals and Clinics

Here, the first successful heart-lung transplant in the world was performed, as well as the first adult heart transplant in America. This hospital is known around the globe for its medical advances and pioneering treatments, for incorporating medical breakthrough into patient care.

4. Children’s hospital: Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK

The Great Ormond Street Hospital was founded in 1852 and it was the first hospital in the English speaking world to provide services for children only, now being one of the world’s leading hospitals in this area. It has become internationally famous especially after receiving the copyrights to J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan, with the condition that the amounts earned are not disclosed.

5. Cancer care treatment: University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, U.S

The U.S News and World Report has considered this hospital the best in cancer treatment seven out of the past nine years. The groundbreaking knowledge is quickly transferred and adapted to its clinical patients and in 2010, more than $547 million were invested in research.

6. Medical training: Harvard Medical School, Boston, U.s

Apparently Harvard is the best in every kind of training, whether it is law or medicine. Harvard Med is famous for its research levels and for the primary care it offers. Of course, the budget cannot be overlooked: annually, it spends around $600 million. As they stated, their mission is to “create and nurture a diverse community of the best people committed to leadership in alleviating human suffering caused by disease”.

7. Environmentally friendly: Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

Although still in renovation – which costs €1.8 billion – the 70 year-old hospital is going to be in 2016 “the world’s most environmentally friendly university hospital”, using half of the electricity of the existing hospital, as it’s going to use wind turbines and solar panels.

8. Rehabilitation: The Priory, UK

Famous for its VIP clients, it’s the leader in Europe for its rehabilitation services. It offers first-class treatment for addiction and mental health conditions, as well as psychological and psychiatric services. Most of the patients, more specifically, 96%, declared themselves as being “very satisfied” with the treatment and the conditions offered.

9. Medical tourism: Bumrungrad International Hospital, Bangcock, Thainlad

This hospital treats more than 400, 000 medical tourism patients every year, being known in the entire world for this fact. Patients receive internationally acclaimed medical procedures in a high-class setting compared to a 5 star hotel. It even has an in-house travel agency to organize Visa extensions and its own interpreters to help the international patients and the doctors communicate.

10.  Most luxurious hospital: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, U.S

Celebrities love this hospital. The eight floor has 32 “Super Deluxe Suites”, which offer great views over the Hollywood Hills. The price? $ 912 each. Of course, there are other facilities involved: the patients can admire original Picasso paintings and their food is prepared by a gourmet chef. There are four luxurious OB suites, reserved for celebrities ‘soon-to-be moms’, just as they find out they are pregnant.

References:

Smith, A. (2013), Top 10 Hospitals in the world, available at: http://www.healthcareglobal.com/top_ten/top-10-business/top-10-hospitals

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized, general | No Comments »

Towards excellent performance reviews

April 26th, 2013

If you mention the words “performance reviews” into an office, you will observe how most of the employees will either groan, or make faces. And that is because everyone sees the yearly performance measurement as a painful experience.

Why would that be?

First, employees think that these assessments – performance evaluations, performance management, employee evaluations, employee appraisals or whatever they are called in different organizations – involve unpleasant surprises and that the feedback is sometimes irrelevant. Second, managers consider they make their schedule even busier, as they are responsible with all the paperwork required and third, in the eyes of the executives, they seem a necessary evil.

However, this doesn’t mean that they are uncalled for. On the contrary, they are recommended in order to hold the employees accountable for their work, actions and objectives.

There are two ways of looking at this matter: you either see performance evaluations as the most stressful aspect of management (and this is not going to be helpful at all), or you see it as a simple, logical and satisfying process. In other words, regardless of the position you have in your organization, you should focus on the bright sight of things. If you follow four simple steps, you might end up even enjoying the performance reviews. These steps are destined both to employees and managers.

  1. Think outside the box. Establish your objectives clearly – they have to be realistic, measurable and agreed-upon. This is the very core of a sound performance management. If you know your objectives, then you know where you’re going; therefore, you can plan ahead and be more involved in your actions. Thus you can even develop certain competences, so it’s nothing but a win-win: the organization wins performance and the employees knowledge. If  in addition, the objectives are metrically based and easily measurable, you are on the right track. The more specific you are, the less room you have for mistakes.
  2. Search, search and…research. In order to have clear objectives, you have to do a thorough documentation. You have to know all the information regarding the projects you’re working on (actually this goes without saying). In addition, you should keep a log of your work. Note both the good and the bad things. Note the problems you have had in resolving a certain situation. If it went smoothly, even better. But you should know what you have to work at, what you should improve and what you are really good at. A basic example of the log: the task; the objectives; the resolution part: what went well and what not – problems you encountered (if any).
  3. Formal mid-year evaluation (managers pay attention – this mostly regards you). Although there is no general rule, it might be good to also organize a formal evaluation at the middle of the year, not only at the end of it, so that you gather the necessary data and see how the employees are doing so far. Thus, the process will be a lot easier when you get to year end. This doesn’t mean that your organization cannot organize other informal assessments throughout the year, the idea is to have two formal evaluations (if there are a lot more, this may put pressure on your employees, and you do not want them to be stressed out).
  4. Frequent meetings with good feedback. Feedback is important because it helps you catch the problems you have in time and to address them, thus being more productive at work and improving your own skills. Feedback should focus both on positive and negative sides, and it should also mention possible solutions for the person receiving it. Moreover, this encourages communication, both between co-workers and between employees and managers. As you already know, communication is the key to a successful relationship.

So, to draw a line and arrive to our conclusion, all you have to do is prepare yourself thoroughly and have confidence in yourself. And without even noticing, the performance reviews would have passed.

References:

1. Lipman, V. (2012), 4 Steps to painless (and effective) performance evaluations, available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2012/10/04/4-steps-to-painless-and-effective-performance-evaluations/

2. Wkerman, C. (2013), The evolution of performance management, available at: http://www.smartkpis.com/blog/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=10098&message=10

Tags: , ,
Posted in Performance Management, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Failure: Is it an option?

April 24th, 2013

“There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure.” (Colin Powell)

What FINAO stands for? It is an acronym for Failure Is Not An Option. In the military or in hospitals, indeed failure cannot be an option because there are so many lives depending on every decision. But, in the world of business and innovation, failure should always be taken into account.

However, a lot of companies use the same mantra as a head quote for their business. They do not consider or they treat with shallowness the possibility of failure, as well as its consequences, and when it comes, it hits them harder than they could imagine.

Failure and success – in complete opposition?

How should companies proceed when it comes to failure? First, they should find a proper definition and establish clearly what failure means to them. Nowadays, in most organizations, failure means:

-          Bad reflection on the company

-          Bad reflection on the career

-          A one-time thing because it has terrible consequences

-          An end point

-          Great costs

-          Unpredictability

From the above ‘definitions’ it appears that only success is accepted. Would that mean that if you fail once, you shouldn’t try again because, well, you already saw it didn’t work? No. What would have happened if Apple had stopped because they have encountered ‘some’ difficulties? No iPhone, iPad or other i… for us today. And this is by far the worst example I could come up with, but the only one that came to my mind on such a short notice.

We all know that failure is important to innovation because we learn from our mistakes. But we have to keep in mind the conditions in which failure is acceptable. I read an interesting quote today: “If I tell you to ride a horse and you fall, the next time I have to ask somebody to do it, I would still pick you, because you already know how to fall.” (Andreas Holler – Manager for Adama)

If some characteristics can be established, then failure could actually be meaningful and people could learn a lot more:

Failure:

-          is contained and inexpensive

-          is a likely outcome

-          is not an end point

-          is a part of the learning and developing process

-          is predictable

-          due to those mentioned above, it can be accepted ‘gracefully’

Seen as a part of the learning process, it doesn’t look so bad, does it? Because, ultimately, it leads to new insights, knowledge or even a new product (if the case). So, rather than having a big, risky and unplanned failure, experiments should be created with some small, contained and predictable failures that afterwards lead to greater success.

References:

Phillips, J. (2010), Failure must always be an option, available at: http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2010/12/09/failure-must-always-be-an-option/

Farmery, A. (2012), Why failure is an option, available at: http://www.theengagingbrand.com/2012/11/why-failure-is-an-option.html

Porter-Magee,K. (2012), Failure is (and must be) an option, available at: http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/common-core-watch/2012/failure-is-and-must-be-an-option.html

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Performance Measurement, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Microsoft’s Downfall – How management can affect creativity

April 23rd, 2013

I think we all agree that nowadays, Microsoft is not the company it was once. A decade ago, they were ‘on top of the mountain’ and now, because of the “astonishingly foolish management decisions”, as Kurt Eichenwald (two-time George Polk Award winner and VanityFair’s newest contributing editor) stated, they are barely keeping their heads above the water. He made some investigations, and thanks to dozens of interviews and internal corporate records, he managed to find out details that show Microsoft’s true colors, while under ‘the reign’ of Steve Ballmer, the current C.E.O.

To paint a picture of how things work at Microsoft, today, one Apple product, namely the iPhone, generates more revenue than all of Microsoft’s wares combined.

How did this happen, exactly?

After interviewing a great number of employees, Kurt Eichenwald found out that, basically, a management system known as “stack ranking” reduced dramatically Microsoft’s ability to innovate, by forcing all the units to grade the employees’ performance (therefore ranking them as top performers, average and poor, by using percentages). The following example portraits the issue quite well. According to a former developer, if you were part of a team of 10 people, for instance, you already knew that, no matter how good the others were doing the day you came in the office, 2 people would get a spotless review, 7 mediocre reviews and 1 a terrible review. So, instead of focusing on competing with other companies, the employees were competing with each other. Moreover, a former engineer at Microsoft stated that the reviews conducted inside the company were not about improving the employees’ work quality and their further development, but about the need of making themselves more visible among the managers. Another former employee, a marketing manager this time, part of the Microsoft ship for over 16 years, stated that although the company had a great lead, the bureaucracy was one of the company’s biggest problems.

Another aspect revealed by Eichenwald was the fact that Microsoft had an e-reader prototype ready for market launch in 1998, but Bill Gates refused the team that presented this device, arguing that it wasn’t right for Microsoft: he didn’t like the user interface, because it wasn’t Windows material, according to a programmer that was involved in the project. The group was removed from the reporting line to Gates and then included in the major-product group, assigned to develop software for Office. Another issue was the touchscreen of the device: because Office was designed to inputting with a keyboard, not a stylus of finger, and because of the company’s loyalty to Windows and Office, they couldn’t jump on emerging technologies. Everything had to be designed for Windows.

To Kurt Massey, a former senior marketing manager, Microsoft is the technology’s answer to Sears: “In the 40s, 50s, and 60s, Sears had it nailed. It was top-notch, but now it’s just a barren wasteland. And that’s Microsoft. The company just isn’t cool anymore.”

What is there to learn from the Microsoft case? That things always change? That we have to be open-minded and at pace with technology? That performance reviews should be a combination of the current performance and future potential? Or that the employees should be listened to from times to time? Or all the above?

References:

Vanity Fair (2012), Microsoft’s downfall: Inside the executive e-mails and cannibalistic culture that felled a tech giant, available at:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/07/microsoft-downfall-emails-steve-ballmer.print

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Case Study | No Comments »

Day 2 Forum – The KPI Institute’s “How To” Clinic “From Key Performance And Risk indicators to Predictive Analytics”

March 22nd, 2013

On the second day of the Balanced Scorecard Forum, the afternoon sessions were structured into three “How To” Clinics.

The KPI Institute, represented by Aurel Brudan, Founder and CEO, had the pleasure to organize one of these clinics that aimed to provide participants with interactive, practical learning opportunities. There were three clinics running simultaneously and focused on the following topics:

  1. “Linking Performance to Reward” – Alan Fell Consultancy
  2. “From Key Performance and Risk Indicators to Predictive Analytics” – The KPI Institute
  3. “Aligning Budget with Strategy” – Ibtikar Management Services.

The KPI Institute’s clinic started off with a review of essential tools and concepts in using Key Performance Indicators, Key Risk Indicators and Predictive Analytics, followed by a short Q&A session.

In line with The KPI Institute’s focus on experiential learning, most of the clinic’s time was dedicated to a competition among participants. Four teams were formed and each of them received a set of exercises that they had to solve one by one, with correct answers being provided and discussed after each round. For each correct answer, the four teams received a certain amount of point, which points being allocated and announced at the end of each exercise.

Although all participants were very engaged in the activity and debated over each correct answer, only the top three were awarded prizes at the end of the competition.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Balanced Scorecard, Events, KPI | No Comments »

Day 2 Forum – Morning sessions

March 22nd, 2013

The second day of the Balanced Scorecard Forum continued to exhibit practical examples of how the Balanced Scorecard framework can be used in practice.

The presenters included:

  1. Dr. Dan C. Lachica, President of First Philec Solar Corporation, from Philippines
  2. Adil Khalfan, Regional Director of University Health Network International Programme, from Kuwait
  3. Ramana Kumar, Senior Manager Business Planning and Strategy at National Bank of Abu Dhabi, from UAE
  4. Pedro Pereira, Vice President of Coporater Middle East, from UAE
  5. Mark Limpkin, Senior Strategy Manager of Abu Dhabi General Services Company (Musanada), from UAE.

The first presentation focused on how the Balanced Scorecard implementation combined with a variety of business excellence models have helped First Philec Solar Corporation achieve “Hall of Fame” recognition in 2010, from Palladium Group.

The second presenter highlighted the interconnections between building a Balanced Scorecard and developing a “straight talking” culture in a public healthcare organization.

The third presentation emphasized the importance of establishing challenging goals. The National Bank of Abu Dhabi did not take its market leader position for granted. The Balanced Scorecard approach has helped them become more competition oriented. After reaching the milestone of becoming the best bank in the country, the public organization is now aiming even higher, with the goal of becoming “the world’s best Arab bank”. The organization takes pride in its productivity, focus on continuous improvement, as well as its role modeling role for other banks and public organizations worldwide.

The fourth presenter showcased how a software can help you in different stages of strategy implementation:

  1. to document a strategy
  2. to structure and to clarify the strategy
  3. to follow up and review it, and finally,
  4. to communicate it.

The fifth presentation was a unique example of an organization that had the Balanced Scorecard framework imbedded in its strategy ever since the organizations’ establishment. In the context of Abu Dhabi’s Government having established a goal of becoming one of the top 5 governments worldwide, Musanada was established as a shared service organization aiming to:

  • Reduce the size and scale of operations of the core government entities
  • Improve the quality of service
  • Achieve economy of scale

At Musanada, strategy is understood as responses to questions such as what is our vision, value proposition, scope of services, funding approach, form of entity, demand, service provision model, etc.

Some of the lessons learned from this young organization’s Balanced Scorecard journey included:

  • Strategy is defined at the highest level as “a set of deliberated choices”
  • Annual priorities should be aligned with Scorecard perspectives. Core competencies were introduced in strategy map to better understand how Musanada differentiates itself from others
  • Future destinations and directions should also be defined and KPIs should help assess performance on those tracks throughout the year
  • The strategic initiative management process should be elaborated based on the scorecards
  • Employees working either to deliver a service or to plan a strategic initiative, need to set objectives and report to the specific KPIs of the service they are offering.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Balanced Scorecard, Events | No Comments »

« Older Entries

Featured products

[no image]
$99 USD
 
[no image]
$35 USD
 
[no image]
$1800 USD
 
[no image]
$999 USD
 
[no image]
$249 USD
 
[no image]
$289 USD
 
[no image]
$45 USD
 
[no image]
$99 USD