strategic

Wednesday 17 August 2011

9 Bad KPI Habits to Change

9 Bad KPI Habits to Change
Well this is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a list of the bad habits I see the majority of my clients consistently practicing when it comes to choosing, creating and using performance measures or KPIs. We reap what we sow, and that's why it can be a useful exercise to see if you do have any bad KPI habits and start developing some better ones.
Bad Habit #1: Brainstorming to come up with KPIs
When you brainstorm KPIs, you end up with too many, not enough, things that aren't really KPIs and a very shallow understanding of exactly how you will measure them. Instead, you need to design KPIs deliberately so that they are convincing evidence of the goal or result you want to measure.
Bad Habit #2: Measuring because you can, or already are
The reason to measure something isn't that you have the data and can measure it easily. The reason to measure is that you need to know something very specific about how well, or to what degree, you are achieving a particular goal or performance result. Only measure what you should, can and will do something about.
Bad Habit #3: Trying to measure effectiveness, efficiency, productivity, sustainability, etc...
Embarking on the task of finding the right KPI to measure effectiveness will be a frustrating journey into Weasel World, that place where words lack meaning, or mean 17 different things to five different people. Don't try measuring any goal or performance result that is written with weasel words until you talk about what those words specifically mean in the Real World.
Bad Habit #4: Saying "that's not measurable"
If you think a goal or performance result isn't measurable, then there's a good chance it also isn't observable. If you can't observe in some manner or form whether or not a goal has been reached, then you don't have a goal. Goals are about changing the world in some way, and if you can't define that change in observable and measurable ways, your goals need more work before you should bother about measures.
Bad Habit #5: Not measuring something because you don't have the data
How will you ever get the data you really need, the data about the goals and performance results that matter most, if you keep refusing to measure something because that data doesn't already exist? When you separate the act of designing the right measures from the act of deciding how feasible those measures are to implement, you give yourself the chance to see that often the data is easier to get than you first thought, or at least worth the effort.
Bad Habit #6: Setting milestones as KPIs
Milestones are statements about having completed something by a particular time. They're very appropriate in project management, but next to useless in performance management. Just getting something done isn't evidence that it produced the desired result or that performance is improving. Just because you implemented a new inventory management system doesn't guarantee that inventory management costs have reduced.
Bad Habit #7: Measuring to monitor people's performance rather than process performance
More people complain about being measured than rejoice. And it's either because the measurement is being done poorly or the real purpose of measurement is poorly understand. Until you have a culture where performance measures are used to improve performance without blame - and using measures to improve process performance is a great way to establish this culture - measuring people will always cause more problems than it solves.
Bad Habit #8: Measuring too many things
If you have too much of anything, it overwhelms you. Too many things to do and you're exhausted and don't do any of them particularly well. Too much to think or worry about and you're stressed and emotionally burned out. Too many KPIs or performance measures, and your attention is fractured and no area of performance will improve significantly, if at all. Once more, only measure what you should, can and will do something about.
Bad Habit #9: Ignoring measures that aren't perfect
While it is important that your KPIs don't mislead you, most people still tend to err on the side of caution and not use any measures that are based on data that isn't perfect, or measures that don't tell the full story. As long as the measures aren't severely biased, their reliability can be far less than perfect and still provide you with actionable information, particlarly information about trends or shifts in performance.
TAKE ACTION: Do you know how to change a bad habit? You find a habit to replace it with, and you practice that new habit everyday for at least 30 days. By then, the new habit will replace the old one. You might like to choose one of your bad KPI habits and decide on something simple and practical you can do everyday to break it and establish a far better one.
COMMENT on this article... to mbustaman@iab.edu.my/0199890524
Thanks Stacy Barr. (Main sources and references)

Balanced Scorecard: How to cascade meaningfully

 Balanced Scorecard: How to cascade meaningfully
August 11th, 2011 | edited by: Muhamad Bustaman bin Abdul Manaf (IAB, MOE) (0199890524) (mbustaman@iab.edu.my)

We have to applaud the Balanced Scorecard for the evolution it triggered in organisational performance measurement and strategy execution. But no model is without its limitations.
Certainly, on account of the Balanced Scorecard, we’re now seeing the measurement of non-financial results rather than just the financial, and we’re seeing strategies laid out in logical and cause-effect linked plans designed for execution rather than shelving.
But a few challenges continue to baffle those that embrace the Balanced Scorecard way. One of the challenges is easy and quick to remedy within the current Balanced Scorecard theory. But the other two, I believe, require a more radical re-think.
In this first part of a three part series, we’ll look at one of those challenges that does indeed need a more radical re-think.
CHALLENGE 1: The Balanced Scorecard is hard to cascade meaningfully.
You might argue with me on this point, because part of the Balanced Scorecard’s claim to fame is it’s focus on strategy execution and cascading strategy to operational levels. But those famous four perspectives that were the revelation of this framework are also the limitation on meaningfully cascading strategy.
What Happens Is “Mini-me” Syndrome.
I call it the “Mini-me” syndrome (inspired by the Austin Powers movies), where what ends up being cascaded are localised scaled-down copies of the corporate scorecard. Each department or team has the same perspectives as the corporate scorecard, almost the same strategy map, but tailored to the scope of their work.
If injury reduction is in the corporate scorecard, then every department and team has injury reduction in their scorecard: even those departments where injury risk is infinitesimal. If cost reduction is in the corporate scorecard, then every department or team has cost reduction in their scorecard: even those departments (like Human Resources or Process Improvement, whose costs must increase in order for other areas’ costs to decrease.
That’s not true cause-effect thinking, and it leaves many managers and employees bemused and cynical about having to measure things that don’t really matter to them, and that don’t really focus on their specific and unique contribution to the corporate direction.
Additive Thinking Is Not Cause-Effect Thinking.
When the focus is on maintaining the four perspectives in everyone’s scorecard to link up to the corporate scorecard, the attention has moved away from where it needs to be: focusing on the performance results and process improvements that have the highest leverage to achieve the corporate strategy.
What happens instead is a collection of additive scorecards, where you can add up or combine the metrics from scorecards across the departmental tier, and end up with the values for the corporate scorecard. Likewise, you could add up the add up or combine the metrics from scorecards across teams within a department, and end up with the values for the departmental scorecard. This isn’t cause-effect thinking. It’s additive thinking.
Cascade True Cause-Effect, Not The Scorecard.
To apply true cause-effect thinking, we have to let go of structure. We have to openly explore and analyse how the performance of a part truly does impact on the performance of the whole. The four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard don’t encourage that open exploration and analysis, and that’s why we have the Mini-me problem.
I haven’t found a sensible and easy way to help departments and teams cascade the Balanced Scorecard in a way that’s sensible for them and truly aligned to the corporate direction. Instead, we use a more open approach called Results Mapping, which encourages them to start with a conversation about the corporate direction (or scorecard) and explore the question “How and where do our results and our processes most impact on the corporate direction?”
Two More Challenges…
In parts two and three of this series, I’ll discuss two more things I don’t like about the Balanced Scorecard, and suggest some tips for compensating for these challenges also.
TAKING ACTION:
Where are you trying to cascade the Balanced Scorecard? Is it making sense to the teams it is cascading to? Is there anything in their scorecard that isn’t really that important, or anything missing that actually is important? What questions are you asking to guide the way that strategy is cascaded in your organisation or company?
Thanks Stacy Barr.