Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Measuring ≠ Accomplishing

t+0: Helpdesk Support Ticket opened

image

t+5 seconds: Helpdesk Support Ticket closed

image

t+forevermore: User Totally Frustrated

image

Notes:

  • Both people feel they’re doing what their company wants them to do.
  • Neither is listening to the other.
  • The user's problem isn't resolved.
  • Yet, according to the helpdesk ticket’s statistics, "Mission Accomplished."

How is this possible?

Thoroughly researched over many years by countless organizational and social psychologists, cognitive dissonance enables people to perceive failure as success. Ironically, the systems IT organizations use to measure success can be “gamed” to provide cover for such misperception.

Questions:

  • Do you believe that the metrics you use to manage your people capture the acts of service they perform?
  • How do you follow up on your systems of measurement to ensure that they do?

5 comments:

  1. Hey, this makes sense to me now.

    I have a dream of using "events mapping" as a metric but have never gotten it going here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment, Doug, my twice-measured, once-cut friend.

    Everyone: care to share your methods for keeping your human performance measurement systems honest?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Dilbert makes perfect sense to me: From my experiences, management wants you to achieve the impractical with little to no information (there's always a need to know edict), doesn't really understand the impact of the issue at hand, and provides limited or no access to legitimate information to support the project (because you are not cleared or have gone through the proper training). Yet results is what they want for that quarterly business review

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the comment, Joe. I think you may have identified a major source of occupational stress.

    ReplyDelete