Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Answer Upon - You Didn't Use Brainstorming to Select Your Measures, Did You?
The world of medical billing has come a very long way. In the old days, you'd go to your doctor, have your treatment, for whatever it may have been, get your bill, submit your check or give him cash and that was the end of it. Of course, if you had insurance, which back in the stone ages was as rare as hens' teeth, the doctor then sent a paper bill to the insurance carrier, whether it be a private carrier, Medicare or Medicaid. We all know how easy it is for paper to get lost. Well, those days are long behind us. Yes, some doctors still live in the stone ages, but the majority have entered the modern era with the rest of the world and have begun to utilize what is known as electronic medical billing.Understanding how electronic medical billing works is really not hard. Understanding what is actually involved with the whole process is a different story. So we'll try to keep this article as simple as possible so that you'll have a basic understanding the next time you have to go to the doctor for medical services.Electronic billing is paperless billing. The bill that is printed out and given to you by the doctor or provider, such as with a clinic, is then entered into the computer along with a lot of information which covers just about everything including who your insurance carrier is, which is the most important piece of information. Without this information, the insurance provider would not know how to process the claim so that the doctor or clinic gets paid.After the information is entered into the computer, using a specialized medical billing software program, the information is then electronically submitted to the carrier via a modem. A modem is a device that utilizes your phone line in order to transmit information, similar to a fax machine. The difference is that with a fax machine a piece of paper is inserted into the machine, a copy of it is electronically
- 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
In our continuing series on medical billing, focusing on certificates of medical necessity, we'll be covering the GC0 record in this installment.The GC0 record is sent for any patient that either sees a chiropractor or has a chiropractic procedure performed. Not all insurance carriers recognize and pay on chiropractic claims so it is best to check with your carrier before attempting to send a GC0 record. If the record is not recognized and the claim is sent with one, there is a good chance that the claim will be denied. What follows are the fields of the GC0 record.GC0 field 1, positions 1 - 3, is the record type. This needs to be filled in with GC0.GC0 field 2, positions 4 - 5, is the sequence number in claim. Because claims can have more than one GC0 record, each one has to have its own sequence number.GC0 field 3, positions 6 - 22, is the patient ID. This must be the same ID number that is transmitted in the CA0 record and all subsequent records.GC0 field 4, positions 23 - 39, is the line item control number. This is the control number that is assigned to each item in the claim. These are usually assigned sequentially.GC0 field 5, positions 40 - 47, is the initial treatment date. This date needs some explanation. This is not the date when the patient first saw the chiropractor. This is the date that the chiropractor first treated the patient, which in most cases is what the claim is billing. This date can be transmitted either in yyyymmdd or mmddyyyy format, depending on the requirements of the carrier.GC0 field 6, positions 48 - 55, is the date of the last x-ray. This field is self explanatory. This date format follows the same rules as field number 5. One note. If no x-ray was done then this field must be left blank.GC0 field 7, positions 56 - 62, it the treatment in series. This is the number of the treatment in the se
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 m
A great idea for a church fundraiser is putting together an annual 'Church Feastival' where good food, carnival games, auctions, and family fun combine for a wonderful fundraising event. The idea is to attract a broad spectrum of the local population to your fundraiser by having something for everybody.The benefit to the church is that many newcomers will form a very positive impression of your ministry and facilities that will in time translate into a larger congregation. And of course, there's all the wonderful things you can do with all the funds raised by your 'Feastival.'Getting started You'll need to arrange for carnival games, inflatable amusements, plenty of good food, live music, tickets, and all the other seemingly endless tasks any large fundraising event requires. Always divide and conquer - split up all the major tasks among your organizing committee and don't overload any one person.Approach local businesses and prominent congregation members for help with signature food items such as barbecue, fish fry, corn on the cob, regional specialties like oysters or Cajun shrimp, etc. Getting these items donated instead of purchased adds tremendously to the bottom line.For live music, work with a booking agent who can line up the right talent for a church fundraiser crowd. You want quality entertainment that won't offend while still encouraging young and old to join in the fun.Fundraising tips There are lots of ways to raise funds with a big event. You can include additional fundraising activities like a bake sale, a cake walk, face painting, craft sales, and various carnival games.Auctions can raise incredible amounts if you have desirable goods and services for sale. Group together related smaller items into larger gift baskets and offer those through silent auction bids.Do all that you can to make it easy to bid. Tape down bid she
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
For the longest time you’ve been trying to come up with a booklet to promote the products and services that your company offers. You finally completed everything. You were able to gather enough information and a lot of pictures to prop up your company even more.You also want to inform your customers that you already added more products and services to better accommodate their every need. And you are certain that coming out with a booklet would be the best way to keep your most loyal customers and potential customers as well be updated with what is happening with your business.Now the only thing you need to consider is where you’re going to have that booklet printed. You have to be assured of the quality of the booklet because you want to create a good impression for your company to persuade those who will be availing of your products and services.With a lot of booklet printing companies to choose from, how would you be able to determine which one to entrust the future of your business with?Here are some points to consider for choosing the right booklet printing company to handle that important printing job:• Reputation. You may want to “research” a little bit about the printing company that you would be hiring. Word of mouth would also be reliable. If you were able to meet someone who have something nice to say about the company like about the quality of their printing job and reliability the better.• Quality. Of course you should consider the quality of every printing job of the company. It isn’t worth it if it will save you money but you would be compromising the output. Look for a company that uses only state-of-the-art equipments because you would be assured then that any printing job would have less errors and fast.• Price. This would be a very important consideration because you only have to allot a portion of your budget
- 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
Many of you are cold calling—or introductory calling, as I prefer to think about it—to set new business appointments with prospects. In order to effectively set new business appointments, it is important to determine the goal of your initial telephone call. Many of you would say that your goal is to close the sale. And that is true—closing is your ultimate goal. Closing, however, is not the goal of your first telephone call. This is an important distinction! When making introductory calls, your goal is to set the appointment and only to set the appointment. Every business has its own sales cycle. Getting in the door is step one. If your prospect does not know you, your company, your product or service, then she will never buy from you. So, how do you accomplish step one and get in the door? On an introductory call, you are not selling your product or service, you are selling a meeting. You want your prospect to give you 10 to 15 minutes of their time, so that you can introduce yourself, your company, your product or your service. And that is it! At this point, you are not asking the prospect to do anything but give you time. You are not asking her to buy anything, change vendors, commit to or change anything that she normally does. Approaching your calls this way changes the entire conversation. Suppose your prospect tells you that she already has a vendor. So what! You are not asking her to change vendors, you are asking her to meet with you so that you can introduce yourself, your company, product or service, and that way, in the future, if her situation changes, she’ll know you, she’ll know the company, product or service. Certainly, it never hurts to have a backup source! This is entirely reasonable! (By the way, if your prospect already has a vendor, that makes her a qualified prospect—she buys what you sell!) If you think about introductory calling in this ma
- 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
Over the course of history there have been events and legislation that has transformed the financial markets, our economy and the way we conduct business , such as the legislation that form the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internet has also has transformed the way we do business and communicate.Sarbanes-Oxley falls into that categories, this piece of legislation named after Senator Paul Sarbanes (D) MD and Representative Michael Oxley ( R) Ohio was passed in response to the Enron and Worldcom scandal.When legislators in Washington are confronted by a problem they also rush to come up with some type of legislation to give the appearance that they are doing something about the problem, and we the electorate have become accustomed to having Washington solve all of our problems.But Washington’s solution to one problem is the beginning of another one and often times a bigger one.Sarbanes-Oxley is making it extremely expensive for small and mid-size company to be able to afford the cost of an audits, the requirement of Sarbanes-Oxley has almost double the cost audits.And compliance with other requirement of Sarbanes-Oxley is also eating away at the bottom line, one company that chose to leave the American exchange for the pink sheets is Ziegler Cos. 103 year old investment banking firm based in Milwaukee.John J. Mulherin CEO of Ziegler Cos. Says Sarbanes-Oxley rules would have cost the company 10-15% of its bottom line in the first year alone.Many small and mid-size companies would prefer to put these resources in to expansion and product development, and that is why many are choosing to go public in the pink sheets.The small companies our the backbone of our nation not the big bloated Fortune 500 companies which have lost over 20 million jobs over the last 10 years, while small companies have created 15 million new jobs over the same
- 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 consciou
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.hubyou.info/article/23983/hubyou-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.hubyou.info/article/23983/hubyou-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:
Why Go Freelance? Ten Super Cool Jobs You Can Do from Home
How Customer Service Affects Business Success
Bookmark it:
|