Take a Test Article Library CEEJ Home Submit an Article Contact CEEJ
Article # 0049
METRICS
FOR THE UNMEASURABLE
(Measuring
Staff Performance)
by
R.L.
LANGLEY, P.E.
Introduction
Sometime during his/her career, an engineer will likely lead a technical or other type staff group that provides services for the organization. Accompanying that is the often dreaded annual performance review process. The main source of the angst is usually the somewhat subjective nature of the process (since it’s usually designed by non technical types) as well as the inherently inexact science (or is it art?) of judging human effort. This paper is an attempt to remove some of that apprehension by providing a methodology that lends objectivity to an inherently subjective process.
The sound engineering principles of (a) gathering pertinent data, (b) setting specifications/requirements, and (c) establishing metrics to gauge performance still apply to this seemingly esoteric area.
Identify the Customers
Work Process 101 for a staff group says the first step involves identifying the customers and the work products required (we’ll talk more on this later). This step answers the basic question, “What is our purpose?”
Identifying the “who” the staff group serves involves answering the following questions:
· Who do we send our reports to?
· Who do we provide advice/consultation to—i.e. who do we receive inquiries from that require our response?
· What other work groups do we work with to achieve the overall mission/vision of the organization?
Identify the Work
Products—“Deliverables”
Once the client “who” is defined, then we move to the “what” is required—i.e. what is it specifically that the members of the staff group are required to provide? For a staff group it usually centers on the following:
· Written reports, specifications, technical analyses, plans, design standards, root cause failure analysis, economic optimizations, recommendations, etc.
· Advice/consultation
This can vary from a phone call/e-mail inquiry that requires an expert’s qualified opinion to commissioning a major study for some significant issue or project. Sometimes, “advice” may not necessarily be answering the inquiry if it’s outside the staff group’s purview, but directing the inquirer to another more appropriate resource. You know the saying—“half of knowledge is not necessarily knowing the answer but knowing where to find the answer.”
To effectively produce the expected deliverables, the work group head will usually have to develop and implement annual training/development plans for each work group member so they can develop the required expertise.
Meet with the Customers
The next step for the staff group leader is to schedule workgroup meetings with the clients. Sometimes these can be combined, but to maintain focus, it’s often best to meet with one client group at a time. Generally, the essence of these sessions can be boiled down to discussing the following questions:
Also,
while
discussing each one of these, solicit from the client group information
about how
the bulleted work is performed and delivered. What is their
perception of how
it is done vs. how they believe it should be done?
How a service
is delivered is very important. One can build the best, most
sophisticated,
high tech missile in the world, but if the delivery system is
substandard, then
the entire mission will be compromised. Similarly, one can develop the
most
accurate, well informed and thorough white paper in the organization on
a
particular technical subject, but if it’s delivered incorrectly, the
results
may be lost.
Be
careful on the
third bullet. Most
clients will ask for
the moon of a staff group if they think there’s even a chance it’ll be
provided. Going in
to the session, be
well aware of the scope of the workgroup’s services and what’s required
to
support the overall organizational mission.
Manage expectations. It’s just as important to know what
your staff
group is not responsible for as well as what it is
charged to provide. It’s
counterproductive to have a session and agree to provide everything to
everybody if there’s no intention of doing so. It’s not “wrong” for a
client to
bring up desired services that may be outside this staff group’s scope,
but
those should be “parked” and documented as being passed on for
follow-up by
another group.
Also,
beware of pet
projects, hidden agendas and organizational dynamics going into these
sessions. The staff
group leader needs
to be aware of the big picture before conducting these meetings,
including the
history/evolution of his/her own workgroup and how it got to be where
it is
today.
On the
second
bullet, delve into the priority items and how the client would like to
see the
deliverable improved. Sometimes, they may not even know, and you may
have to
help them along or resolve to make improvement attempts and see where
it
goes….it’s frustrating to an engineer, but the truth is (particularly
with
upper management) sometimes it’s like “…I’m not sure I know what it is
I’m
asking for, but I will know when you achieve it.”
Without
being autocratic,
it’s important for the leader to stick to the workgroup’s scope,
purpose and function
in the organization, prioritize
the
deliverable items so
as not to feel
overwhelmed by it all and not get diverted down endless superfluous
“rabbit
trails” trying to solve world hunger type issues for the organization.
Again,
manage expectations.
Begin to Establish the
Metrics
While conducting the workgroup meeting and identifying the how/what of required deliverables, it’s a good time for each area to get the client’s input on:
This establishes the low, medium, and high end for the metrics. The staff group can fill in any needed details (see below).
Establishing Performance
Standards
It’s
now
time to meet internally with the staff workgroup, followed by
individual
meetings with staff members establish detailed performance standards
for each
position. Generally,
for a staff group,
the generic performance areas will be in the following categories:
What
How
There may be several performance parameters within each category. For purposes of this discussion, let’s pick one “what” and one “how” type performance area and detail one performance parameter in each.
Getting down to Details
Performance
Area: Thoroughness
Evaluation
Parameter:
Properly
Frames and Identifies the Key Issues and scope of the project
before commencing work.
Remember
the client
meeting exercise? This is one of the parameters they suggested. Also
they
identified and described performance markers for this parameter as
follows:
(1)
Unacceptable: Minimal, nonexistent or
superficial
discussions with customer to really understand the problem. Accepts
apparent
issues as real issues without delving sufficiently into the matter or
conducting an effective root cause analysis. May have formed
conclusions before
work is started. Interprets off the cuff comments or anecdotal
information as
facts and valid key issues.
(3)
Acceptable/Adequate:
Works diligently with customers to identify
the principal key issues. Capably applies experience and knowledge in a
value
added, open minded way.
(5) Excellent:
Leaves no stone unturned. Conducts very
effective root cause analysis. Separates fact from fiction quickly.
Listens
well to all customers and establishes good rapport at the outset to
understand
every aspect of the key issues and all the “big
picture” implications thereof. Quickly develops
comprehensive, “on
target” key issues
identification statement
with client concurrence before starting.
Has a work process orientation vs. project mind set.
Although one
can work
within three performance increment metrics,
experience indicates
this doesn’t
give enough calibration between “good” and “bad” performance.
Therefore, it’s
suggested that an
additional 2
performance levels are indicated between these three.
The staff group can self define these at this
point. In this case
descriptions are as follows:
(2) Needs Improvement: Doesn’t base premise of project on just superficial, apparent or east to obtain information. Performs basic root cause analysis. However, sometimes misses key points and could work closer with customers in identifying true key issues.
(4) Exceeds Expectations: Engaged with key stakeholder/customers and obtains
meaningful
information. Generally, has the ability to objectively analyze and
formulate
into actionable, concise statement of key issues. Any shortcomings lie
mainly
in experience, unfamiliarity with the work processes being reviewed or
overall
organizational functional knowledge.
Other parameters for the “Thoroughness” performance parameter could be (a) research and data collection, and (b)analysis, conclusions, recommendations.
Let’s move to a “how” performance area . We’ll take Interpersonal Skills, which can include several parameters ….professionalism, responsiveness to others, team player attitudes.
Performance Area: Interpersonal
Skills
Parameter: Professionalism
(1) Unacceptable:
Abrasive, rude and condescending
“know it
all”. Overly impatient. Quick to drop names or pull
rank for selfish ends.
Doesn’t seek or see the importance of
dialogue or discussion of others’
ideas.
Makes it known that results are more important than people and their “feelings”. Is
not above shading
the truth or leaving out important
information to guide to a predetermined result. Known as a “hidden
agenda” type
person. Not very
open--often intentionally
mysterious and secretive.
(2) Needs Improvement: May
be disrespectful or impatient with others
at times, especially
if things
not going his/her way.
Occasionally
pulls rank, name drops or is too officious in dealing with others.
Doesn’t show
enough regard for others’ ideas and
input. Will subvert relationships in driving to a result.
(3) Acceptable: Generally
respectful, polite, businesslike and considerate of others. Usually
values
input of others and
evaluates it
objectively. Seldom name
drops or pulls
rank to obtain a result or meet a deadline. Modus operandi is to speak the truth and
operate “up front”.
(4) Exceeds
Expectations: A person of
integrity and honesty. Seldom competes for attention or is officious. Objective and businesslike,
but not cold
toward others. Receptive and fosters good
group dynamics. May have biases, but is generally willing
to subvert
those in being open to
new ideas or
approaches. Results driven, but not at the expense of relationships.
Looks at
the longer term “big picture” in relationships.
(5) Excellent: Exhibits utmost integrity in
all situations
and relationships—both inside and external to the company. Seeks and
acts on
qualified input. Goes
to extra lengths
in a genuine way in his/her concern
for
others. Does the right thing even when no one is looking. Works by the
principles (a) do
the right thing, (b)
do the best you can, and (c) treat others as you think they want to be
treated.
Conclusion
Applying engineering principles to an inherently subjective area such as measuring staff group performance can bring tangible, quantifiable results in setting and measuring both group and individual performance. However, it should not be turned into a solely “numbers game” or it will often miss the mark of cooperative continuous improvement supporting the organizational mission/vision.
Bibliography:
Measuring the Unmeasurable
(A Process to Measure
Performance of a Staff Work Group (Chevron Corporation-1992;
not
copyrighted). Author provided resources resulting in this work.
Biography:
Robert (Bob) Langley, P.E. holds a
B.S. Degree in Chemical
Engineering from the
Article # 0049 TEST Coming Soon:
Take a Test Article Library CEEJ Home Submit an Article Contact CEEJ