StrategyDriven

An integral part of the learning organization’s evaluation and control program, the self assessment program provides in-depth evaluations of particular organizational functions or characteristics for the purpose of identifying improvement opportunities.  Self assessments are powerful tools deriving their heightened value from the synthesis of information from multiple sources; creating a rich, integrated picture of organizational performance as compared to established standards and marketplace benchmarks.  This integrated picture of performance also benefits from the progressive infusion of knowledge and experience applied to the initial interpretation of data used to develop the assessment’s source information.

Self assessment programs are comprised of periodically scheduled and event driven assessments.  Because self assessments are not performed on a continual basis, they are inappropriate for the monitoring of rapidly changing conditions.  Circumstances for which periodic and event driven self assessments are performed can be described as:

• Periodic: often recurring on an annual basis, these evaluations focus on those critical organizational functions and characteristics which present significant risk, must be performed with precision, or require continuous improvement to maintain marketplace competitiveness
• Event Driven: initiated based on environmental or performance trends, these self assessments are used to enhance limiting or deficient practices to drive performance improvement

As illustrated by the Information Development Model, self assessments belong to the third tier of performance data refinement.  Performance reports at this level benefit from human intelligence added to supporting data during:  initial data synthesis, basic trend identification and analysis, multi-trend synthesis, and basic model application.  It is the infusion of human knowledge and experience at these points that makes self assessments broadly integrated and highly insightful.

An organization’s self assessment program plays a key role in identifying the performance improvement opportunities that will propel an organization to the next level of performance.  Posts in this category are dedicated to discussing the leading practices of companies successfully executing a self assessment program in support of strategic business planning and tactical business execution.

Popularity: 45% [?]

---

If you're new to StrategyDriven, please consider subscribing to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Evaluators performing self assessments often find themselves awash in data suggesting their company’s performance significant lags that of competitors and top industry performers. Evidence suggesting the need to improve may be so plentiful that the self assessors come to believe immediate reforms must be made if to only ensure the continued viability of their organization.

All too often, the performance improvement focus of a self assessment drives assessors to lose a degree of perspective regarding what their organization does right; even for those things for which they are recognized as an industry leader. Lacking a balanced perspective on their organization’s performance, evaluators fall prey to the notion that no process, product, or person is adequate to the task and that everything and everyone needs to dramatically improve. Translated into the self assessment report itself, this overly negative perspective may result in the self assessment team advocating the proverbial “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

One easily employed method of reducing the likelihood of overstating the organization’s performance improvement needs is to, at a minimum, challenge and often to avoid the use of absolute terms. Such terms typically point directly to overstated positions warranting further consideration. Absolute terms to listen for during routine team communications and oral presentations as well as in written notes, memos, and reports include:

• all, every, everyone, everything
• none, no one, nothing
• always, forever, have to
• never, under no circumstances

Final Thoughts…

There may be occasions where a self assessment team finds no readily available evidence that corporate performance need to improve in one or more areas. The history of business reveals, however, that many significant advances came from the improvement or replacement of industry leading practices. Subsequently, the avoidance of absolutes is equally important, if not as often applicable, to the characterization of strong performance.

In some rare cases, the use of absolute statements is warranted and necessary. However, it is important that instances are recognized, validated, and deliberately and conservatively made so as to not diminish the credibility of the overall assessment findings.

---

Nathan A. Ives is a Strategy & Operations Manager at Deloitte Consulting LLP, a StrategyDriven contributor, and co-Host of the StrategyDriven Podcast. For over fifteen years, he has served as trusted advisor to executives and managers at numerous Fortune 500 and smaller companies in the areas of management effectiveness, organizational development, and process improvement. To read Nathan’s complete biography, click here.

Popularity: 69% [?]

Often practiced, it can be highly misleading to base the organization’s performance standards relative only to internally identified best practice methods and characteristics.  While at times the organization’s performance does represent the highest standard, it is more likely that individual activities are performed more effectively and efficiently by other organizations, particularly those seeking to improve performance in an effort to compete with perceived industry leaders.  Top performers recognize this trap and augment their internal search for effective performance with an outward examination of other relevant businesses.

Read More »

Popularity: 46% [?]

Complex business processes often involve many of the functional business units within an organization. Regardless of the process specifics, it is unlikely a single individual will possess the broad range of knowledge and experience needed to fully understand the influences and impacts each functional contributor has on the process’s overall outcomes. Therefore, when evaluating cross-functional programs, processes, and procedures it is critical that a multidiscipline assessment team be employed.

Multidiscipline teams help ensure the full range of needed knowledge and experience resources are brought to bear when evaluating a complex program, process, or procedure. Having enough knowledge and experience resources occurs when the team includes individuals that together possess the background necessary to recognize significant beneficial and adverse performance drivers. By extension, this implies that not all functional disciplines need be represented during every self assessment. Additionally, as an assessment progresses, circumstances may arise requiring engagement of personnel possessing knowledge and experience not originally identified as needed for the evaluation.

---

Nathan A. Ives manages the strategic planning, budgeting, and personnel resource and project management programs at the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, is a StrategyDriven contributor, and co-Host of the StrategyDriven Podcast. For over fifteen years, he has served as trusted advisor to executives and managers at numerous Fortune 500 and smaller companies in the areas of management effectiveness, organizational development, and process improvement. To read Nathan’s complete biography, click here.

Popularity: 44% [?]

There tends to exist a perception that companies are generally open to the identification and resolution of problems; that resources will be applied to solve issues if the gains expected can be shown to outweigh the costs. Reality is frequently different. Priority setting driven by limited resources and at times less visible agendas often precludes an organization from addressing small tactical issues and large global initiatives.

Read More »

Popularity: 47% [?]