Measurement, measurement LO20754

Gavin Ritz (garritz@xtra.co.nz)
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:28:42 +1300

Replying to LO20735 --

Dear Peter

>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...

Our CAP system does not give anything an arbitrary value but a rather
accurate value in terms of knowledge and the application of that knowledge
in the work situation. The retention of training & knowledge is tested.

>..The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really
>isn't important. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily
>measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide."

Actually we really believe that competency needs to be accurately measured
in the work place, if an organisation is to respond appropriately to its
environment. We have rather said competency has not been effectively
measured up till now but we want to know at any time what is the company's
competency level ( and we do this, measured monthly) our model can tell us
at what level the entire company's competency is. Obviously this changes
continuously so the model is always updated. Also this is not a panacea
for all company ills but rather another measure( accurate) that can be
used to divine, & diagnose.

Because we link specific competency to specific KPI's we get accurate
ratios of how a competency cluster actually effects sales volume,
customers service, or whatever. We can then tell how much sales volume
increases when competency's effect that are increased or decreased.

Kindest
Gavin

Peter Fullerton wrote:

> 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,
...snip...

[Host's Note: I apologize for the run-together formatting of Peter's msg,
quoted above as it was delivered to some readers. We've discovered a new
gremlin and will eradicate it. ...Rick]

-- 

Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>