Are Your Approaches Leveraging? Or Averaging?

You’ve got stakeholders.
They’ve got REQUIREMENTS that you must meet.

They’ve got DESIRES that you might have to meet. It all depends.

Buzz Thoughts...a

It depends on the “balancing” of those stakeholder REQUIREMENTS…

…and then an assessment of the Competitive Advantages of meeting none, some, or all…of those DESIRES.

As always it depends.

Leverage:

Leverage is a factor by which lever multiplies a force – it is therefore related to mechanical advantage. The useful work done is the energy applied, which is force times distance. Therefore a small force applied over a long distance is the same amount of work as a large force applied over a small distance. The trick is converting the one into the other. The requisite mathematics was developed in the third century B.C. by Archimedes.

The simplest device for creating leverage is the lever. A lever is a stick which rests on a fulcrum near one end. When you push the long end of the stick down a long ways, the short end moves a small distance up with great force. With this device a man can easily lift several times his own weight. Other common devices that achieve leverage include the wrench, various pulley arrangements, a jack, and hydraulic brakes.

Average: In mathematics, an average, mean, or central tendency of a data set refers to a measure of the “middle” or “expected” value of the data set. There are many different descriptive statistics that can be chosen as a measurement of the central tendency. The most common method, and the one generally referred to simply as the average, is the arithmetic mean. Please see the table of mathematical symbols for explanations of the symbols used.

In statistics, the term central tendency is used in some fields of empirical research to refer to what statisticians sometimes call “location”. A “measure of central tendency” is either a location parameter or a statistic used to estimate a location parameter.

– Thanks: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Are your approaches to Performance Competence…

…Leveraging you – or – Averaging you?

Are your approaches to Performance Competence…

  • about competencies?
  • about competence?

How are you Defining these competencies?

How are you validating these competencies?

On Face Validity? On anything more substantial than that? IF SO – GOOD!!!

IF NOT – NOT SO GOOD….

From a stakeholder perspective that is. No stakeholder of an Enterprise wins when the Enterprise fails in its Performance Competence.

Not the Governments and their regulators. Not the Owners and their Boards of Directors. Not the Customers and their stakeholders. Not the Executives and the Managers. Not the Employees and their dependants. Nor the Suppliers and their stakeholders. Nor the Community at large…unless they were being hurt by that Enterprise. And can’t get that law passed. And then enforced….

But all stakeholders can WIN if the Enterprise IS COMPETENT. They can possibly win. They don’t always win. Not all of the Stakeholders. Not when there isn’t enough to go around. Not when greed takes over. Especially the Community Stakeholders. They don’t win always. The low man on the totem pole…so to speak.

But I digress……..

Again, from Wikipedia:

Fulcrum: A fulcrum is the support or point of support

on which a lever turns in raising or moving something

Raising Performance Competence will take leveraging a few fulcrums of the many that can be addressed.

My analysis models, in EPPI and PACT…dissects an Enterprise into its Units (if any), and then into it’s “Functions” (who will be VERY Process-centric), and those into their “Systems” and those into their “Processes” and those into their “Areas of Performance” and then those into their enablers…two sets…human and non-human.

My model is interested in which of the many fulcrums, the many levers, should be pulled/pushed/manipulated for the LEVERAGING of the Enterprise. Not all that could be pulled. Just those that should.

SO What!?

Well…

..IF ALL OF YOUR COMPETITORS CAN BUY ALL OF THE non-human ASSETS and and achieve parity…so that the only way to “truly differentiate” your enterprise from your competitors is in your human assets…and their VALUE ADD…

You should be “wondering actively”

…are you human asset management systems and processes (and all of the enablers) …

..Achieving Peak Performance!

To Protect and Improve the Enterprise!

Is the “data” going into your data systems garbage in…leading to garbage out?

Or good data in…and good decisions out?

It’s an important question. Very important…to get it right. To protect and improve.

# # #

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s