Why Performance Reporting is NOT Performance Management! – Part 6/6
05/06/2017
Courtesy of Dilbert (Scott Adams 08 May 2008).
Does it seem like Performance Reporting is using numbers that you can’t understand, can’t work out where they came from or are just plain different from the numbers you have in your spreadsheet? This is just one of the issues with Performance Reporting where the numbers have been “managed to aid understanding” of course!
This is our final post on this topic (for now!). Over the past 5 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, 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.
Next we introduced the idea of managing performance in different timescales (see below) where, as well as the longer time-frame of Continuous Improvement, we introduced the shorter Sense & Respond (or Operational ) Timeframe – both feeding off the same Measurement Model (and therefore the same data) , but at different levels of aggregation in time.
When the short time-scale Sense & Respond loop and the medium time-scale Process Improvement loop are not recognised and considered separately, management interference can set in and turn things into a “buggers’ muddle”.
The final step that we’ll look at now that completes the picture delivering a coherent and integrated approach to Performance Measurement and Management is the longer Systemic Change / Requirements Change timeframe (see below).
This longer Systemic Improvement Domain takes into account Changing Requirements (such as changes made by HMIC/Home Office on Police, or changing military requirements over the period of a long Defence Systems project) as well as changing External Conditions (such as the shift from street crime to cybercrime, or new technology enabling self-driving cars etc.). These will be supplemented by longer-term “System Upgrade” candidates (e.g. the ability to change out Stages in the Business Process) fed from the same data as Sense & Respond and Process Improvement, but aggregated to longer time-scales , all feeding into an Interpretation & Selection Process. From here, Decisions on Re-design will be fed into a series of Programmes that will apply these changes to the Business System.
And finally, for clarity, the 3 Time-scales are shown indicatively on the right of the diagram as guidance on when these 3 Types of changes (Sense & Respond, Process Improvement, Systemic Improvement) occur.
And there you have it – a complete Performance Management System…..
Or you can just make the numbers up!
Categories & Tags:
Leave a comment on this post:
You might also like…
How is FinTech accelerating financial inclusion?
The goal of many banks, emerging digital banks and FinTech businesses is to make financial services more accessible to everyone, a goal best expressed by the phrase "financial inclusion." It is difficult to define financial ...
My Journey from Nepal to P&G: Reflecting on my Cranfield University Experience
Hey there, I'm Anamika, and I'm thrilled to share my journey from Nepal to a fulfilling career as a Process Engineer at Procter and Gamble in London. My time at Cranfield University has been ...
Systematic Literature Review – Selecting your Sources
In our previous systematic literature review post we identified some background reading for getting started, explained how to find other systematic literature reviews to help you understand what is required, and how reviews should be structured and written ...
Setting up a group on Mendeley to support your group project
Many of our students are busy working on their group projects. Our top tip is to set up a group on Mendeley. You can use it to store all your references, and to share the ...
From Angels and VCs to VCIC
Martin Spiller, Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at Cranfield School of Management reflects on attending the Bettany Centre Speaker Series and being part of the North Europe Regional Finals of the Venture Capital Investment Competition (VCIC) ...
Sourcing country analysis – a guide to Library sources
For those researching a country, you will find that country information tends to take two forms: Analysis - country reports are descriptive reports covering most areas of interest on a country. They contain an analysis ...