If your organization does not have one, now is the perfect time for you to introduce a Program Evaluation system.
Why is this the opportune time for your organization to apply an outcomes management, (Program Evaluation) System?
Performance company evaluation software 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 it has input into) the evaluation? Is it completed 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 results?
Time frame: short to long. What is 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 aspects of performance. For example, a salesperson may very well be scored on Euros sales, new customers developed, and increases in orders by old customers, and each of 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. On the flip side, 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 should 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 exact same rigid formula. The middle ground includes cases by which folks are evaluated against their own previous performance; improvements are noted, but the same categories are used for each individual. At the other extreme are systems in which each individual in each period has a specially tailored group of goals and objectives. A prime example of this really 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 per week, 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 mix of absolute and relative performance. Frequently, the benchmark that is used will be the performance of other individuals, either within the organization or outside, who are presumed to face the same productive environment and constraints and 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 (so many percent in category 1, so many in category 2, etc.) could be employed, or 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 certain systems, data are gathered entirely or largely from just one source, such as the person'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 facets of performance that the source can reasonably be expected to understand about.
Multi-criterion versus single summary statistic. In probably the majority of performance evaluation systems, all of the data are ultimately massaged into a single summary rating statistic of overall performance. Many dimensions of performance may enter into this statistic, although the final outcome is superficial. In some other systems, there is absolutely no attempt to formulate a single statistic. Within the middle are systems where there is a summary statistic that is very coarse (almost everyone is in the same category), grading many dimensions.
Why is this the opportune time for your organization to apply an outcomes management, (Program Evaluation) System?
Performance company evaluation software 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 it has input into) the evaluation? Is it completed 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 results?
Time frame: short to long. What is 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 aspects of performance. For example, a salesperson may very well be scored on Euros sales, new customers developed, and increases in orders by old customers, and each of 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. On the flip side, 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 should 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 exact same rigid formula. The middle ground includes cases by which folks are evaluated against their own previous performance; improvements are noted, but the same categories are used for each individual. At the other extreme are systems in which each individual in each period has a specially tailored group of goals and objectives. A prime example of this really 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 per week, 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 mix of absolute and relative performance. Frequently, the benchmark that is used will be the performance of other individuals, either within the organization or outside, who are presumed to face the same productive environment and constraints and 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 (so many percent in category 1, so many in category 2, etc.) could be employed, or 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 certain systems, data are gathered entirely or largely from just one source, such as the person'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 facets of performance that the source can reasonably be expected to understand about.Multi-criterion versus single summary statistic. In probably the majority of performance evaluation systems, all of the data are ultimately massaged into a single summary rating statistic of overall performance. Many dimensions of performance may enter into this statistic, although the final outcome is superficial. In some other systems, there is absolutely no attempt to formulate a single statistic. Within the middle are systems where there is a summary statistic that is very coarse (almost everyone is in the same category), grading many dimensions.