Posts Tagged ‘Performance Measure’

Email use remains strong despite social media buzz

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Merkle, a US based provider of fully integrated customer marketing solutions, released at the beginning of 2010 a ten page report with the title “View from the Social Inbox 2010 – Actionable Information for Marketers“.

The report presents original findings about social media users’ attitudes and their behavior related to using social media versus email. Here are some of the highlights:

  • “Time spent with personal, or social, email to friends and family is unchanged from last year, with 71% of respondents spending 20 minutes or more weekly. These numbers suggest social email use remains strong, contradicting earlier speculation that social networking would quickly replace traditional email use.”
  • “Active social networkers are more likely to be avid email users, as measured by time spent with social email as well as number of times checked daily. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of social networkers use the same email account for their social networking messages and the majority of their permission, or opt-in, email.”
  • “Social networkers are twice as likely to use mobile email (28% vs. 14%) and be “hyper email checkers” compared to their non-networked online counterparts – 50% of mobile email users check their personal email four or more times daily versus 32% of non-mobile users.”

  • The image below presents the difference in behavior between users of social media (in blue) and non-users of social media (in red).

Source: Merkle, 2010

This is a clear example on how indicators can provide relevant information about a certain area, informing decisions. Based on the information, email marketing continues to be a key communication tool for reaching potential and current customers. Measuring the email marketing performance is done through a variety of metrics, many of them listed in the library of KPI examples available on www.smartKPIs.com:

Note:

The study “View from the Social Inbox 2010 – Actionable Information for Marketers” was conducted through an online survey of 3,281 U.S. adults age 18+ during the fall of 2009, by Merkle.  The report is available for free at the following link: www.merkleinc.com/viewfromsocialinbox2010.

References:

smartKPIs.com (2010), “KPI examples for the Online presence – eCommerce Functional Area, Email Marketing subcategory”, available at http://www.smartkpis.com/kpi/functional-areas/online-presence-ecommerce/email-marketing/ (accessed 15 March 2010).

Merkle (2010), “View from the Social Inbox 2010 – Actionable Information for Marketers / From the Annual Consumer Email & Digital / Media Attitudes and Usage Study”, available at http://www.merkleinc.com/user-assets/Documents/WhitePapers/Social%20Inbox%202010%20WPaper%20Final.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2010).

Performance in Social Media marketing: Tweet, but don’t forget to measure!

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

A recent Mzinga and Babson Executive Education survey on the topic of social software in business, comprising over 900 executives, managers and individual contributors identified what they call Social Media Customer Leaders (SMC Leaders). According to them, SMC Leaders are companies where employees “strongly agree” with the following statement within the survey: “our organization has embraced social media (like Twitter, blogs and Facebook) to improve its responsiveness to customer needs”. In these companies, it’s common for the employees to „tweet” a great deal in order to better know and understand their customers and better satisfy their needs. Further on, the researchers outline the fact that these companies have proved to attain better results in terms of sales or efficiency in meeting customer needs, unlike their “non-tweeting” peers – which they call SMC Laggards.

Without any doubt, social media is one of the hottest topics in marketing practice and businesses, both large and small, use it to leverage their marketing efforts. Benefits are obvious and they rely mainly on the “viral” characteristic that social media platforms enhance.

But what many of the companies engaged in social media marketing lack to do is measure and track the results of their efforts. According to the same study mentioned above, only 16 % of the companies in the survey said they currently measured the ROI of their social media programs.

Performance appraisal in the context of social media marketing should, in our opinion, envisage three levels of metrics covered:

  • On-site behavior/action metrics, that would track the efficiency of social media programs in terms of immediate actions performed online. There are an enormous amount of metrics that could be used in this context; we mention some of them below:

# Total contributors and % Active contributors
# Comments, # Bookmarks, # Downloads, # Uploads
# Email subscriptions, # Followers
# Average time spent on key page, # Time spent on site

  • Off-site action metrics that would monitor the impact the social media program has on customer behavior in the market. These would track customer aspects such as # New customers, # Frequency of purchase, $ Average purchase value, all of these attributable to the social media program.
  • Finally, it all ends up with the assessment of the returns from the social media investment. It’s not enough to measure the benefits, if not compared to the costs. The social media ROI can be calculated like in the case of any kind of investment, as the result of the value generated by the investment minus cost of investment, divided by the cost of the investment.

To sum up, in a social media program appraisal, you should measure not only the immediate impact of social media marketing, but also the financial impact that comes afterward. You’ll have to analyze the whole picture from clicks, subscriptions, comments, testimonials and so on, up to the frequency and volume of purchases and finally, the added-value and the return from the social media investment. The measurement process should have a framework that would consist not only in the metrics chosen, but also in the baseline chosen to reflect the improvement attributable to the social media program or the time horizon considered to reflect the social media impact.

Further recommendations:

For further documentation, we suggest a presentation by Olivier Blanchard on the basics of social media ROI, available at:

http://www.slideshare.net/thebrandbuilder/olivier-blanchard-basics-of-social-media-roi

References:

Wilson, H., G. (2010) “Social Media Customer Leaders: Some Early Performance Data”, available at: http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/02/social-media-customer-leaders.html (accessed 6 March 2010).

Lake, C. (2009) “35 social media KPIs to help measure engagement”, available at: http://econsultancy.com/blog/4887-35-social-media-kpis-to-help-measure-engagement (accessed 6 March 2010).

Employee Engagement Index

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

In the last decade Employee Engagement has become a hot topic both in academic literature and in practice. The debate goes mostly around the implications that employee engagement can have on the success and bottom line of a company (Sacks, 2006).

It is widely known that organizations have traditionally relied on financial measures to determine their organizational value, success and financial performance through measures such as profitability, revenue or return on investment. It is also known that many soft measures or human oriented measures of traits, attitudes and behavior became in the last two decades more and more important determinants of employees and organizational performance (Peterson et al, 2001).

Many studies have shown the relationship that forms between employee cognitive attitudes, personality traits and job performance. However it was not clear until recently what is precisely the connection between all these components and how they can drive and determine organizational performance outcomes.

After 25 years of interviewing and surveying employees and managers the Gallup Organization has coined Employee Engagement Index as a driving force of the organization success and performance. (Little et al, 2006). The studies show that Employee Engagement Index has a significant implications for customer satisfaction, sustainable growth, real profit increase, stock increase, productivity and employee retention among the most important influenced factors (Gallup Consulting, 2008).

What is Employee Engagement?

Many academics and consultants tried to come with a definition of how employee engagement can be actually defined. Debates and research are still underway, but a common framework seems to emerge from the research work.

Many practitioners consider employee engagement a measure that reflects the extent to which employees contribute through their effort and enthusiasm to the success and performance of their organization.

In the same line of thought Crim et al (2006) consider that an engaged employee is a person inspired, fascinated, fully involved, and committed for its work and willing to see the organization succeeding in its mission. Accordingly, Sacks (2006) associates employee engagement with a sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, recognition, fairness and justice, a supportive work community and meaningful and valued work.

How is Employee Engagement Index measured?

Employee Engaged Index is based on a survey questionnaire that assess the employees effort and enthusiasm at work and can vary from organization to organization. According with the researchers and consultants from Burke, a leading international research and consulting firm, there are 6 important engagement components that determine a substantive Employee Engagement Index:

Company: satisfaction with the working environment and likeliness to withstand other job offers on the market

Manager: satisfaction with the mangers

Work group: satisfaction with the current working group: colleagues and managers

The job: satisfaction with the job

Career/ Profession : satisfaction with the choice of career and career perspectives

Customer: Satisfaction with the working relationship had with customers/clients

Employee Engagement Index: Analysis and outcomes

According with the research studies underpinned by the Gallup Organization it appears that engaged employees are more productive, more customer focused and more likely to withstand temptations to leave the organization.

The same studies frame employees in three categories:

engaged – work with passion and are profoundly connected to the organization values

not engaged – put time but not passion in their work and they are not connected to the organizational values

actively disengaged – employee busy to act out their unhappiness and undermine what their engaged colleagues try to accomplish ( Crim et al, 2006)

Based on these categories Gallup built the Engagement ratio which according with them is a macro level indicator that allows organizations to track the ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees.

The results show that:

• In average the ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees is 1,5 to 1

• In world class organization (successful organizations) the ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees is 8 to 1

This difference between the engagement ratio for average and world class organizations is translated in the way a suite of  performance indicators are affected by employee engagement and how in the end they affect consequently the bottom line of the organization. (see graph below, Gallup – Employee Engagement)

As we have seen above employee engagement has a direct influence on a series of other performance measures which in the end consequently determine and drive the performance outcome of an organization. In this context, as the Gallup researchers acknowledge, for successful organizations the Employee Engagement Index transcends from a human resource initiative, “into a strategic approach supported by tactics for driving improvement and organizational change”

For more resources and information on human resource management please visit our performance measures and KPIs database on smartkpis.com.

References:

  • Sacks, M. Allen (2006): Antecedents and consequence of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol 21, No 7, pp 606-619
  • Peterson, J. Suzanne and Luthans, Fred (2002): Implications for managerial effectiveness and development, Journal of Management Development, Vol 21, No 5, pp 376-387
  • Crim, Dan and Seijts, H. Gerrard (2006): What engages employees the most or, The ten C’s of employee engagement, Ivey Business Journal, March/April
  • Little, Beverly and Little, Philip (2006): Employee engagement: Conceptual issues, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, Vol 10, No 1, pp 111-120
  • Burke Consulting, Employee Engagement and Retention Management, available at www.burke.com (accessed 7 March 2010)
  • Gallup Consulting (2008), Employee Engagement: What’s your engagement ratio?, available at www.gallup.com (accessed 7 March 2010)

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:

  1. Conceptual clarity – Facilitate a clear understanding of the nuances of the cluster of performance management concepts
  2. Alignment of corporate vocabulary – Provide a single point of reference to clarify terminology used across the organization
  3. 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

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:

  1. Mission Statement
  2. Vision Statement
  3. Goal
  4. Objective
  5. Target
  6. SMART Objective
  7. Critical Success Factor (CSF) / Value Driver
  8. smartKPI / Key Result Indicator (KRI)
  9. Metric / Performance Measure / Performance Indicator
  10. Key Performance Indicator (KPI)
  11. Initiative
  12. 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.

Featured products

$45 USD
 
$99 USD
 
$1800 USD
 
$99 USD
 
$35 USD
 
$183 USD
 
$289 USD
 
$99 USD