Performance Pyramid: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Cross and Lynch 1991 | Cross and Lynch 1991 | ||
[[File:cross&lynch1991. | [[File:cross&lynch1991.gif|Cross and Lynch 1991]] | ||
* Objectives are top down and measurements are top up | * Objectives are top down and measurements are top up | ||
Revision as of 13:25, 10 October 2011
Cross and Lynch 1991
- Objectives are top down and measurements are top up
- Quality and delivery should equal Customer satisfaction and so but watch that Reducing costs dont lead to a fall in staisfaction
- The left side arer external influences and the right is internal
- Its starts at the individual level all the way to corp level
- Provides a more integrated approach than Fitzgerald and Moon
- Focuses on the right priorities
Also look at http://www.accaglobal.com/publications/studentaccountant/43909
Performance measurements Benefits and Problems
- M Develops agreed Measures
- O Clarifies the Objectives of the Org
- P Greater understanding of Process
- C Helps faciitate comparison between divisions
- A Promotes Accountability to stakeholder
- T Helps sets Targets for managers
Problems
- Tunnel Vision - Indue focus on measurements to the detriment of other areas (Dr must bee a patient in 48 hrs)
- Sub-optimizatoin - focus on one measurement to the dertiment of others
- Myopia. focusiing too much on s-t measures and looking looking l-t
- Measurement fixation- meeting student quotas but leading to higher drop out rates
- Misrepresentation - Not presenting the data correctly
- Mis-intrepreting the data -
- ossification - keeping to out of date measures
Stakeholders Who are they, how many, what to they want, do they wan the same things, whats the time frame
