What are the tests, indicators are the key. Through the previous few days of study, I believe that we have a more in-depth understanding and understanding of the design of assessment indicators. Examine the current assessment index system of your company. Do you need to improve or optimize? Let’s discuss how to solve it together. Please ask: stainless steel flanges
1. What are the problems with your company’s assessment indicators?
2. How would you improve or optimize?
Today, we only review and optimize the assessment indicators. Reviewing the assessment indicators currently extracted by the company reminds me of the painful and happy process of refining the indicators, setting targets, defining indicators, and designing weights. Today, it is perfect. With many indicators, there are still many places that need to be optimized.
1, too many indicators of the general manager. stainless steel flanges
(1) Current situation. At present, there are many company-level assessment indicators, reaching 18, which is also the assessment indicators of the general manager, including sales revenue, sales, gross profit, net profit, market share, important product share, marketing, safety accidents, production efficiency The promotion, the financial security, the number of new product R&D, the marketization of new products, the cost control, etc., can be said to be all of the company’s main targets, although he himself does not want to “hang so much”, but these The indicator is that the chairman personally interrogates and eventually makes a decision, so the general manager can only cope with it.
(2) Reasons. In my opinion, the reasons leading to the excessive number of indicators on the head of a general manager are the lack of confidence of the chairman, lack of decentralization, and the concentration of corporate power. This phenomenon cannot be fundamentally changed for the time being. Especially for family-owned companies, it is not easy for a paratrooper or a person outside the family to become the core character of a company. Then, the word “rest assured” should be used.
(3) Optimization: Although all the deputy general managers have completely decomposed all the indicators of the general manager, it should be said that the general manager can take on the financial indicators. This is an ideal situation. In the current situation, I think it can be A few non-KPI indicators such as marketization of new products and compliance with employee handbooks have been delegated to vice presidents or department heads, and convinced the chairman of the board of directors that because the general manager has so many indicators on his head, it is easy to overlook the non-KPI targets when he focuses on the issues. It is not as good as the relevant leaders, so that we can better find responsibilities and countermeasures. We must first conduct trials and do not decentralize more indicators. stainless steel flanges
2, the definition of indicators is not accurate.
(1) Current situation. In the definition of assessment indicators, we initially conducted full discussion and anti-photocopying, but after the implementation of performance appraisal, there will still be some indicators that are not very accurate and will give rise to additional understanding. However, such indicators are few. For example, for customer satisfaction, the definition of our final draft is based on the “Satisfaction Survey Report issued by the Marketing Department to each customer by the Department of Corporate Management, which is based on the satisfaction number divided by the dissatisfaction level multiplied by 100%.” However, The definition is inaccurate. Marketing department personnel often send their own well-known large customers when issuing questionnaires. They are rarely distributed to small and medium-sized customers or direct users. This results in incompleteness and non-representation of satisfaction surveys.
(2) Reasons. As discussed above, the definition is inaccurate. In addition, I believe that there are also random or disregarding effects when the questionnaire is issued. In the eyes of the marketing department, it is definitely to find the irrationality, but why not recommend it early? Yeah, there are also factors that are not enough for work motivation and initiative. stainless steel flanges
(3) Improvement. After investigation and understanding and communication with related personnel of the marketing department, it was decided that the object of the satisfaction survey questionnaire should be issued to 50 (of which 30 are large customers, 8 are medium-sized customers, 6 are small customers, and 6 are end users). All market areas must be evenly distributed, and the head of the marketing department can nominate investigations when they are not evenly distributed. The same customer cannot appear twice in four surveys throughout the year. After such improvements, satisfaction has changed in varying degrees. This shows that customers’ satisfaction with the company’s products and services is changing, not as stable or satisfactory as the original.
3, interfere with other sector indicators. stainless steel flanges
(1) Current situation. After a period of time, the evaluation indicators between departments have become an open secret. In the opinion of many people: the setting of indicators and targets is stricter and higher for the department, and subjectively think that the indicators of other departments are not targeted. So strict. So it is easy to find the HR department or general manager to point out this issue, and even require changes to the indicators and goals of other departments. This is a difficult task.
(2) Reasons. This is self-centered skepticism. In fact, he himself does not understand the formulation and setting process of other departments’ assessments, and does not understand the specific work and details of other departments. It also focuses on the company’s leadership and work. Do not understand the requirements. It is also contrary to the main method of adopting a straight-line system for the performance management of the company (mainly the lower level of the upper-level assessment).
(3) Optimization. In view of the above skepticism, if you do not give it a stop and explain in time, it is easy to form an unordered state, and even to exaggerate such suspicions indiscriminately, it is very likely that the outcome of “three people become a tiger” will occur. In this regard, we first explain the company’s performance appraisal system. We suspect that other departments’ assessments are in violation of the regulations. They are opposed and disallowed by the company. In addition, they give appropriate explanations to their specific suspicions and Chen Qing, and ask them to understand the truth. At the same time, they are advised to prevent such suspicions from happening again in the future and to do all the work in this department. stainless steel flanges
4. There is some convergence in the number of indicators.
(1) Current situation. When setting the indicators for the heads of various departments, because everyone must compare and converge, in the common requirements of everyone, the company leaders also verbally agreed to set up seven assessment indicators, including four KPIs and three non-KPIs. However, if different departments must be unified in this way, there will be some department KPIs that should be set at five reasonable (for example, the production department, sales department), and some can only set three KPI targets (such as the Ministry of Personnel and the Ministry of Administration). Even the Finance Department can set two KPIs (reporting timeliness, adequacy of fund preparation).
(2) Reasons. It is the prevailing convergence psychology of people that the indicator is set to be the same and the result will be the same. This kind of setting does not assess the overall work of various departments, and the focus is not outstanding. This is a realistic and unscientific set of indicators. stainless steel flanges
(3) Suggestion: Although it is unreasonable to know, it is not an easy task to change it, and it will affect the whole body. Therefore, it is only a suggestion at present: I hope that I can fully respect the actual work from the perspective of the responsibilities of various departments. Set assessment indicators, without having to have the same number of indicators in each department.
5. The scoring method needs to be improved.
(1) Current situation. The assessment scores are converted into percentages and multiplied by weights. Points that do not meet the criteria are deducted according to a certain percentage, and points that are over-performed are also added according to a certain percentage. There is an unreasonable place here. For example, 100 points plus 1 point are added for each excess. As everyone knows, the more the number of over-completed items is, the greater the difficulty behind it is, and cannot be extra-credited; otherwise, each Complete 100 deductions and 1 demerit points less. There are also fewer completions. The more difficult it is, the less difficult it is. It should be said that less than 200 points cannot be deducted by only 2 points. It should be reasonable to deduct more points.
(2) Reasons. This is when the scoring scheme is set up, it is designed in such a way that the calculation method is easy to handle. In addition, there is a lack of first-hand raw data or careful analysis of existing data for a more reasonable scoring method. stainless steel flanges
(3) Optimization. Re-align the existing raw data, perform simulation scoring, and listen to the opinions of the superiors of the appraisers, and set up a cumulative regressive scoring scoring method. For example: exceed 100 goals plus 1 point, exceed the target 101-200 plus 2.5 points. Exceeding the target of 201-350 plus 4 points… In order to encourage the appraisers to work actively, strive hard, and strive for more than the goal.
6. The data collection department needs to be optimized.
(1) Current situation. At present, there is a situation where the appraisal department collects data on its own, causing other departments to suspect the data. This has led the HR department to spend more energy to investigate and verify the authenticity of these data in order to reply to these “suspected” voices.
(2) Reasons. According to the most ideal state, the assessment data collection is best provided by the client of the assessment department (ie, the department of the next process). If you divide the work of each department, it will be a grand project. There is also an unrealistic place for its “clients” to collect, so it is imperative to adopt the “near-principle” (who knows or understands this data and who collects it). For example, the statistics on the turnover rate of employees in the HR department can hardly be collected by other departments. stainless steel flanges
(3) Improvement. It is not said that there is no room for optimization in the above situation. I think that the following content can be added to the performance appraisal management method: If a superior leader, HR department or other employee has doubts about certain assessment data, he may apply for HR department review, but It must be approved by the company performance management committee before implementation. In this way, many “doubtful voices” can be reduced, and there is no need to avoid the phenomenon of “collecting their own department assessment data”.
The above is part of the existing performance indicators that need to be improved and optimized, but it is definitely not all, and there will be many areas that need to be optimized as performance assessment is continuously implemented. This is quite normal, and it is inevitable that things happen and development must be The resulting, as long as the objective analysis and serious treatment, will continue to make the company’s performance assessment indicators more rationalized. stainless steel flanges
The refinement of the performance appraisal index, the number of settings, the definition, the target, the score, and the data collection need to be adjusted in accordance with the changes in the company’s plan, departmental responsibilities, and employees’ JD. I think that the appraisal indicators have their time limit, not always. Do not have to modify. Therefore, it is necessary to review and optimize the assessment indicators on a regular basis.
Assessment index refinement and setting summary
The extraction and design of assessment indicators are the focus and difficulty of performance appraisal. Whether the indicators are representative or not, whether they can truly assess the core values and contributions of posts, and whether they truly play a positive and positive role are important factors in measuring indicators. So, how to select and refine KPI indicators for the job? After the index is extracted, how to define it accurately and determine the weight? How should the functional KPIs be designed and how can the company’s existing indicators be improved and optimized? And so on, we must clearly understand these issues in order to design indicators. In this issue of our study, we have discussed relevant topics on this topic. Among them are some of the opinions and experiences of the cattle people that are worth learning and learning from us. They are summarized as follows and we hope to help and inspire you. stainless steel flanges
The summary of knowledge in this issue is as follows:
[One of the indicator designs]: How to refine KPI indicators
When it comes to how to refine and design KPIs, we all share the actual practices of our companies. To sum up, the idea of refining indicators is roughly the same: that is, to extract KPIs from three aspects: first, to decompose the company’s strategic objectives; second, to analyze the job descriptions and detailed work; and third, to weigh the business process. The operating steps are usually to determine the company KPI index, then to the department KPI, and finally to the post KPI; the process of determining the index is often enumerated, to the screening, and then to discuss the choice, the final extraction clear.
[Index Design 2]: How to Define Indicators Accurately
According to the survey statistics (number of samples: 47,985), there are 20,966 companies that account for the indicators’ detailed definition and description, accounting for 43.69%, and there are currently 27,019 existing, accounting for 56.31%. It can be seen that more than half of the companies do not do well in the definition of indicators, which is one of the reasons for the poor performance of these companies. So, how to accurately define the indicators? Many of them have shared good methods and suggestions, such as the definition of the “peel the onion” indicator in Fengshi 13. The interpretation of indicator names is explained at various levels. Quantitative indicators clearly define the quantity and the father-in-law. Qualitative indicators are explained clearly. Define and grade the evaluation instructions to ensure that the definitions of the indicators are unique, explicit, standardized, and unambiguous. stainless steel flanges
[Index Design 3]: How to set index weights
There are many assessment indicators for the position. How to determine their respective weights? Everyone shares the actual practices of their respective companies. Most of them are determined by their superiors to make decisions based on their experience. This subjective approach is clearly inadequate and may be used as appropriate. Mathematical statistics analysis methods are used to make up for subjective defects such as multiple number rings, order comparison methods, and analytic hierarchy processes. It is also advisable to invite “experts” such as staff, HR, business process related colleagues, department heads, and company leaders. Delphi method or multi-party discussion to determine the weight, so that the weight of the index will be more objective and relevant, and easy to allow the appraisers to identify and accept, is conducive to the implementation of the assessment.
[Design of indicators]: KPI design of functional departments
According to the survey statistics (sample number: 53,284), there are 31,131 companies that assess the functional departments, accounting for 58.42%, and 22153 without assessment, accounting for 41.58%. It can be seen that there are still many companies (over 40%). The functional department did not implement performance assessment. How KPI indicators of functional departments are designed and developed. We share many practical practices of their respective companies. Summarize the principles of KPI design for these departments: 1. Less assessment of attitude and performance indicators, and more assessment of outcome indicators; 2. Indicator energy As far as possible, quantification can not be quantified and given two or more transformations and quantification; 3, it can not be implemented, it will be given detailed and procedural. In short, its indicators can not be too wide space, but also specific and clear, from the four perspectives of the BSC Balanced Scorecard operation from the four factors of quantity, quality, time, cost to hand-strap design. stainless steel flanges
Practical application: review and optimization of assessment indicators
Through the discussion and study of the previous few days, we generally had a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding and understanding of the extraction of indicators, the definition, the determination of weights, and the design of functional departments’ KPIs. Looking back at the current assessment index system of their own companies, many of them carefully and thoroughly analyzed the existing problems, such as the evaluation index refining method is too simple, too many indicators are too general, the indicator definition is vague, the weight settings are not reasonable, the functional departments KPI Qualitatively playing too many classification indicators, and contrasting the successful experiences of others they learned, they have also put forward practical solutions and ideas, and they have truly achieved current learning. stainless steel flanges