Replying to LO24326 --
Nancy writes:
> It appears that I have once again stumbled on an age old dilemma (the
> tortoise and the hare) within yet another organization. The
> link between
> organizational performance and individual performance is elusive, but
> nonetheless detectable. The dilemma I am speaking of
> concerns quantity
> vs. quality. In a manufacturing environment, for instance,
> there is the
> constant push to ship-on-time which undermines the organizations'
> seemingly time-consuming efforts to ensure that quality products are
> shipped. There seems to me to be a relationship between the
> perceptions
> of individuals of what constitutes "a job well done"
> (expectations) and
> organizational relationships (structure) of these
> individuals. Ultimately,
> the efforts of those who believe their performance is
> evaluated based on
> their ability to "move product" will be undermined by those
> who believe
> that they are responsible for the quality of the product. Does anyone
> have practical experience in transforming an organization's
> approach to
> measuring performance that aligns the two metrics, quality
> and quantity?
The key lies in making quality and on-time delivery symbiotic metrics. IE:
one is meaningless without the other. Deming's notion of
quality-cost-delivery as one and the same AIM (general theory) with
different applications (special theories)should work here. If performance
must be rated, then it must be rated on the basis of system optimization
NOT local optimization, hence the three metrics must be weighted and
analyzed for elements outside of the sphere of influence of the one being
rated.
John F. Zavacki
jzavacki@greenapple.com
--"John Zavacki" <systhinc@msn.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.