Totally on topic
Disagree that it is off topic - it is right on the mark!
The issue is whether top (or any other level) management is to be accountable for measures in their processes.
Did anyone see a bull around - I can certainly smell it has been here. There are lots of companies that subscribe to the "stretch target" philosophy - none of them would accept missing the target by a factor of 2. Setting of targets is a sensitive affair (Dr Deming would have none of it) and to set unrealistic goals leads to people giving up early on.
The argument for stretch targets is that they can really get people motivated and driven to achieve and, even if you fail, you still achieve more than if you had set a "standard" target, clearly not the case in this example.
If the objective setting process fails the first time I would expect the organization to take efective corrective action - this could lead to more realistic goals or changes to the process to achieve the goal.
If achievement of the target fails consistently then the objective setting process (and the corrective action process) are ineffective.
Baldrick said:
This is slightly
, but still relevant to the subject matter of achieving desired results...
, but still relevant to the subject matter of achieving desired results...
The issue is whether top (or any other level) management is to be accountable for measures in their processes.
Baldrick said:
Just this week I performed an internal audit on our HR department. One of their objectives was to achieve 10 days' training per employee per year, with performance running at around 3 for the past few years. 
When I asked what actions were in place to achieve the intended 10 days, the HR manager replied that "some objectives aren't intended to be achieved, they're aspirational". He also reckons there is strong evidence that companies who set such "aspirational" objectives achieve better business results than those who restrict themselves to traditional objectives and fixed deadlines.

When I asked what actions were in place to achieve the intended 10 days, the HR manager replied that "some objectives aren't intended to be achieved, they're aspirational". He also reckons there is strong evidence that companies who set such "aspirational" objectives achieve better business results than those who restrict themselves to traditional objectives and fixed deadlines.
The argument for stretch targets is that they can really get people motivated and driven to achieve and, even if you fail, you still achieve more than if you had set a "standard" target, clearly not the case in this example.
Baldrick said:
A long (and fairly intense) debate ensued
and we failed to find any common ground before he had to catch a flight back to his home planet.
I'm interested to know how a TS16949 assessor would counter this argument. Does anyone have any opinions?
and we failed to find any common ground before he had to catch a flight back to his home planet. I'm interested to know how a TS16949 assessor would counter this argument. Does anyone have any opinions?
If achievement of the target fails consistently then the objective setting process (and the corrective action process) are ineffective.