M
Pains me to say it but I think you have Mission Impossible here. I worked in a simlar environment for 11 years, for an organisation who completed data entry on national health prescriptions. Minimum performance standards for output were an average of 4000 prescription items per day (with 1 prescription item typically consisting of a product code (often 3-5 digits, sometimes 9...)), a quantity figure and relevant endorsements, whilst achieving a minimum of 97.5% accuracy. The majority of people actually achieved this, though a significant number didn't. The problem - those who didn't simply couldn't achieve the output numbers and maintain that level of quality. The main errors were typos and, unfortunately, the only way to eradicate those was to reduce speed. And, whilst it was shouted from the rooftops that output and accuracy were equally important, everyone knew that the managers considered output to be the primary performance indicator. Work performance plans were put into place for those who really struggled but created huge resentment, essentially as those who were involved realised that the only way to increase accuracy was to reduce output. Basically, a no-win situation.
I wish you the very best of luck though I don't envy you in the slightest here.
I wish you the very best of luck though I don't envy you in the slightest here.
