Performance Measures and Learning LO12204

Slamet Hendry (
Sun, 26 Jan 1997 18:10:19 +0700

Replying to LO12186 --

> From: "John Zavacki" <>
> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 06:31:28 -0500
> Ethan J. Mings <>, Replying to LO12140 --
> > I often wonder if managers really understand the linkage between systems,
> > measures and generating results? Just an outloud questions.
> Even "enlightened" organizations could use some help on this one. Metrics
> are established to gauge performance to customer requirements, stakeholder
> requirements, standards, award criteria, business plans, strategic plans,
> and more. As the system changes, some of these metrics become
> counter-productive. That is, they consume resources to produce
> information which is of no value to the organization.

Sometimes, a few of these measures conflict, e.g. improving A may hinder
other effort at improving B. This is not surprising, since we live in a
"systemic" world. But when A and B are deemed crucial for the
organization, what do we do?

Do we prioritize such conflicting measures? B is more important than A.

Or the fact that A and B conflict says that there is an incoherent vision
or strategy that needs to be revisited?

IMHO, both are valid and applicable. Sometimes we need to prioritize,
sometimes we need to revisit, and sometimes both. :-) I'd love to hear
others' thoughts on this one.

Slamet Hendry
Change is good. You go first. (Scott Adams)


"Slamet Hendry" <>

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