Measurement and Unforeseen Results LO10108

Dr. Scott J. Simmerman (74170.1061@CompuServe.COM)
21 Sep 96 14:02:44 EDT

Replying to LO10041 --

Adding to Ginger Shafer's list of Metrics in LO10041, I would also add:

- It measures in a positive rather than a negative fashion (results versus
mistakes), thus making it more psychologically acceptable

- It measures individual and group results

- It allows for the correction and improvement of behavior or performance

- It is VERY timely, delayed by as short a span of time as possible.
(Consider learning to play the piano when the notes are delayed by only 10
seconds! Yet organizations sometimes receive feedback weeks later. Duh.)

- It is linked to the compensation / reward / management system measures

- It's accuracy is accepted by the participants in the measure

In years past, I had used a 12-point checklist on measurement and
feedback. The general finding was that the metrics had 3 to 4 of the key
factors on average and a bit of thinking and reframing could improve them
to 9 or 10.

My belief was that a good FEEDBACK system was often sufficient to improve
and maintain results.

It is accepted as meaningful to the customer.

It tells how well organizational goals and objectives are being met
through processes and tasks.

It is simple, understandable, logical and repeatable.

It shows a trend.

It is unambiguously defined.

Its data is economical to collect.

It is timely.

IT DRIVES THE "APPROPRIATE ACTION." In other words, I know what action(s)
I will take as a result of the information gained.


"Dr. Scott J. Simmerman" <74170.1061@CompuServe.COM>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <> -or- <>