Performance Management Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Initiative’

Working with initiatives in Performance Management – Check and Act vs. Study and Act

Saturday, June 12th, 2010

smartKPIs.com Performance Architect update 23/2010

In one of my previous updates I reviewed the history of the Deming cycle and its relevance for Performance Management. One of the most important benefits of managing performance in organizations is that it facilitates a structured process of improving the achieved results, which is the essence of performance.

Improvement doesn’t automatically derive from measurement. A robust process of analysis and decision making is required to facilitate suitable actions or initiatives. And to illustrate this process, Study as in the PDSA cycle is more meaningful than the Check as in the PDCA cycle.

The Performance Management case study presented the scenario of a non-profit organization interested in addressing childhood development issues. Some of the measures used were:

% Incidents of anemia
# Average scores on language and communication skills for toddlers
# Average scores for vocabulary tests

Using the traditional Plan – Do – Check – Act (PDCA) approach, the Check and Act phases would resume to gathering performance results data, reviewing it and taking actions to improve results. Generally the initiatives established as a result of this process would aim at doing more of the same thing. Improve efficiency or increase the volume of efforts.

However, a subtle change, that might appear superficial and technical to some, might mean more that it seems. Replacing Check with Study, shifts the emphasis from control and fixing the existing approach to learning and finding new ways to address the issue. For many years performance management has been associated with checking, inspecting, and controlling conformance. Performance Management for learning is a more balanced, mature approach to improvement.

In the case analyzed above, a review of the literature in the field and the latest research in the area of children health and development would reveal that the solution to the stagnation in achieving results might come from a surprising new direction. Under the title “Housing, Health, and Happiness” a new study published by the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy reveals that “replacing dirt floors with cement floors interrupts the transmission of parasitic infestations and should therefore reduce the incidence of both diarrhea and anemia. The reduction in anemia is expected to have positive effects on cognitive development” (Cattaneo et al, 2009).

The study, commissioned by the Mexican government, reveals the following results achieved during the experiment conducted in Mexico (UCBerkeleyNews, 2009):

20.1% reduction in incidents of anemia
30.2 percent higher score on the McArthur test (language and communication skills for toddlers ages 12 to 30 months)
9% improvement in the scores obtained in the PPVT test (vocabulary tests for children ages 36 to 71 months)

When limiting themselves to checking the data and doing more of the same thing, organizations do not create the suitable conditions for leaning and integrating new ideas. Expanding the scope of inquiry from current approaches to researching new ones and investigating what happens in the field they operate in around the world, the improvement process benefits from using a more robust view on performance management, that emphasize the role of the study component.

In the case described above, reviewing recent research in the issue of health and early childhood development reveals a potential new approach that might just be the solution sought after. Setting up a new initiative that aims at replacing dirt floors with cement promises to a positive impact on the health and cognitive development of young children in the targeted community.

Study puts initiatives management in a new light.

Stay smart! Enjoy smartKPIs.com!

Aurel Brudan

Performance Architect,
www.smartKPIs.com

References

Cattaneo, Matias D., Sebastian Galiani, Paul J. Gertler, Sebastian Martinez, and Rocio Titiunik. 2009. “Housing, Health, and Happiness” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(1): 75–105. Note: a working paper version of the article is available at: http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/SCID367.pdf

UCBerkeleyNews, 2009, “Inexpensive flooring change improves child health in urban slums” available at: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/03/10_floors.shtml, accessed 05 June 2010.

Tags: Deming cycle, Initiative, Non-Profit, PDCA, PDSA
Posted in Case Study, Government, KPI, KPIs in practice, Performance Architect update, Performance Management, Performance Measurement | No Comments »

Guerilla Marketing Metrics – Nokia – The World’s Biggest Signpost

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

The Right Direction in the Simplest Way

A signpost the size of two double decker buses
A 50 meter tall motorized crane, weighting 60 tonnes
A location: Potters Field, London
A time period: 16 October – 6 November 2009

Results

The World’s Biggest Signpost
862 000 views of the installation just by walking over Tower Bridge alone
Increase by 129% of unique visitors to Nokia’s online navigation service
29% visitor returns on the navigation service page

References

Nokia Blogs (2009), The Nokia Signpost has now gone live, available at http://blogs.nokia.com/nseries/2009/10/28/the-nokia-signpost-has-now-gone-live/ (accessed on 30 March 2010)

Farfar (2009), The World’s Biggest Signpost, available at http://farfarlabs.com/awards/general/nokia/theworldsbiggestsignpost/?page=nyfa-inter (accessed on 30 March 2010)

Adghost’s videos (2010), The World’s Biggest Signpost, available at http://www.vimeo.com/8758205 (accessed on 30 March 2010)

Tags: Direction, Good Things, Guerilla marketing, Initiative, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Metrics, Nokia, Signpost, Social Media, The World's Biggest Signpost, Viral media
Posted in Events, Measure | No Comments »

The case for using a Performance Management Glossary

Friday, January 29th, 2010

smartKPIs.com Performance Architect update 4/2010

Some of the most asked questions in performance management discussions, either online or during conversations are:

What is the difference between a mission and a vision?
What is a KPI? How is it different from a measure?
What is the difference between Key Success Factors and Key Results Indicators?

They are generally centered on clarifying terms such: Mission Statement, Vision Statement, Goal, Objective, SMART Objective, Critical Success Factor (CSF), Value Driver, Key Result Indicator (KRI), Metric, Performance Measure, Performance Indicator, Key Performance Indicator (KPI), Initiative and Milestone.

It is a positive thing to ask such questions and engage in discussions to clarify them. It is surprising how many different views are expressed on the similarities or differences between these terms.

What is interesting is that generally such discussions take place outside organizational boundaries. It is as if within organizations it is expected that staff have an understanding of them. Or as if such discussions are intentionally avoided within organizations.

The logical deduction is that if such discussions take place outside organizational boundaries, staff still have a need to clarify such concepts that is not fulfilled internally.

While this cross-polenization of opinions helps in building an informed view at individual level, in an organizational context things are different. While diversity of views is welcomed, a united common understanding of key terms used across the organization enables good internal communication. It also helps in understanding strategy and the contents of performance management reports.

However, glossaries of terms are rather the exception than the norm in the use of performance management systems. This is rather surprising considering that the expected benefits to effort ratio is one of the highest of all the components of a system.

The possible benefits of using them are:

Conceptual clarity – Facilitate a clear understanding of the nuances of the cluster of performance management concepts
Alignment of corporate vocabulary – Provide a single point of reference to clarify terminology used across the organization
Building perspective – Paints a rich picture of available elements to be used as part of the performance management system and raise questions about the relationship between them.

The effort should be minimal as generally such glossaries average 50-80 terms, with 1-2 paragraphs of explanation each.

One of my favorite examples illustrating the importance of clarifying concepts through a glossary is the TOGAF 9 manual, containing The Open Group Architecture Framework (The Open Group, 2009). In version 8.1.1 of the manual, the glossary was a component of the Resource Base (additional to the manual itself). In the latest edition (9), the glossary is incorporated in Part 1: Introduction. It represents the third chapter of this part, following the Executive Overview (Chapter 1) and the clarification of core concepts (Chapter 2). The glossary is not considered an appendix anymore, but an important component of the manual, included in the introduction part, to facilitate the understanding of the rest of the manual.

Perhaps performance management implementations should have a similar approach, by considering the glossary not a nice to have, but a key initial step.

Ultimately, not what is written matters, but what and how is understood and used. However, every little bit of help in building clarity and alignment helps. While strategy management is compared to a safari in a savanna (Mintzberg et al, 2005), finding one’s way in performance management is more like an expedition in a jungle. The abundance of theories, frameworks, concepts and terms is much denser and requires a wider skill set to navigate. Performance Management glossaries have the potential to act as attenuators in reducing complexity. Ultimately it is all about getting smarter as the level of complexity increases.

Stay smart! Enjoy smartKPIs.com!

Aurel Brudan
Performance Architect,
www.smartKPIs.com

References

Mintzberg H., Lampel J., Ahlstrand B., (2005), “Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds of Strategic Management”, London, UK, Financial Times-Prentice Hall
The Open Group (2009), “TOGAF version 9“, Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel

Tags: Critical Success Factor, Enterprise Architecture, Glossary, Goal, Initiative, Key Performance Indicator, Key Result Indicator, KPI, Metric, Milestone, Mission Statement, Objective, Performance Indicator, Performance Management, Performance Measure, SMART Objective, Target, The Open Group, TOGAF, Value Driver, Vision Statement
Posted in Performance Architect update, Performance Management | No Comments »

Performance Management IQ Test or a hermeneutic dialectic process

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

smartKPIs.com Performance Architect update 3/2010

A new feature available on http://www.smartKPIs.com starting with this month is the smartKPIs Performance Management IQ test.

It consists of a set of 24 statements that appear on the screen one at the time. The task on hand is to decide what each of these statements represents from a set of 12 options:

Mission Statement
Vision Statement
Goal
Objective
Target
SMART Objective
Critical Success Factor (CSF) / Value Driver
smartKPI / Key Result Indicator (KRI)
Metric / Performance Measure / Performance Indicator
Key Performance Indicator (KPI)
Initiative
Milestone

Only one option can be selected as there should be only one option closest to the way the statement is understood and perceived.

The term “IQ test” is pretentious and used to illustrate that being smart in performance management transcends the mechanistic approach of being right or wrong. Having this in mind, the test should be used more as a guide to discover the rich diversity of views on how key terms are or should be used in performance management. Overall the test should be a fun way to rediscover the basics of a performance management glossary. Ideally it should also raise questions about what actually happens in practice, away from the prescribing nature of management books, academic articles and management consultant’s opinions.

To me there are three key learning points illustrated by the test:

1. Performance Management as a discipline contains elements that closely link it to a multitude of other disciplines and organizational capabilities: Strategy Management, Project Management, Human Resources Management, Accounting and Psychology, to name a few. Understanding such linkages and the origins of key terms are an important step in building a robust basis for architecting organizational performance.

2. The popular understanding and perception of certain terms in practice may be very different compared to academic and consultant’s viewpoints. What matters in the end is how such concepts are used in practice to generate value and not necessarily which is the “perfect” definition of what a KPI is.

As Stringer (2007) put it: “Constructions are created realities that exist as integrated, systematic, sense-making representations and are the stuff of which people’s social lives are built. The aim of inquiry is not to establish the truth or to describe what really is happening but to reveal the different truths and realities – construction – held by different individuals and groups. Even people who have the same facts or information will interpret them differently according to their experiences, worldviews and cultural backgrounds.”

3. Have an open mind in terms of rediscovering performance management through the lens of various viewpoints and be prepared to change perspectives or shift entire paradigms. According to one view, by completing the smartKPIs Performance Management IQ test you have completed a test and reviewed different opinions on specific topics. From another viewpoint (Guba and Lincoln, 1989), you have just completed a hermeneutic dialectic process, as new meanings emerge as divergent views are compared and contrasted.

Stay smart! Enjoy smartKPIs.com!

Aurel Brudan
Performance Architect,
www.smartKPIs.com

References

Stringer, E. T. (2007) “Action Research, 3rd Edition“, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989), “Fourth generation evaluation“, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.

Tags: Critical Success Factor, Goal, hermeneutic dialectic process, Initiative, IQ test, Key Performance Indicator, Key Result Indicator, KPI, Metric, Milestone, Mission Statement, Objective, Performance Indicator, Performance Measure, SMART Objective, smartKPI, Target, Value Driver, Vision Statement
Posted in Performance Architect update, Performance Management, smartKPIs.com | No Comments »