DEFINING AND MEASURING OUTCOMES

Defining and Measuring Outcomes

Defining and Measuring Outcomes

Outcomes

A specific expectation that supports work unit outcomes written in terms of quality, quantity, cost, or timeliness and defined at the “Good” level. Expectations also define how the division or workgroup outcomes will be achieved and measured. If employees meet all of the performance expectations at the good level it is reasonable to assume that the work unit outcomes will be met.

One of the struggles that people have with this model when they first encounter it, is that it is not a model of punishment or even reward; it is a model of creating action. It will reward action in the right direction and it will punish inaction. It forces action when limitations have been exceeded and it focuses all other action on maximizing outcomes. Boundary Managementsm improves performance because it creates action, and particular appropriate action. It defines the roles and responsibilities through the use of limitations and outcomes, and therefore clarifies who is accountable. There will be times when everyone is accountable, such as when a company is losing money. There will be times when only a small group or an individual might be accountable. Remember, that the definition that we are using here for accountability is “who is responsible to take corrective action when something goes wrong or when results are not achieved.” This is not a model to help assign blame or fault. In fact, it recognizes that often everyone is more or less at fault when something goes wrong. 

Let's take an example of a finance department. Although, these are changeable depending on the organization, the outcomes for this group might read this way:

· All departments know their financial status in relation to the budget.

· All departments understand their impact of total organizational financial performance.

These are no organizational outcomes. They are internal outcomes. A Staff group, which the finance department usually is, will have more internal outcomes, whereas line groups will have more organizational outcomes. Staff groups become support structures to the central processes that line groups represent.

One of the common remarks is that these groups are not responsible for the outcomes listed. This is particularly true for organizational outcomes. It is true that they are not totally responsible. However, they are partially responsible. Everyone is partly responsible. Linking the organizational units to outcomes recognizes the interdependency of the total organization. 

Internal workgroups may have two types of outcomes for which they will be accountable. The primary accountability will be for any organizational outcome on which they have some control. These will take priority over the second type of outcome, which is outcomes for other internal workgroups that count on the first groups' performance, products, or services. 

A common approach would be to develop an internal customer chain that links up to the organizational outcome. This however does not eliminate the problem of workgroups maximizing their performance at the expense of the overall outcome. A better way is to define the linkages as ...