Mark McElroy suggests one way to try to demonstrate cause and effect is by
using additional criteria:
>If your hypothesis is that organizational learning results in increased
>"quality and productivity," you cannot establish this by simply measuring
>quality and productivity following investments in organizational learning
>and summarily declare that the increases are due to your investments.
>They could be due to other factors, therefore you must have other
>criteria, or metrics, to work with that enable you to credibly link such
>investments with changes in quality and productivity.
There is another way. Use time differences. That is, introduce LO
changes at different times in different parts of the organization. Measure
the criteria of interest (e.g., quality and productivity) FOR ALL PARTS OF
THE ORGANIZATION beginning at Time = 0 (that is, before any LO changes
have been introduced anywhere.)
Then, if you see increases in the quality and productivity at, say, six
months after the introduction of LO changes consistently across every part
of the organization -- it rules out most other factors. [Those other
factors would have to be argued to be active in the different
organizations at exactly the correct times to influence the results. Most
competing explanations are things that happen to the organization as a
whole, not at different times to different parts -- such as changes in the
marketplace, company-wide incentive programs, changes in the stock market,
etc.]
Warning: This does not rule out changes that come with (or correlate
with) the LO changes -- such as unintended consequences of the changes,
or actions you take every time in order to make implementation go
smoothly, etc.
--"John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>