Casual Articles - You Didn't Use Brainstorming to Select Your Measures, Did You?

When Alex Osborn invented the creativity technique called brainstorming, I wonder if he had any idea just how extensively business would apply it. Almost every meeting employs some kind of brainstorming event, but there’s one meeting that really should leave it off the agenda: the performance measure selection meeting.

There are 5 common ways people select performance measures

The selection of performance measures has never really been treated as anything more than a trivial, and often pesky, decision brought around by the annual business planning workshop. Usually people will take the fastest route to finalising a list of performance indicators in the KPI column of their business plan, and depending on your organisation, the fastest routes are usually some combination of the following:

- brainstorming, where participants just list as many potential measures as they can think of and then do some kind of short-listing

- benchmarking, or some other version of adoption (copying) measures from other organisations

- using existing data or measures, to save the costs of measuring something new, and having to collect the data

- measuring what stakeholders tell us to measure

- listening to what the experts in our industry have to say - what they "know" we should measure

Each of these methods certainly has some great strengths, but we often forget to examine the drawbacks. This article was written to open up the drawback discussion and offer a different way of thinking about measure design. but these common ways are limited!

brainstorming seems quick, but is really very hit-and-miss

Probably the most common approach taken to decide what to measure, brainstorming is the easy way out of an activity many people dread. Quality in equals quality out. A process that was designed for creativity and not measure design will not produce useful and usable measures.

pros:

- Seems quick.

- Lots of ideas for measures can be generated rapidly.

- Collaborative ideas - two heads are better than one.

- Easy to do, no special knowledge or skill is required.

- Engages people to be part of the measure selection process.

- A known/accepted approach, so the process doesn’t get in the way of doing the activity.

All ideas are considered/accepted, which helps people willingly participate.

cons:

- Not really finished after the brainstorming is over - how to get a final selection of measures is vague.

- There is more to measurement than just selecting measures - thought about how to bring the measures to life is also needed.

- Too much information is produced, therefore too many measures often results.

- Ideas are not vetted or tested, our thinking is not challenged.

- We often are brainstorming against different understandings of the same objective/goal we want to measure.

- The bigger picture is not taken into account e.g. unintended consequences, relationships to other objectives/goals, silo thinking.

- Often what is brainstormed is not really a measure at all – instead it is an action, a milestone, a piece of data, a vague fluffy concept.

- What is brainstormed is often expressed so vaguely no-one can remember what it meant later on.

Measure design needs to produce a few measures that have been thoroughly tested for their relevance or strength in tracking the goal or result they are selected for, and are supported by the people that they will affect.

benchmarking is convenient, but ignores strategic uniqueness

Benchmarking is about finding out what another organisation is doing, and this almost always involves or is based on some comparison of performance measures. If organisations share the same measures, then benchmarking is certainly easier to do, but there are consequences of adopting a “bolt on” set of performance measures.

pros:- - We feel safe & secure because others have gone before us.

- Others have (we assume) already put a lot of thought into those measures

– why reinvent the wheel?

- We can compare our performance with the performance of other similar organisations.

- We get a feeling of how good (or better) we are compared to others.

- It’s easy – just have to look and ask.

- Easier to justify to others why we are measuring what we are measuring.

- Widely accepted approach.

cons:- - There is more to measurement than just selecting measures.

- Not always collaborative - so little buy-in by people who will produce and use the measures.

- Not always like for like (apples with apples) - in fact, probably never is to the extent we assume.

- Isn’t driven by the decisions we need to make and the information we need for those decisions.

- Doesn’t challenge our thinking.

- It makes us bring some other organisation’s strategy to life, not what is right for us (aren’t we unique?).

- The goal posts change more frequently than the benchmarking process occurs.

- Our bigger picture is not taken into account, such as how this area of performance affects others in our organisation.

- Selecting measures against different understandings of the ‘outcome’ to measure.

Measure design needs to produce measures that encourage learning and sharing of knowledge, but not at the expense of discovering and focusing on the unique business strategy that best suits the organisation.

data availability makes it cheap, but focuses on yester-year’s strategy

What data do we have? What have we measured in the past? What are we already measuring? All questions that are symptomatic of an organisation that is not open to challenging whether the data they are collecting really is capable of telling them what they need to know about where they are going. Measure what you have always measured, get what you have always gotten. What’s strategic about that?

pros:

- Very easy, very quick.

- Known data sources mean low cost in data collection/capture – already have systems to support it.

- People more likely share a common understanding of measures already.

- Consistency in information over time, to have valid comparisons over time.

- Have historic data available for trend analysis.

cons:

- We only bring yesterday’s (or yester-year’s) strategy to life.

- Rarely challenge the measure itself, so no better measures are explored (and therefore no better data will ever be collected to manage emerging strategic risks and opportunities).

- Not collaborative, because it is from previous thinkers, not today’s doers.

- Bigger picture is not taken into account.

- Parts of our strategy that are new will go un-measured.

Measure design needs to produce measures that are cost-effective and have some historic data before too long, but must produce measures that will take the organisation toward its vision, not drag it back into its past.

stakeholders need information, but that’s not the same as performance measurement

What’s imposed on an organisation by regulators, shareholders, government, industry bodies and other stakeholders is often considered a constraint on the measures it can use to manage its performance. They struggle to retrofit the stakeholder-chosen measures to their strategy, or renegotiate the stakeholder-chosen measures. But these aren’t the only two options. This method of measure selection is not really measure selection at all.

pros:

- We get told what to measure, and don’t have to do the hard work ourselves.

- We give them what they want and thus we won’t get into trouble.

- Often can be negotiated resourcing by the government group or stakeholder imposing it.

- Get higher management commitment to the need (and therefore to data collection and reporting) - it will get done.

- Our governance requirements are more likely to be met (assuming we report these measures properly).

cons:

- There is more to measurement than just selecting measures.

- Encourages an autocratic/ patriarchal management style.

- The imposers don’t understand our strategic direction/don’t trust that we do.

- Isn’t driven by the decisions we need to make and the information we need for those decisions.

- Lack of ownership by us of those measures (and the results they track). - Bigger picture is not taken into account.

- The focus may not be the right focus or the only focus that matters.

- Parent-child (instead of partner) relationship with stakeholders could become the norm.

- Assumes that the stakeholders have robust methods of designing meaningful measures.

Measure design needs to produce measures that are relevant to the organisation’s strategic direction, a direction that is understood supported by its key stakeholders. But the measure design process can also be used to design reports to stakeholders that are largely separate to its organisational performance measures.

experts have experience, but can be locked into one-size-fits-all

Industry experts, consultants, people with years of experience or self-nominated experts all carry a mystique of knowledge and wisdom that can make their ideas about what to measure sound more like truth than suggestion.

pros:

- We get told, and don’t have to do the hard work.

- A focus is quickly clear.

- Experts can bring new ideas and experience we may not have.

- Have approaches that have worked for other organisations.

cons:

- The focus may not be the right focus or the only focus that matters for us.

- We usually don’t challenge experts even though we have intimate knowledge of our unique business.

- Experts can assume we don’t need to know their thinking behind the measures, so we don’t learn how to think more wisely about the measures for ourselves.

- We may not really understand the measures that are recommended to us.

- Experts often cost a lot of money.

- Experts may not understand our organisation enough to know our uniqueness (the one size fits all problem).

- Experts may not take account of how feasible it might be (or not) to bring those measures to life in our organisation.

- Measure design needs to produce measures that we understand and have ownership of, and be a process that allows us to continue refining and refreshing our selection of measures as our performance and strategic direction changes.

Measure design needs a better methodology

The reason that the quick and easy methods above are used to select measures is the same reason that performance measurement is a dreaded event: people have no idea that measure design is a process of dialogue around the goals or objectives they want to measure. It is a way for them to engage in a deeper understanding of the results they are really trying to achieve, and how they would be convinced as to the degree to which they have achieved those results.

And that’s why we’ve created an alternative method to measure design. A method that produces measures which:

- are few, not prolific

- have been thoroughly tested for their relevance or strength in tracking the goal or result they are selected for

- are supported by the people that they will affect

- encourage learning and sharing of knowledge

- assist the discovering and focusing on the unique business strategy that best suits the organisation

- are cost-effective

- have as much historic data as feasible

- will take the organisation toward its vision, not drag it back into its past

- have resulted in people (including stakeholders) having a deeper and richer understanding of what results the organisation is really trying to create

- people understand and have ownership of

This method is based around five simple but deliberate steps:

1. Write down the goal or objective or result you want to achieve (and thus measure). Stay focused on this particular result while you are designing measures for it (don’t let your attention wander to other results).

2. Describe this result in a lot more detail, explaining what you and others would see, hear, feel, be doing (or even taste and smell!) if that result were happening now, explain the differences you would notice. This is listing the ‘sensory descriptions’ of your result. Do this until you have agreed what the result really means and what differences you will most likely notice between now and when the result is achieved.

3. Check if there are any unintended consequences of achieving this result, either positive or negative. Make sure it is a result you really do want to create before you bother measuring it.

4. Go back to the list you created at step 2 and list the potential things you could count or measure that would give you evidence of how much each of those sensory descriptions was actually occurring. For each potential measure you identify, give it a high, medium or low rating for how relevant it is to your result and a high, medium or low rating for how feasible it would be to measure it.

5. Use the high, medium and low ratings for your potential measures to shortlist to between 1 and 3 measures for this result. This method, just like all the traditional methods, has its own pros and cons as well:

pros:

- It produces very few and very meaningful measures.

- Thinking about strategy and measures is challenged and tested.

- The feasibility of measures is assessed.

- It is a conscious and deliberate approach that people have control over.

- Measures strongly link to the specific strategic outcomes that are to track.

- We often are brainstorming against different understandings of the same objective/goal we want to measure.

- The bigger picture is not taken into account e.g. unintended consequences, relationships to other objectives/goals, silo thinking.

- Often what is brainstormed is not really a measure at all – instead it is an action, a milestone, a piece of data, a vague fluffy concept.

- What is brainstormed is often expressed so vaguely no-one can remember what it meant later on.

Measure design needs to produce a few measures that have been thoroughly tested for their relevance or strength in tracking the goal or result they are selected for, and are supported by the people that they will affect.

benchmarking is convenient, but ignores strategic uniqueness

Benchmarking is about finding out what another organisation is doing, and this almost always involves or is based on some comparison of performance measures. If organisations share the same measures, then benchmarking is certainly easier to do, but there are consequences of adopting a “bolt on” set of performance measures.

pros:- - We feel safe & secure because others have gone before us.

- Others have (we assume) already put a lot of thought into those measures

– why reinvent the wheel?

- We can compare our performance with the performance of other similar organisations.

- We get a feeling of how good (or better) we are compared to others.

- It’s easy – just have to look and ask.

- Easier to justify to others why we are measuring what we are measuring.

- Widely accepted approach.

cons:- - There is more to measurement than just selecting measures.

- Not always collaborative - so little buy-in by people who will produce and use the measures.

- Not always like for like (apples with apples) - in fact, probably never is to the extent we assume.

- Isn’t driven by the decisions we need to make and the information we need for those decisions.

- Doesn’t challenge our thinking.

- It makes us bring some other organisation’s strategy to life, not what is right for us (aren’t we unique?).

- The goal posts change more frequently than the benchmarking process occurs.

- Our bigger picture is not taken into account, such as how this area of performance affects others in our organisation.

- Selecting measures against different understandings of the ‘outcome’ to measure.

Measure design needs to produce measures that encourage learning and sharing of knowledge, but not at the expense of discovering and focusing on the unique business strategy that best suits the organisation.

data availability makes it cheap, but focuses on yester-year’s strategy

What data do we have? What have we measured in the past? What are we already measuring? All questions that are symptomatic of an organisation that is not open to challenging whether the data they are collecting really is capable of telling them what they need to know about where they are going. Measure what you have always measured, get what you have always gotten. What’s strategic about that?

pros:

- Very easy, very quick.

- Known data sources mean low cost in data collection/capture – already have systems to support it.

- People more likely share a common understanding of measures already.

- Consistency in information over time, to have valid comparisons over time.

- Have historic data available for trend analysis.

cons:

- We only bring yesterday’s (or yester-year’s) strategy to life.

- Rarely challenge the measure itself, so no better measures are explored (and therefore no better data will ever be collected to manage emerging strategic risks and opportunities).

- Not collaborative, because it is from previous thinkers, not today’s doers.

- Bigger picture is not taken into account.

- Parts of our strategy that are new will go un-measured.

Measure design needs to produce measures that are cost-effective and have some historic data before too long, but must produce measures that will take the organisation toward its vision, not drag it back into its past.

stakeholders need information, but that’s not the same as performance measurement

What’s imposed on an organisation by regulators, shareholders, government, industry bodies and other stakeholders is often considered a constraint on the measures it can use to manage its performance. They struggle to retrofit the stakeholder-chosen measures to their strategy, or renegotiate the stakeholder-chosen measures. But these aren’t the only two options. This method of measure selection is not really measure selection at all.

pros:

- We get told what to measure, and don’t have to do the hard work ourselves.

- We give them what they want and thus we won’t get into trouble.

- Often can be negotiated resourcing by the government group or stakeholder imposing it.

- Get higher management commitment to the need (and therefore to data collection and reporting) - it will get done.

- Our governance requirements are more likely to be met (assuming we report these measures properly).

cons:

- There is more to measurement than just selecting measures.

- Encourages an autocratic/ patriarchal management style.

- The imposers don’t understand our strategic direction/don’t trust that we do.

- Isn’t driven by the decisions we need to make and the information we need for those decisions.

- Lack of ownership by us of those measures (and the results they track). - Bigger picture is not taken into account.

- The focus may not be the right focus or the only focus that matters.

- Parent-child (instead of partner) relationship with stakeholders could become the norm.

- Assumes that the stakeholders have robust methods of designing meaningful measures.

Measure design needs to produce measures that are relevant to the organisation’s strategic direction, a direction that is understood supported by its key stakeholders. But the measure design process can also be used to design reports to stakeholders that are largely separate to its organisational performance measures.

experts have experience, but can be locked into one-size-fits-all

Industry experts, consultants, people with years of experience or self-nominated experts all carry a mystique of knowledge and wisdom that can make their ideas about what to measure sound more like truth than suggestion.

pros:

- We get told, and don’t have to do the hard work.

- A focus is quickly clear.

- Experts can bring new ideas and experience we may not have.

- Have approaches that have worked for other organisations.

cons:

- The focus may not be the right focus or the only focus that matters for us.

- We usually don’t challenge experts even though we have intimate knowledge of our unique business.

- Experts can assume we don’t need to know their thinking behind the measures, so we don’t learn how to think more wisely about the measures for ourselves.

- We may not really understand the measures that are recommended to us.

- Experts often cost a lot of money.

- Experts may not understand our organisation enough to know our uniqueness (the one size fits all problem).

- Experts may not take account of how feasible it might be (or not) to bring those measures to life in our organisation.

- Measure design needs to produce measures that we understand and have ownership of, and be a process that allows us to continue refining and refreshing our selection of measures as our performance and strategic direction changes.

Measure design needs a better methodology

The reason that the quick and easy methods above are used to select measures is the same reason that performance measurement is a dreaded event: people have no idea that measure design is a process of dialogue around the goals or objectives they want to measure. It is a way for them to engage in a deeper understanding of the results they are really trying to achieve, and how they would be convinced as to the degree to which they have achieved those results.

And that’s why we’ve created an alternative method to measure design. A method that produces measures which:

- are few, not prolific

- have been thoroughly tested for their relevance or strength in tracking the goal or result they are selected for

- are supported by the people that they will affect

- encourage learning and sharing of knowledge

- assist the discovering and focusing on the unique business strategy that best suits the organisation

- are cost-effective

- have as much historic data as feasible

- will take the organisation toward its vision, not drag it back into its past

- have resulted in people (including stakeholders) having a deeper and richer understanding of what results the organisation is really trying to create

- people understand and have ownership of

This method is based around five simple but deliberate steps:

1. Write down the goal or objective or result you want to achieve (and thus measure). Stay focused on this particular result while you are designing measures for it (don’t let your attention wander to other results).

2. Describe this result in a lot more detail, explaining what you and others would see, hear, feel, be doing (or even taste and smell!) if that result were happening now, explain the differences you would notice. This is listing the ‘sensory descriptions’ of your result. Do this until you have agreed what the result really means and what differences you will most likely notice between now and when the result is achieved.

3. Check if there are any unintended consequences of achieving this result, either positive or negative. Make sure it is a result you really do want to create before you bother measuring it.

4. Go back to the list you created at step 2 and list the potential things you could count or measure that would give you evidence of how much each of those sensory descriptions was actually occurring. For each potential measure you identify, give it a high, medium or low rating for how relevant it is to your result and a high, medium or low rating for how feasible it would be to measure it.

5. Use the high, medium and low ratings for your potential measures to shortlist to between 1 and 3 measures for this result. This method, just like all the traditional methods, has its own pros and cons as well:

pros:

- It produces very few and very meaningful measures.

- Thinking about strategy and measures is challenged and tested.

- The feasibility of measures is assessed.

- It is a conscious and deliberate approach that people have control over.

- Measures strongly link to the specific strategic outcomes that are to track. Analytical Cash Receipts and Cash Payments Books
The Performa of analytical cash receipts and cash payments books relating to the insurance business appears in this page. Any business can modify suitably the proforma depending upon its own requirements.Petty Cash BookEvery business has to make payments involving smaller or petty amount, e.g.. carriage, cartage, cooly hire, postage telegrams etc. Such payments, by their very nature cannot be made by cheques. It is usual for the business units to maintain a separate cash book to record small payments only. Such cash book is known as Petty Cash Book. It relieves the main cash book of numerous transactions involving petty sums and also helps in reducing the work-load of chief cashier.Imprested SystemUnder this method, petty cashier is provided with a fixed amount of money known as imprested or float which is sufficient to meet the needs of balancing period. Balancing period may be a week or fortnight or month. At the end of balancing period the petty cashier is given fresh cheque of the amount equal to his payments during the same period. Thus, in the beginning, every time, he will start with the amount fixed : i.e. imprested or float.Usual method of maintaining petty cash book is to rule it for obtaining analysis of expenditure. The book will have one column on the debit side to record receipt of cash (only from the main cashier) and credit side is divided into different columns. Each column is reserved for one particular type of expenditure. Name and number of columns in each case will depend upon the requirements of the business.Advantages(1) Reduces the work load of chief cashier.(2) Effective control can be exercised over small payments because each payment has to be supported by vouchers and vouchers are examined frequently i.e.. at the end of each balancing period.(3) Saving in ls it cheap, but focuses on yester-year’s strategy

What data do we have? What have we measured in the past? What are we already measuring? All questions that are symptomatic of an organisation that is not open to challenging whether the data they are collecting really is capable of telling them what they need to know about where they are going. Measure what you have always measured, get what you have always gotten. What’s strategic about that?

pros:

- Very easy, very quick.

- Known data sources mean low cost in data collection/capture – already have systems to support it.

- People more likely share a common understanding of measures already.

- Consistency in information over time, to have valid comparisons over time.

- Have historic data available for trend analysis.

cons:

- We only bring yesterday’s (or yester-year’s) strategy to life.

- Rarely challenge the measure itself, so no better measures are explored (and therefore no better data will ever be collected to manage emerging strategic risks and opportunities).

- Not collaborative, because it is from previous thinkers, not today’s doers.

- Bigger picture is not taken into account.

- Parts of our strategy that are new will go un-measured.

Measure design needs to produce measures that are cost-effective and have some historic data before too long, but must produce measures that will take the organisation toward its vision, not drag it back into its past.

stakeholders need information, but that’s not the same as performance measurement

What’s imposed on an organisation by regulators, shareholders, government, industry bodies and other stakeholders is often considered a constraint on the measures it can use to manage its performance. They struggle to retrofit the stakeholder-chosen measures to their strategy, or renegotiate the stakeholder-chosen measures. But these aren’t the only two options. This method of measure selection is not really measure selection at all.

pros:

- We get told what to measure, and don’t have to do the hard work ourselves.

- We give them what they want and thus we won’t get into trouble.

- Often can be negotiated resourcing by the government group or stakeholder imposing it.

- Get higher management commitment to the need (and therefore to data collection and reporting) - it will get done.

- Our governance requirements are more likely to be met (assuming we report these measures properly).

cons:

- There is more to measurement than just selecting measures.

- Encourages an autocratic/ patriarchal management style.

- The imposers don’t understand our strategic direction/don’t trust that we do.

- Isn’t driven by the decisions we need to make and the information we need for those decisions.

- Lack of ownership by us of those measures (and the results they track). - Bigger picture is not taken into account.

- The focus may not be the right focus or the only focus that matters.

- Parent-child (instead of partner) relationship with stakeholders could become the norm.

- Assumes that the stakeholders have robust methods of designing meaningful measures.

Measure design needs to produce measures that are relevant to the organisation’s strategic direction, a direction that is understood supported by its key stakeholders. But the measure design process can also be used to design reports to stakeholders that are largely separate to its organisational performance measures.

experts have experience, but can be locked into one-size-fits-all

Industry experts, consultants, people with years of experience or self-nominated experts all carry a mystique of knowledge and wisdom that can make their ideas about what to measure sound more like truth than suggestion.

pros:

- We get told, and don’t have to do the hard work.

- A focus is quickly clear.

- Experts can bring new ideas and experience we may not have.

- Have approaches that have worked for other organisations.

cons:

- The focus may not be the right focus or the only focus that matters for us.

- We usually don’t challenge experts even though we have intimate knowledge of our unique business.

- Experts can assume we don’t need to know their thinking behind the measures, so we don’t learn how to think more wisely about the measures for ourselves.

- We may not really understand the measures that are recommended to us.

- Experts often cost a lot of money.

- Experts may not understand our organisation enough to know our uniqueness (the one size fits all problem).

- Experts may not take account of how feasible it might be (or not) to bring those measures to life in our organisation.

- Measure design needs to produce measures that we understand and have ownership of, and be a process that allows us to continue refining and refreshing our selection of measures as our performance and strategic direction changes.

Measure design needs a better methodology

The reason that the quick and easy methods above are used to select measures is the same reason that performance measurement is a dreaded event: people have no idea that measure design is a process of dialogue around the goals or objectives they want to measure. It is a way for them to engage in a deeper understanding of the results they are really trying to achieve, and how they would be convinced as to the degree to which they have achieved those results.

And that’s why we’ve created an alternative method to measure design. A method that produces measures which:

- are few, not prolific

- have been thoroughly tested for their relevance or strength in tracking the goal or result they are selected for

- are supported by the people that they will affect

- encourage learning and sharing of knowledge

- assist the discovering and focusing on the unique business strategy that best suits the organisation

- are cost-effective

- have as much historic data as feasible

- will take the organisation toward its vision, not drag it back into its past

- have resulted in people (including stakeholders) having a deeper and richer understanding of what results the organisation is really trying to create

- people understand and have ownership of

This method is based around five simple but deliberate steps:

1. Write down the goal or objective or result you want to achieve (and thus measure). Stay focused on this particular result while you are designing measures for it (don’t let your attention wander to other results).

2. Describe this result in a lot more detail, explaining what you and others would see, hear, feel, be doing (or even taste and smell!) if that result were happening now, explain the differences you would notice. This is listing the ‘sensory descriptions’ of your result. Do this until you have agreed what the result really means and what differences you will most likely notice between now and when the result is achieved.

3. Check if there are any unintended consequences of achieving this result, either positive or negative. Make sure it is a result you really do want to create before you bother measuring it.

4. Go back to the list you created at step 2 and list the potential things you could count or measure that would give you evidence of how much each of those sensory descriptions was actually occurring. For each potential measure you identify, give it a high, medium or low rating for how relevant it is to your result and a high, medium or low rating for how feasible it would be to measure it.

5. Use the high, medium and low ratings for your potential measures to shortlist to between 1 and 3 measures for this result. This method, just like all the traditional methods, has its own pros and cons as well:

pros:

- It produces very few and very meaningful measures.

- Thinking about strategy and measures is challenged and tested.

- The feasibility of measures is assessed.

- It is a conscious and deliberate approach that people have control over.

- Measures strongly link to the specific strategic outcomes that are to track. The Big Secret For Staying Cool When The Action Is Hot!
Here are a few simple things to keep in mind when the situation has deteriorated and the heat has been turned up.The first is to breathe. That’s right. Here is the big secret you’ve been waiting for! Breathe! When human beings are faced with very tense situations we will often freeze up and forget to breathe. It’s out natural flight or fight reflex. Our muscles get ready and the adrenaline begins to flow charging us up to respond as the situation warrants.And we forget to breathe.So, take a breath in through your nose and let it out through your mouth. Now I am not saying suck air in like you just got through running a marathon or something. Just take a breath in and let it out. Slowly.Then I want you to pause for a very brief 3 count. Onethousandone, onethousandtwo, onethousandthree. Say this count right now. Say it silently to yourself. Get a feel for the time it takes to say it. This does a number of things for you. It allows the oxygen you just brought in a chance to get to your brain and start the brain engagement process. And, you can flip your ears to the full forward position and begin the information gathering phase.Now it’s time to listen and observe. If this is taking place in person, focus on what the customer is saying and doing. Body language is just as important as the words. Listen for emotions. Most importantly listen for the facts. If you are on the phone, sit up straight and concentrate on the caller. Pay attention to their emotions and write down important facts. The facts are critical to you shifting the conversation from the emotional state of what happened to the circumstances of what happened.Who, what, when, where, why and how. This is where you are going to solve the problem or, as I like to say, make the most of the opportunity! Once you have listened to all of the information, and allowed the customer to finish completen by the decisions we need to make and the information we need for those decisions.

- Lack of ownership by us of those measures (and the results they track). - Bigger picture is not taken into account.

- The focus may not be the right focus or the only focus that matters.

- Parent-child (instead of partner) relationship with stakeholders could become the norm.

- Assumes that the stakeholders have robust methods of designing meaningful measures.

Measure design needs to produce measures that are relevant to the organisation’s strategic direction, a direction that is understood supported by its key stakeholders. But the measure design process can also be used to design reports to stakeholders that are largely separate to its organisational performance measures.

experts have experience, but can be locked into one-size-fits-all

Industry experts, consultants, people with years of experience or self-nominated experts all carry a mystique of knowledge and wisdom that can make their ideas about what to measure sound more like truth than suggestion.

pros:

- We get told, and don’t have to do the hard work.

- A focus is quickly clear.

- Experts can bring new ideas and experience we may not have.

- Have approaches that have worked for other organisations.

cons:

- The focus may not be the right focus or the only focus that matters for us.

- We usually don’t challenge experts even though we have intimate knowledge of our unique business.

- Experts can assume we don’t need to know their thinking behind the measures, so we don’t learn how to think more wisely about the measures for ourselves.

- We may not really understand the measures that are recommended to us.

- Experts often cost a lot of money.

- Experts may not understand our organisation enough to know our uniqueness (the one size fits all problem).

- Experts may not take account of how feasible it might be (or not) to bring those measures to life in our organisation.

- Measure design needs to produce measures that we understand and have ownership of, and be a process that allows us to continue refining and refreshing our selection of measures as our performance and strategic direction changes.

Measure design needs a better methodology

The reason that the quick and easy methods above are used to select measures is the same reason that performance measurement is a dreaded event: people have no idea that measure design is a process of dialogue around the goals or objectives they want to measure. It is a way for them to engage in a deeper understanding of the results they are really trying to achieve, and how they would be convinced as to the degree to which they have achieved those results.

And that’s why we’ve created an alternative method to measure design. A method that produces measures which:

- are few, not prolific

- have been thoroughly tested for their relevance or strength in tracking the goal or result they are selected for

- are supported by the people that they will affect

- encourage learning and sharing of knowledge

- assist the discovering and focusing on the unique business strategy that best suits the organisation

- are cost-effective

- have as much historic data as feasible

- will take the organisation toward its vision, not drag it back into its past

- have resulted in people (including stakeholders) having a deeper and richer understanding of what results the organisation is really trying to create

- people understand and have ownership of

This method is based around five simple but deliberate steps:

1. Write down the goal or objective or result you want to achieve (and thus measure). Stay focused on this particular result while you are designing measures for it (don’t let your attention wander to other results).

2. Describe this result in a lot more detail, explaining what you and others would see, hear, feel, be doing (or even taste and smell!) if that result were happening now, explain the differences you would notice. This is listing the ‘sensory descriptions’ of your result. Do this until you have agreed what the result really means and what differences you will most likely notice between now and when the result is achieved.

3. Check if there are any unintended consequences of achieving this result, either positive or negative. Make sure it is a result you really do want to create before you bother measuring it.

4. Go back to the list you created at step 2 and list the potential things you could count or measure that would give you evidence of how much each of those sensory descriptions was actually occurring. For each potential measure you identify, give it a high, medium or low rating for how relevant it is to your result and a high, medium or low rating for how feasible it would be to measure it.

5. Use the high, medium and low ratings for your potential measures to shortlist to between 1 and 3 measures for this result. This method, just like all the traditional methods, has its own pros and cons as well:

pros:

- It produces very few and very meaningful measures.

- Thinking about strategy and measures is challenged and tested.

- The feasibility of measures is assessed.

- It is a conscious and deliberate approach that people have control over.

- Measures strongly link to the specific strategic outcomes that are to track. Employee Time Clocks - Enter The Modern World
For decades, businesses and factories monitored the working hours of their employees using time clocks. A particular favorite was the punch card system, where the employee had to insert their card into the time clock, so their hours could be stamped on the card. The payroll officer would then collect these cards each week and pay the employees accordingly.It's a simple system, but unfortunately it's also very easy to cheat. Joe Bloggs is a bit late today? That's okay, John Doe can pop his card in the time clock and nobody will know the difference. Most companies have severe penalties in place for employees found faking time clock information, particularly clocking on or off for other employees, but the chances of detecting it have always been small.Not only is the system open to cheating, it's also very time consuming for the payroll officer. With the level of technology and computerization available today, there's no need to manually collate and enter data, with all the possibility of error that entails. Automation can make the whole process much simpler for everyone involved. It's no longer necessary to manually collect time and attendance data from time cards or attendance sheets.Most payroll systems that are computer based make it easy to produce paychecks from the attendance data. So if the actual collection of the data is automatic, the process becomes so much simpler, and more accurate. Modern time clocks collect data electronically, and this data can be downloaded directly into a payroll software program for collation and production of paychecks.There are plenty of time clock systems that process information electronically, so do some research and you're sure to find one that fits your needs. This still doesn't eliminate the possibility of employees cheating the system on behalf of a buddy, but if you're serious about security, it is possible to get they have achieved those results.

And that’s why we’ve created an alternative method to measure design. A method that produces measures which:

- are few, not prolific

- have been thoroughly tested for their relevance or strength in tracking the goal or result they are selected for

- are supported by the people that they will affect

- encourage learning and sharing of knowledge

- assist the discovering and focusing on the unique business strategy that best suits the organisation

- are cost-effective

- have as much historic data as feasible

- will take the organisation toward its vision, not drag it back into its past

- have resulted in people (including stakeholders) having a deeper and richer understanding of what results the organisation is really trying to create

- people understand and have ownership of

This method is based around five simple but deliberate steps:

1. Write down the goal or objective or result you want to achieve (and thus measure). Stay focused on this particular result while you are designing measures for it (don’t let your attention wander to other results).

2. Describe this result in a lot more detail, explaining what you and others would see, hear, feel, be doing (or even taste and smell!) if that result were happening now, explain the differences you would notice. This is listing the ‘sensory descriptions’ of your result. Do this until you have agreed what the result really means and what differences you will most likely notice between now and when the result is achieved.

3. Check if there are any unintended consequences of achieving this result, either positive or negative. Make sure it is a result you really do want to create before you bother measuring it.

4. Go back to the list you created at step 2 and list the potential things you could count or measure that would give you evidence of how much each of those sensory descriptions was actually occurring. For each potential measure you identify, give it a high, medium or low rating for how relevant it is to your result and a high, medium or low rating for how feasible it would be to measure it.

5. Use the high, medium and low ratings for your potential measures to shortlist to between 1 and 3 measures for this result. This method, just like all the traditional methods, has its own pros and cons as well:

pros:

- It produces very few and very meaningful measures.

- Thinking about strategy and measures is challenged and tested.

- The feasibility of measures is assessed.

- It is a conscious and deliberate approach that people have control over.

- Measures strongly link to the specific strategic outcomes that are to track.

- The bigger picture is taken into account – and links and relationships with other measures are automatically identified (eg cause-effect, companion, etc…).

- Very collaborative because it is dialogue based, therefore high ownership results.

- Measures are not vague ideas but very evidence based.

- The measure is designed from the context of how it will be used.

- Can deliberately test the authenticity of each measure relative to its goal/objective.

- The type of language used to design the measures promotes a common and shared understanding of the result to be created (and this makes it easier to communicate strategy to all staff).

cons:

- It’s not easy the first few times through - it’s new and can potentially distract people if they forget what step they are doing and why (until they have been through it once or twice).

- It takes time - it needs good quality dialogue to build a deeply shared understanding of what is being measured.

- It will need training or resources to teach people how to do it and why to do it.

- Sometimes strategy needs to be altered (as this approach often deepens understanding of implications or misunderstandings of chosen strategy/wording of).

So, you no longer need to feel compelled to take the easy way out of selecting performance measures, and in five simple steps, you can not only design useful and usable measures, but also deeper your understanding of the results you are trying to achieve!

HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.casualarticles.com/article/23983/casualarticles-You-Didnt-Use-Brainstorming-to-Select-Your-Measures-Did-You.html">You Didn't Use Brainstorming to Select Your Measures, Did You?</a>

BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.casualarticles.com/article/23983/casualarticles-You-Didnt-Use-Brainstorming-to-Select-Your-Measures-Did-You.html]You Didn't Use Brainstorming to Select Your Measures, Did You?[/url]

Related Articles:

Unlimit Your Life!

Are you stuck in old patterns that keep you in neutral? Learn how to recognize and move to overcome your blocks. Offers tips and strategies to help you get started. With resources for suggested reading.

Murder Mystery Dinner Fundraisers

A murder mystery dinner theater fundraiser is a fun way to raise funds. Here's how to host a murder mystery as a fundraising event. First, you need a location and that choice is critical to your success.

How to Divide Your Business Work Time

I believe there are two things that will make a small business successful, but there are 3 things that need to be done in business. And as an online business owner, I know it's often easier to do the one thing that doesn't have to be done and unconsciously avoid the two things that make businesses successful.

Bookmark it: