I have not participated in the discussion of process versus results
oriented measures, but I can't bite my tongue any longer. Richard Goodale
has it pretty much correct. One cannot measure results without measuring
also the tools by which the result is achieved. One can harp on the
purchasing agent to have the materials in-stock for the beginning of
production, but if the materials are not specified by Engineering, then
the purchaser cannot achieve his or her key result. He or she is the
victim of a faulty process. Process is in general a powerful tool for the
achievement of results. The vast majority of people or departments who
fail to meet their results have been ambushed by a faulty process, and
someone upstream from them in the process inadvertantly made their job
impossible.
So, if there is an answer to this, then it is that process is totally and
completely necessary for results, and measuring process is, as Richard
said, a pretty good way to get a leading indicator on the expected
results. Measuring only results without measuring process puts one in a
position where one can fail, but not learn why.
Does that make sense?
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234,3636@compuserve.com
1. Challenge the process. 2. Inspire a shared vision. 3. Enable others to act. 4. Model the way. 5. Encourage the heart.
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>