by Douglas Hubbard | Dec 8, 2008 | How To Measure Anything Blogs, Measurement Questions From Readers, News
Originally posted at http://www.howtomeasureanything.com, on Monday, December 08, 2008 9:32:43 PM, by Amichai.
“The challenge is to come up with a simple, clearly defined number (or a few numbers) that reflect how well the organization is executing towards the goals from the CEO level to the line worker level. It would also be good to have an insight into what misalignment occurs between departments.
Most importantly, we should be able to track our alignment score overtime and track the impact of our improvements and corrective actions.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!”
Thanks for your question. I mention strategic alignment just briefly in the book. As with all measurement questions, we start with What do you mean? . In this case, you offered perhaps part of the meaning – how well the organization is executing towards the goals from the CEO level to the line worker level. I would think that the rate it is approaching certain defined goals is itself measurable, especially if the goal is measurable. But perhaps some concrete examples could help us zero in more. Does alignment mean that the activities of each of these levels are contributing to the probability of reaching a goal at a stated time? Does it mean these activities are contributing toward reaching the goal faster? Perhaps the observable object is just the rate of completion of the goal itself. Isn’t alignment just another way to say performance given the way you are using it? If not, what is different?
If you are not just concerned about a % complete measure toward a particular goal then it seems to me that, in effect, you are trying to correlate certain observable input to the probability or rate of completion of stated goals – which, again, sounds a bit like performance. So what you are really trying to measure is whether each of some list of observable activities is improving the rate or probability of completion of a specific goal. Another issue you will have to consider is the tradeoff among multiple possibly competing goals. If you have more than one goal, you will have to collapse these goals into a single value using the utility curve approach I describe in the book or possibly simply monetizing the various goals. This way you can tell if your overall alignment has improved if you have increased satisfaction of one goal but slightly decreased another. Ultimately, it seems like you have a type of forecasting problem. You are asking Based on what I have seen so far (of some list of observations) are we getting closer to or further away from meeting Goal X? The score you are looking for should correlate with rate or probability of goal completion.
In addition to the questions I asked above, here are some more I have for you:
* Is you definition of alignment close to what I just talked about?
* What are some of the goals you are talking about?
* What will be the use of this measure, specifically?
* How much do you know now? What have you seen so far that causes you to think that some departments/individuals are more aligned than others?
If you can answer these questions then I think I can give you some very specific ideas.
Thanks,
Doug Hubbard
by Douglas Hubbard | Dec 8, 2008 | General Topics, How To Measure Anything Blogs, News
As I mentioned in the book, I often offer a sort of measurement challenge to an audience where I’m speaking about measuring the immeasurable. I ask anyone listening to give me an example of an impossible measurement at any time during the conference and, after a 15 minute session with that person, I’ll explain a method to measure that very thing. So far, I haven’t actually failed to identify a valid measurement in that time period but there were times it took longer to explain to the person that what I described actually would measure it.
Give me an example of a difficult measurement. Any example. The harder the better. And we’ll discuss the answer right here.
by Douglas Hubbard | Dec 8, 2008 | Facilitating Calibrated Estimates, How To Measure Anything Blogs, News
The book shows that calibrated probability assessments really do work and it gives the reader some idea about how to employ them. But facilitating a workshop – with calibrated estimates or any other formal method – has its own challenges. Participants ask questions or make challenges about calibration or probabilities in general that sometimes confound reason. It’s amazing the sorts of ideas adults have learned about these topics.
Still, I’ve found that these kinds of challenges and my responses to them have become almost scripted over the years. The conceptions and misconceptions people have about these concepts fall into certain general categories and, therefore, so have my responses.
I thought about starting out with an attempt at an exhaustive list but, instead, I’ll wait for readers to come to me. Do you have any challenges employing this method in a workshop or, for that matter, do you have questions of your own about how such a method can work? Let us know and we’ll discuss it.
by Douglas Hubbard | Dec 8, 2008 | How To Measure Anything Blogs, News
If you have any questions about the downloads and how they are used for reference in the book, this is the place to post them. The downloads are meant to provide readers with examples that are already set up and, in many cases, can already use on practical problems. If you have questions about how they apply, feel free to bring it up.
This would also be a good place to make suggestions for more downloads that might help readers understand various concepts from the book. If you have an idea for a helpful example that would be of use to other readers, let me know and I will post it.
Thanks,
Doug Hubbard
by Douglas Hubbard | Dec 8, 2008 | How To Measure Anything Blogs, News
Yes, IT seems to stump a lot of people that try to measure its value. But the methods for measuring value don’t have to be that difficult. First, my readers will know that measuring the value means reducing your prior uncertainty about the value. My readers also know that the more your initial state of uncertainty, the more a few observations will tell you.
Contribute specific IT valuation problems here and we’ll talk about how to measure it!
Doug Hubbard
by Douglas Hubbard | Dec 8, 2008 | Bayesian vs. Frequentist?, Errata, How To Measure Anything Blogs, News
Under the Errata forum in a thread I called Second Print Run Corrections , one poster replied that he believed I incorrectly applied the term confidence interval in the book. I discuss several errors in that post in a reply in that thread. But it introduces another point of confusion apparently held by some about the difference between Bayesian vs. non-Bayesian methods in statistics and the epistemicologicaly philosophy debate of the frequentist vs. the subjectivist. I addressed it in another thread called Bayesian vs. Frequentist in this In the Clouds forum topic.
