At 09:46 7/4/96 BST, you wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Jul 1996 04:55:53 -0400 John Zavacki wrote:
>
>> In the early days of TQM in the States, we talked about empowerment as
>> giving everyone the tools and knowledge to do the job right. The key to
>> quality was seen to be the planning function. I still see it that way.
>> Although I realize the tremendous impact of cultural issues outside of
>> tools and metrics, it still appears to me that the design of metrics for
>> performance (core competency metrics, performance change metrics, customer
>> satisfaction metrics, etc.) and an information infrastructure based on the
>> physical flow of information in the organization will do more to empower
>> teams and individuals than any other effort.
>
> Just two small queries:
>
> a) Who decides the nature of these metrics, and which metrics are
>the most important ? (i.e. it may not be possible to reach all targets at
>all times)
> b) If there are major changes in the organization's environment in
>the future, who decides whether to shift the 'goalposts' and to where?
>
In LO8338 Ginger Shafer offered you one perspective. I'd like to offer
another.
IMHO John Zavicki basically has it right. I "learned" a long time ago
that in very proper Demingesque fashion, the purpose for taking the data
(metric) is to make a decision. I further "learned" that there are only
two important catagories of quality metric: Customer Satisfaction and
Employee Satisfaction (something very deliberately distinct from employee
performance). They are inextricably linked and essentially meaningless,
one without the other, in terms of decision making. And as John inferred,
that decisionmaking capability needs to be embedded within the information
infrastructure. Now as to the nature of the metrics, and therefore the
inherent quality of the related decisionmaking Ginger wrote:
>In response to the first question, the customer SHOULD determine the
>nature of the metrics, but all too often the decision is made by those
>trying to "look good in the shower." The most important metrics are the
>ones that indicate customer satsifaction. For without customers, there is
>no throughput, and there can be no profits.
That is all true but generally too narrow in terms of the decisionmaking
necessary for organizational oversite as stated above. Additionally, I
find too few customers actually qualified to define useful metrics of
their satisfaction for me (other than choosing my "products" in the first
place). I think that organizationally, I have to decide how the taking of
the data can "best" influence my ability to meet or exceed my customer's
expectations. That, in essense, defines the nature of my metric. How
will the customer's response to my inquiries enable me to in turn,
increase that satisfaction. And this is where the check and balance of
employee satisfaction keeps us out of the "look good in the shower"
conundrum. If our decisionmaking is strictly a hygiene event, the work
force will know it first. This inefficiency is quickly reflected in
employee attitudes, measured or not.
I would like to ask a question of my own at this point in reference to
your use of the word "targets" (as in not being met). How did you mean
that? This sounded dangerously close to an expectation of specific
outcomes regarding the measure taken. Each measurement must be taken on
the basis of no expectation, simply measured or the "bias bug will bite
your sure." This neutrality is an extremely difficult (and often
expensive) thing to achieve but it too must define the nature of your
metrics.
As to your second issue regarding major changes in the organization's
environment; Ginger wrote, in part:
>This also answers the second question. The significant environmental
>changes would be those resulting from changes in customer requirements.
>The metrics would be modified to reflect those changes.
If we "only" define environment in terms of customer then we may miss
large issues like government regulation, eco-economics, or the gradual and
sometimes not so gradual transformation of our products from leading edge
innovations to commodities (and more government regulation).
Additionally, our work force demographics may change rapidly or over time
with associated ethnic, cultural, or other (such as mean age)
considerations that transform our employee satisfaction indicies right
under our noses. As Ginger said, the metrics must be modifed to reflect
those changes. Just make sure that in moving the "goalposts" you don't
change the nature of the game and lose the value of your data.
Andy, I hope this helps in some small way. Thanks to you all for the
chance to comment. William O. Welsh III Systems Integration Synergist
Cubic Application, Inc wilycat@infi.net
--"William O. Welsh III" <wilycat@infi.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>