Gene:
thanks for the response. I took it as you meant it...a response to what
you read. I guess that you read the "you" as a generic and nonspecific
you. I meant it as YOU and nobody else. In other words, how will you
document the pre/post. By your response, you have obviously given this
thought and have a plan for dealing with it.
In the immortal words of Emily Latella....
never mind
;-)
Vana
Eugene Taurman wrote:
> Vana,
>
> I am reacting to what I read not necessarily what you meant.
>
> >You said "can you possibly document pre and post indicators of knowledge
> >transfer?"
>
> Yes you can and it does take a lot of work but if you are to focus on
> improving what is important to the success of the organization it is
> necessary to know how well it is done and if there is real change.
>
> Unless you can measure real change in results it is all subjective and
> open to dominance by the strong personality. Using measures brings real
> performance to the fore. Without it anecdotal evidence is all we have and
> the best sales effort wins not he best. This is one root of political
> behavior and emphasis on who I know rather than how well we do our work.
>
> Some time back i was giving a seminar to a group of presidents and a bank
> president said, "but that's a lot of work and we would have to know what
> they are supposed to do." I had no answer at the time. Now I would say yes
> you are supposed to know what results are important to the success of the
> organization and how well your people should know how well they are
> performing them.
>
> Gene
--Vana Prewitt <vprewitt@bellsouth.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>