This was a subject in a survey by Quality Insider for future articles. We've had the same subject come up when trying to figure out how to have measurable results to base incentive plans from with front office personnel. We are not a large company and most of our white collar workers wear 2-3 "hats". How do you determine in a measurable way if your customer service person, payroll/HR/AR specialist, purchacing agent,etc. are doing a good/average/improving job? We have good employees, and they work hard, but it's alot easier to measure productivity and quality levels with production employees.

This was a subject in a survey by Quality Insider for future articles. We've had the same subject come up when trying to figure out how to have measurable results to base incentive plans from with front office personnel. We are not a large company and most of our white collar workers wear 2-3 "hats". How do you determine in a measurable way if your customer service person, payroll/HR/AR specialist, purchacing agent,etc. are doing a good/average/improving job? We have good employees, and they work hard, but it's alot easier to measure productivity and quality levels with production employees.

The only thing that comes to mind would be "Sales $ per WC Employee" as a takeoff of "Sales $ per Employee". If the latter is an acceptable measure of Productivity, then the former should work as an isolated sub-set. Does your WC workforce ebb and flow with Sales? Maybe it will when you measure it:notme: ? Or perhaps there will be an improved focus on the efficient management of multiple chapeaus by your WC Employees?:2cents:

The Demiguite in me shrinks from the practice of comparing these people unless the system can remove all constraints from their performance.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. If people are missing deadlines, would the productivity measuring tool reflect reasons why? The methods seem daunting to me. Would a person thus be "penalized" (for lack of a better word) for performance being impacted by another employee or perhaps a child with leukemia?

I advocate profit sharing by teams over the individual approach. In any case the subject is fraught with opportunties to foul it up.

The Demiguite in me shrinks from the practice of comparing these people unless the system can remove all constraints from their performance.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. If people are missing deadlines, would the productivity measuring tool reflect reasons why? The methods seem daunting to me. Would a person thus be "penalized" (for lack of a better word) for performance being impacted by another employee or perhaps a child with leukemia?

I advocate profit sharing by teams over the individual approach. In any case the subject is fraught with opportunties to foul it up.

Comparing isn't exactly what I mean. I'm not sure we have a good handle on WC measurables at all. As far as profit sharing by teams go our ten front office non-managers would be under 4 different managers with completely different jobs to boot. It's alright to say "here is a portion of your profit sharing, we're doing well" but our owner instituted profit sharing as an incentive program to do better, increase productivity and decrease waste. It's not so easy to measure in a WC environment.

You are quite right, it is not easy to properly measure productivity and achievement in a workcenter environment.

At issue are achievements as compared to goals. However, to accurately measure achievement the following should be considered:

1. Physical ability to achieve. Were the goals realistic as per the person's available time, capability, and the environment? If not, will such considerations be included in the evaluation?

2. Personal ability to achieve. Were the goals practical for the person's capabilities? If not, what indicated that are the person's expectations needed adjustment? Were the causes the sort the person should have been able to overcome but did not? What is the evidence?

3. Readiness to achieve. Was there a complete absence of interference by other people? Was the person perfectly trained and readily capable of achieving the goals? Were there adequate resources? If any of these are answered "no", was that taken into consideration while evaluating?

Such problems are the reason why I dislike the whole prospect. Evaluations are so easy to foul up and the impacts to morale can be devastating if we get them wrong.

Please see this article: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1188&CFID=3064597&CFTOKEN=19202427 I liked the book. I am not affiliated with the authors or the publisher.

How do you determine in a measurable way if your customer service person, payroll/HR/AR specialist, purchacing agent,etc. are doing a good/average/improving job?
Have you considered individual performance reviews with goal setting/achievements and an objective scoring system? I'm not a big fan of performance assessments, but even if the review is solely based on goals and achievements against them, it could be helpful.
:2cents:

I advocate profit sharing by teams over the individual approach. In any case the subject is fraught with opportunties to foul it up.

I believe cases like Enron shows us why profit sharing and stock options can be a really bad idea! :mg:
IMHO it is much better to give your employees a good salary and some fair and obtainable goals for their performance.