If your organization doesn't have one, now will be the perfect period to introduce a Program Evaluation system.
Why is this the opportune time for your organization to implement an outcomes management, (Program Evaluation) System?
Performance evaluation systems can be classified along a number of dimensions that capture variations within their structure, content, and process characteristics. Among-the most critical dimensions will be the following:
Who/what is evaluated? Do we evaluate the person, the workgroup, the division?
Who performs (and has input into) the evaluation? Is it done by each individual's immediate supervisor? Peers, subordinates, or customers? The amount input does the individual being evaluated has in to the evaluation as well as in appealing the end result?
Time-frame: short to long. What will be the time frame over which data are collected (either formally and objectively or informally) before evaluations are rendered?
Objective/formulaic versus subjective/impressionistic evaluations. In some cases, performance is measured very objectively, using unambiguous measures of different facets of performance. As an example, a salesperson might be scored on Euros sales, new customers developed, and increases in orders by old customers, and these being put on some standard scale (e.g., standard deviations from the mean performance of salesmen in the organization) and after that weighted 40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively. However, employees in a facility might be evaluated and rated in accordance with the subjective overall impressions of their immediate superiors.
When objective or formulaic evaluations are used, there is the further issue of how closely tailored the formula must be to the specific situation of each individual. At one extreme, every similarly situated individual within the firm (say, every salesperson) is evaluated using the same rigid formula. The middle ground includes cases in which people are evaluated against their very own previous performance; improvements are noted, although the same categories are utilized for each individual. At the other extreme are systems in which each individual in each period has a specially tailored set of goals and objectives. A prime example of this is management by objectives schemes, by which each individual takes part in designing his or her group of objectives.
Relative versus absolute performance. In certain instances, employees are evaluated on an absolute scale-for example, sales volume, units produced weekly, touchdowns scored, or dollar value of hours billed to clients. In other instances, performance is evaluated on some sort of relative basis, or performance is measured on a mixture of absolute and relative performance. Frequently, the benchmark which is used is the performance of other individuals, either in the organization or outside, who are presumed to face the same productive environment and constraints as well as to possess similar capability levels. In other cases, performance is measured relative to the individual's own previous performance.
Forced distribution versus unspecified percentages. When summary categories are used, a forced distribution (numerous percent in category 1, so many in category 2, etc.) could be employed, or perhaps the percentages may go unspecified. Be aware that where forced distributions are used, there must be some sort of relative performance evaluation going on, even when only implicitly.
Multi-source versus single-source evaluation. In some systems, data are gathered entirely or largely from a single source, such as the individual's supervisor. Other evaluation systems gather performance appraisals from many sources-customers, peers, supervisors, and so on-where each source is asked to appraise those aspects of performance that the source can reasonably be expected to learn about.
Multi-criterion versus single summary statistic. In probably the majority of performance evaluation systems, board development all of the data are ultimately massaged in to a single summary rating statistic of overall performance. Many dimensions of performance may enter into this statistic, although the final outcome is one-dimensional. In certain other systems, there isn't any try to formulate a single statistic. Within the middle are systems where there is a summary statistic that is very coarse (just about everyone is in the same category), grading many dimensions.
Why is this the opportune time for your organization to implement an outcomes management, (Program Evaluation) System?
Performance evaluation systems can be classified along a number of dimensions that capture variations within their structure, content, and process characteristics. Among-the most critical dimensions will be the following:
Who/what is evaluated? Do we evaluate the person, the workgroup, the division?
Who performs (and has input into) the evaluation? Is it done by each individual's immediate supervisor? Peers, subordinates, or customers? The amount input does the individual being evaluated has in to the evaluation as well as in appealing the end result?
Time-frame: short to long. What will be the time frame over which data are collected (either formally and objectively or informally) before evaluations are rendered?
Objective/formulaic versus subjective/impressionistic evaluations. In some cases, performance is measured very objectively, using unambiguous measures of different facets of performance. As an example, a salesperson might be scored on Euros sales, new customers developed, and increases in orders by old customers, and these being put on some standard scale (e.g., standard deviations from the mean performance of salesmen in the organization) and after that weighted 40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively. However, employees in a facility might be evaluated and rated in accordance with the subjective overall impressions of their immediate superiors.
When objective or formulaic evaluations are used, there is the further issue of how closely tailored the formula must be to the specific situation of each individual. At one extreme, every similarly situated individual within the firm (say, every salesperson) is evaluated using the same rigid formula. The middle ground includes cases in which people are evaluated against their very own previous performance; improvements are noted, although the same categories are utilized for each individual. At the other extreme are systems in which each individual in each period has a specially tailored set of goals and objectives. A prime example of this is management by objectives schemes, by which each individual takes part in designing his or her group of objectives.
Relative versus absolute performance. In certain instances, employees are evaluated on an absolute scale-for example, sales volume, units produced weekly, touchdowns scored, or dollar value of hours billed to clients. In other instances, performance is evaluated on some sort of relative basis, or performance is measured on a mixture of absolute and relative performance. Frequently, the benchmark which is used is the performance of other individuals, either in the organization or outside, who are presumed to face the same productive environment and constraints as well as to possess similar capability levels. In other cases, performance is measured relative to the individual's own previous performance.
Forced distribution versus unspecified percentages. When summary categories are used, a forced distribution (numerous percent in category 1, so many in category 2, etc.) could be employed, or perhaps the percentages may go unspecified. Be aware that where forced distributions are used, there must be some sort of relative performance evaluation going on, even when only implicitly.
Multi-source versus single-source evaluation. In some systems, data are gathered entirely or largely from a single source, such as the individual's supervisor. Other evaluation systems gather performance appraisals from many sources-customers, peers, supervisors, and so on-where each source is asked to appraise those aspects of performance that the source can reasonably be expected to learn about.
Multi-criterion versus single summary statistic. In probably the majority of performance evaluation systems, board development all of the data are ultimately massaged in to a single summary rating statistic of overall performance. Many dimensions of performance may enter into this statistic, although the final outcome is one-dimensional. In certain other systems, there isn't any try to formulate a single statistic. Within the middle are systems where there is a summary statistic that is very coarse (just about everyone is in the same category), grading many dimensions.