96bj7p$afn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Very true. It's called 'continuous improvement,' if you can stand the cliche/buzzword. As I recall, however, the original measurement scheme for assessing 'performance' left something to be desired. When we measure one item of a system in the hopes of changing another item of it, we are believing there is a relationship between them. Hopefully causative. If that relationship is not strong, or is accompanied by a great deal of scatter, then less causative relationships will do as well. Hence, roll a die may be equally related to the desired outcome, and cost a lot less.Bob Hayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The most cost-effective method is to roll a die. (See Deming.)
If the representative's performances all lie within the control limits for
the process that's being measured, yes. If one or more representatives'
performances lie outside the system on the "good" side, then Deming would
have had no problem with rewarding them (though he'd have emphasized that
the most important thing for management to do would be to find out why
they were doing so well and whether they were using any techniques that
could be adopted by the others).
Now, if you can show, with numbers and data, that your assessment rating of 'performance' and 'performance' measured by another method are closely related, then show us all. Please.
Jay
-- Jay Warner Principal Scientist Warner Consulting, Inc. 4444 North Green Bay Road Racine, WI 53404-1216 USA
Ph: (262) 634-9100 FAX: (262) 681-1133 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.a2q.com The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?
