Measurement, measurement LO20735

Peter Fullerton (
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:41:03 +1100

Whilst reading LO20716, I couldn't help think of the description of the
McNamara fallacy:

"The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured.
This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard
that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary
quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The
third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily
really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is
to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist.
This is suicide."

Peter Fullerton

>I have developed a learning system, with a colleague, to measure
>competency, ratios to KPI's, measure training and how it effects, market
>share volume, measure competency, measure intellectual knowledge and
>generally how to link knowledge, skill to organisational resources
>(subject matter experts, policy, people, strategies, training programmes,
>systems, learning resource guides etc etc, etc.) Very basically it
>creates the so called "intelligent organisation". So far the system is
>only for the sales environment. Pretty simple to make it for a
>manufacturing environment though. The guts of the system revolves around
>the so called "competency model" which is made of learning objectives
>(skill & knowledge). Individuals are tracked, via a computer programme,
>and their competency is measured in terms of a percentage. The entire
>sales force can be measured by product, area, group etc. This basically
>adds another measure to the KPI's, benchmarks etc. Strategy can also
>easily be tracked and measured in terms of competency.


Peter Fullerton <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>