Realizing that there are certain language filters among the users of this
discussion medium that can not be easily addressed, I would like to
provide an insight into the comments made below (L021041).
As I first read the note from Fred Nickols, a thought came to mind. What
is being said is "purpose." Maybe the word intent is more appropriate.
That gets to the human interaction (action and reaction). Then I thought
as I finished the note: what of the words reliability and validity?
If I design the evaluation (measurement tool) to derive information about
subject X (assume for discussion it is valid), and each time I use the
tool if find out more about subject X (it is reliable)and I use the reult
to inform the organization about subject X and subject X is important to
the organization (and its people) then am I not measuring with the intent
to motivate? If not, then why am I measuring? You might say, to determine
the level (relative to time, effectiveness or something) of performance.
Okay, now the big question becomes, so what? I find out that the level of
performance is at A, B or C. If all I do is report that performance is at
a given level, then so what? The measurement begets "dead facts."
The context of the comments by Goldratt is important.
> ...The direct purpose of measurement is to determine the state of some
>variable in relation to some preferred, required, or desired state. In
>short, the primary purpose of measurement is to find out something, not
>drive someone else's behavior.
--"Swan, Steve R. SETA CONTR" <SwanSR@ftknox-dtdd-emh5.army.mil>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>