Why Performance Reporting is NOT Performance Management! – Part 5 – Trust to Luck?
19/05/2017

Alan Sugar, once chairman of Tottenham Hotspurs, is something like Marmite to most people – you either love him or hate him. However, there’s quite some insight in one of his quotes – “There is a lot of luck in football. Following England is like following Wycombe Wanderers or Leyton Orient. You hope for the best and hope you are lucky.” We have seen many times that Reporting Performance is also a little like this – trust to “Luck”. In trusting to Luck, there is no Feed-forward nor Feed-back in this process. An alternative is to go beyond Reporting and use a proper Performance Measurement and Management Platform with built-in Feed-forward and Feed-back loops.
Over the past 4 posts, we introduced the idea that Performance Reporting is not Performance Management and started to examine 3 aspects of this little conundrum:
- How can we better understand what has happened in the past (in order to take more appropriate action going forward)
- What can we say about what is likely to happen going forward (with/without any intervention)
- What are the fundamental differences between Performance Reporting and Performance Management
We’ve looked at the first 2 bullets and we’ve started exploring the final bullet in some detail – What are the fundamental differences between Performance Reporting and Performance Management.
We pictured a Business Process (no matter whether private or public sector) showing the classic approach to Performance Reporting and Analysis that achieves little in actually improving the Business Process.
We then modified the picture (see below), transforming the effectiveness and productivity of those involved in Performance Management. The new picture introduced a Measurement Process and associated Measurement Model feeding forward into Performance Measurement and Performance Analysis (as well as Reporting). From the Analysis we generated Actionable Insights to go into Interpretation and Selection for Improvement Decisions followed by Actions on the Business Process – along with Monitoring and back around the loop for Performance Analysis to decide if the Improvement Action is actually having the desired impact. Crucial Feed-back loops were also introduced.
This is the first step towards Performance Management and referred to as Continuous Improvement or Process Improvement – and it is where a lot of organisations stop, unaware that there are further significant gains to be had by considering, in addition, different timescales…
If we characterise the above picture as representing the Process Improvement loop, this time we’ll add on the more immediate “Sense & Respond” or “Operational” loop. This typically runs at timescales from milliseconds (if we are working with sensors on machinery) through to months if we are considering massive capital spend projects lasting 5 – 10 years or more, while the Process Improvement loop will be typically running at the weekly through annually depending on the world-system we are considering.
In the Sense & Respond loop, exactly the same information from the Measurement Model is being used, but at a smaller granular level (conversely the longer timescale Process Improvement loop is using aggregated information from the same Measurement Model). This way, the chances of taking the wrong action because of flawed data either in the Sense &Respond or Process Improvement loops is minimised since they both feed from the same data.
In the Sense & Respond loop, we have introduced the Control Process that compares what Outcomes are being created by the Business Process with the Desired Outcomes, and feeds forward into Corrective Actions that are applied to the Business Process. Typically, in this loop we’re looking for anomalies that may pop up from time to time, and can be taken care of by those people actually working on the Business process (i.e. they do not need to go “up the line”). It is only when patterns and trends begin emerging (hence the longer timescales involved) that the Process Improvement loop kicks in.
When the Sense & Respond loop and the Process Improvement loop are not recognised and considered separately, management interference can set in and turn things into a “buggers’ muddle”.
There is one further step that we’ll look at next time that will complete the picture and deliver a coherent and integrated approach to Performance Measurement and Management.
Or you can trust to Luck!
Categories & Tags:
Leave a comment on this post:
You might also like…
Finding full-text Economist articles…
If you’re looking for The Economist, the place to go is ProQuest One Business. Follow these step-by-step instructions to get full-text access. Login here and click on the Publications option at the top, above the ...
Changes to Library Services over Easter, 18-21 April
Libraries on the Cranfield site Both Kings Norton Library and the School of Management Library (Building 111, first floor) will be open 24/7 over the Easter weekend. You will be able to use the study ...
Searching Statista: Effective strategies and Research AI tips
Statista is a global data and business intelligence platform with an extensive collection of statistics, reports, and insights on over 80,000 topics from 22,500 sources in 170 industries. It offers data on the global digital ...
Introducing…. BankFocus (Orbis)
For anyone researching the financial sector, BankFocus is a great place to start, providing financial and company data for finance institutions and companies from across the world. The service allows you to search for a ...
The Implications of US Tariffs on global supply chains
US President Donald Trump's new tariff policies announced on April 2, 2025 are expected to cause significant disruptions to the global supply chains, affecting multiple sectors and countries. A simple mathematical equation uses a country’s ...
Mastering the art of revising your writing
You’ve done the research and written your first draft. Now it’s time for one of the most crucial jobs as a writer - revising your writing to ensure your reader does not have to work ...
The question is, what are people allowed to do on their own and when do they need to ask permission?
I have just been thinking about Cranfield School of Management’s 50th Anniversary and its origins in work study! The school and discipline have both come a long way since then. We no longer design jobs for people.
But what do we allow people to do on their own? and what is the point these days when people have to ask permission? Firstly, people can take control, so if not new resources are needed most people can act on their own and change things. Management usually don’t have a clue that this is even happening.
The problem comes when people have to ask for resources. If there is a delegated budget this is fine, the resources can be agreed and allocated locally, things change and the organisation moves on. But when the resource allocation isn’t delegated, what happens now. Time and effort is required to request the resource, from people who often don’t understand the problem or the situation. This may be necessary for control, but it causes delay and undermines how fast the organisation can respond to the customer.
So we need to build in guidance systems and not control systems. We need to make slack resources available to allow change and we need to tightly limit how often requests for resources have to escalate to more senior levels
Mike Bourne