Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity #value #metrics


Albert Simard
 

This is addressed in the world of science by having individuals evaluated by a commitee of their scientific peers.  There are usually a number of people being evaluated with each person having one person from their specialty on the committee.  My guess is that medicine works similarly. 


Having served on my share of such committees I can vouch for their effectiveness.  Administrators like to count publications but this is only marginally important.  How does one rate the occasional (unpredictable) "home run."  Conversely, how does this compare with a dozen half-page field observtional articles?  A group of scientists can seperate the wheat from the chaff in a heartbeat.  There are all sorts of informal clues as to the productivity and quality of a scientist's work.  This is a case in which "you know it when you see it" realy works.  I am willing to bet that a similar process would work in many fields of knowledge work. 


I was continuouly struck by the frequency with which members of a committee clustered tightly around a mean rating when four out of the five members were from different disciplines.  And when a group (rarely) could not reach consensus, the reason was explained and the process was repeated, including a description of the problem.  When a scientist was proposed to be promoted to a senior scientist position the review was resubmited to a committee of senior scientists.  


It worked!

Join main@SIKM.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.