Ben Compton writes:
>The input we need to do our job is "knowledge" plain and simple. Our
>engineers must know all types of stuff, from the basics of computer
>architecture to the details of wide-area connectivity. In many ways, its
>almost like being a doctor, and understanding the human body. So how do
>you supply engineers with knowledge? How do you ensure that the knowledge
>they get is accurate? How do you build processes that allow everyone to
>produce similar output when the output is dependent on the knowledge
>possessed by the person doing the work? How can customers provide
>meaningful feedback when they don't always understand the issues their
>involved with, or whether the solution to a problem provided by one of our
>engineers really solves the problem?
>
>How do you measure performance in a knowledge-centered environment? How do
>you define quality? Is quality the speed of service? Or is the accuracy of
>the service? Or is it both? How do you measure the accuracy of the
>service? We tend to measure speed because it is much more quanitifiable.
Part of the 'knowledge' that we require to do our jobs is knowledge of
what constitutes quality from the perspectives of our customers / clients
/ patients.
Trying out the medical analogy -- some patients just want the 'cure' --
others just want the 'care' -- many want a combination of the two, and
some others things thrown in -- like timeliness or low cost or
convenience.
I don't think 'I' can define quality for 'them'. I think that 'we' can
come to common understanding of quality -- but it certainly takes time and
willingness. And to the extent that I think I have a broader view, I may
have to undertake some broadening of their views (while opening myself up
to the possibility that my view is _over_ broad and a narrow perspective
would better serve the situation at hand!).
All of which is to say this -- I believe that quality exists only and
always from the perspective of the receivers of the product (or service or
whatever) -- it is _their_ values that form the center of 'the
evaluation'.
Of course, just to complicate things, _one_ product might have _multiple_
receivers (who is the receiver for 'education'? the student? the parent?
the taxpayer? the principal? the school board?) and each might well have a
different set of values and hence offer a different evaluation of a single
product.
For me, this just underscores the importance of the systems perspective,
the holistic approach that tries to take into account this diversity.
Michael A
--
Michael Ayers
mbayers@mmm.com Voice (612) 733-5690 FAX (612) 737-7718
IT Educ & Perf Svcs\3M Center 224-2NE-02\PO Box 33224\St Paul MN 55133-3224
"Sometimes the right question is, 'Are we asking the right question?'"
Ideas contained in this note represent the author's opinions and do not
intentionally represent the positions of anyone else in this galaxy.
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>