Meeting Measure

Meeting…. defined as the act or process of coming together as an assembly for a common purpose. A very laudable and effective exercise when done well.  However, the practice of meetings can seem a little less rigorous at times, and not as effective as they could be.  Some key factors at play here, and here’s thoughts specifically around preparation and purpose.

In practice preparation can be quite variable.  Here’s a simple meetings measure to reflect the degree of preparation.  At one end of the continuum there is “Nightclub” style…just turn up and play it by ear.  Might even leave to go to something more interesting part way through.  At the other end of the continuum is “Bookclub” sytle …pre read with insightful collective reflection.  Materials are read and reflected on in advance,  and the meeting is the chance to share perspectives.  Most practical meetings are somewhere in between, but there’ll be a tipping point where just the right amount of preparation can maximise effectiveness.

In practice the purpose might not always be explicit enough.   Perhaps we need a more dynamic term for the person that’s in charge, rather than the ‘chair’.  So not a great metaphor - a passive functional object.  How about the “purposer”, as someone who is relentlessly focussed on delivering the purpose or objective of the meeting…

Data Quality Standards

This is a helpful framework for explicitly thinking about data quality.

There have been plenty of frameworks for performance and data, see for example A Framework for Performance Information or the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.  However this one, although not the most recent, has a quite unique depth of focus on the quality of data as an end in itself, and the corporate standards to help achieve this.

A joint product from the collective auditing bodies of the UK.....

There are are two broad sets of considerations here.  The first are the characteristics which are displayed by good quality data.  These are the outcome of the second set of considerations, which concern the corporate arrangements which directly influence the quality of data, and are described as the standards.

So the characteristics of good quality data....

And those characteristics are delivered by these five standards, the corporate arrangements to secure good quality data, and summarised as follows....

And each of these standards have some exacting questions to test against, each of which are listed below.

Not surprisingly perhaps, the emphasis is on the governance and leaderships for data quality from which all else follows.  It's worth noting that this is not describing the leadership for data, rather the leadership specifically for data quality, and hence for which there might even be different leadership roles.

It might be helpful to consider policies-and-procedures and systems-and-processes more as a whole. Given these terms are not explicitly defined.  In simple terms, policies-and-procedures can be considered as the guidance, and the systems-and-processes the actual data activity.

And here's all those 30 questions as a wordcloud...so that data quality emerges from the predominant themes of management, reporting, staff, recording, proceedures....

Decisions Decisions

So what’s in a decision?  It would appear to come down to judgement, helpfully defined as… “the evaluation of evidence in the making of a decision“.

So this means there are two parts to that judgement: (1) the evident itself and (2) the process of evaluation.   So a good judgement needs the right evidence (or information) to be evaluated (or analysed) in the right way.   So that’s the right information AND the right analysis for a good decision.  Hence either poor information OR poor analysis can lead to a poor decision.

So judgement tends to be the shorthand for using evidence and evaluating it.   The evidence is perhaps clear enough – some history and context.  Of course it needs to be the right evidence (the scope or breadth of evidence) and there need to be enough of it (the depth of evidence).    The evaluation might well be a structured process , weighing up (even weighting)  different evidence,  but perhaps more often than not a more ephemeral exercise.  

So there is a helpful balance to be struck between what might be called “process judgement” and that more ephemeral “judgement by osmosis”.    The process judgement is really what’s described above, a transparent approach to think about evidence and its evaluation in coming to a decision.     So not just the oft quoted “evidence based” decision making - that’s not enough - but rather evidence and evaluation based.   More science than art, and perhaps best typified by the “business case” approach.

The “judgement by osmosis” is the more attractive proxy for all of the process business.   The right decision just permeates through all of the potential complexity of evidence and evaluation.   In some cases a fantastic short cut to assimilate and distil the information and its analysis, and providing a natural blending with experience and risk appetite.  In other cases less so...  Overall probably more art than science.

So all decisions are judgement based, but how many of those judgements are evidence and evaluation based.

Let’s not forget it’s also quite possible to get the right decision randomly, “more by luck than judgement’.  So judgement is just the helping hand to increase the chances of making the right decision first time by using sufficient evidence and evaluating it systematically.  

Context is King

As the future King of England is wed, so it's actually the context of the wedding which is the big attraction.  After all the marriage, a personal commitment between two people, is legally just the same as any other (well actually multiple marriage registers rather than just one).  It's all the context that provides the whole picture....royalty, romance, and hence the ensuing super spectacle.

And so it is that context is king in any effective analysis and interpretation, whether strategic or operational.  Here's a couple of examples at the other extreme...




The "12 inch pizza"  from the supermarket looked a little small, and on measuring not only was it smaller than it's backing, but the backing itself was not the full 12" (being only 30cm wide, rather than the expected 30.5cm).  So we're missing at least 0.5cm of pizza!

If we were missing that 0.5cm from the middle of the pizza that that's only 0.2 squared centimetres.  But from the edge of the pizza, that's missing all the way round, that's a different story....a whole 24 sq.cm missing, 800 times more pizza than if it was missing from the middle...





Another simple example of the importance of context...In need of a garage or loft conversion, then how about some recommendations...some quotes, proudly displayed on the side of a van....

"The best builder I have ever used".

Well if it's the first builder I have ever used then.... that also makes it the worst builder I have ever used.

"Standard of finish was beyond my expectation".  

Well if the expectation was very poor, the standard of finish could be poor, and this would still hold true.

Communicate to Connect

Communication is of course important to the success of many activities.  Not least the larger scale projects which will have their own communications plan, and may even be driven by a stakeholder plan. 

However, if communication is important, it’s connection that’s paramount.  It’s that difference between hearing (communicating) and listening (connecting).   If hearing is detecting sound , then listening is understanding and interpreting that sound.

Lots of communication planning and development gets built around the physical and tangible tools – the media, the mechanisms.  “We need a web site” or “we need a newsletter” or “we need a {blank}”.  That’s quite a practical way to get started, but needs some mitigation.  The risk is the mechanism becomes end in itself rather than a means to an end.   

Those mechanisms are the simply the things that join a message with people.   After all people might well communicate via a mechanism, but will connect with a message.   While we can generalise about groups of people using phraseology like “stakeholder segments”, they are individual people.  So perhaps we tend to think about communicating with impersonal stakeholder groups, rather than actually connecting with real people, in fact real persons.  Think less 'group of people', more collection of individuals.  So that's communication with groups to connect with individuals. So a new term perhaps... 'communect'... communication that connects.

The real issue with starting with the mechanism is that this is a uni-dimensional approach to a (typically) multi-dimensional situation.  We have (1) message(s) to share, (2) mechanisms to communicate those messages, and (3) the people with whom to connect.   While that mechanism centric approach can work well enough with one message for one group of people, it’s not such a sensible starting point for multiple messages or multiple stakeholders, and even more tricky for multiple messages and multiple stakeholders.

So the mechanism is simply the means to connect messages to people. Here’s a take on that which, which can  help identify, clarify and structure those multi-dimensional situations.  So a framework for planning project comms....

That message might simply be awareness raising, information giving, or about brand presence, through to a stronger sense of engagement.  That said this tends towards the traditional ‘broadcast’ approach rather then more two way engagement, but there’s still a place for that, and a structured approach to managing it.  After all engagement is built on communication and connection.

No Silver Bullet

There are so many management terms and tools that it can be more than a little difficult to see the wood for the trees.   Vision, purpose, strategy, objectives, plan, programmes, projects, performance, change, risk, outputs, outcomes….. And then there’s the relationships, dependencies and even overlaps and contradictions that link these things together.  So that’s a lot of potential activity between defining a purpose and a outcome.

There are even published compilations of “Management Models”, including those from the Financial Times which list just the 60 every manager should know.  Of course there is no silver bullet, rather the prudent application of some fundamentals, and an overall grip on those so that they integrate and pull in the same direction.  So definitely not “off the self” but rather a set of tools relevant to specific circumstances. …less “set menu”, or even “À la carte”, but more “mezze”. 

So here’s my one page take on the key components, and their broad relativity. Not a panacea but a sense of order and structure.  At least as a map by which to navigate that wood of trees…

So that's the broad framework.  Here's the mapping of (1) leadership business, (2) managing business, (3) managing business change and (4) delivering business.

1. Leadership Business: Why and What

So some top level leadership defining the purpose, plus the objectives to achieve that purpose, and ensuring that these are sufficiently clear and specific, and engaging people on this. From these all else flows.  There may even be some preferred values which shape and steer subsequent behaviours.  Leadership is probably less head and more heart,  art rather than science, and character than personality.  So in simple terms it’s about strategy, the why (…we do what we do) and the what (…we are going to do).

2. Managing Business: How

Management is then about the planned delivery of that purpose and objectives.  That’s more head than heart and more science than art.  So it’s the plan  - the how - that makes a reality of that purpose (why) and objectives (what).

So a bit like a strategy in military conflict, at least there’s a clear starting point, even though this will adapt and adjust with application in the operational environment.  After all the term strategy is derived from the military – the plan of action to achieve a specific objective.

3. Managing Business Change

As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus stated in 500BC "The only thing that is constant in life is change".  And as echoed by Disraeli “Change is inevitable. Change is constant”.  Whether that’s (a) a virtuous circle of continual improvement, (b) a neutral circle of change for the sake of change (c) a repetitive circle of history forgotten, or (d) a vicious circle of decline, it all needs to be managed while still delivering. 

4. Delivering Business: Doing

That plan is implemented through processes, people and projects to deliver outputs and outcomes to customers.  So this is the actual doing.   That activity is probably monitored and steered through some combination of performance, portfolio, programme and project management, especially where things are changing.

So....

It’s often the case that many of these management tools operate to independently from the others (and there may even be specific post holder for each of these roles).   Where finance, risk, performance and change are all aligned and focused in the same direction, they respond collectively and efficiently to that purpose and objectives.

If fact one of the simplest and best macro approaches is the well-established police approach of  gold/silver/bronze command.  Most notably because this has stood the test of time as fashionable models come and go.   The gold commander makes a decision about what needs doing (…seal the football ground).  The silver commander works out how to achieve that (…a team on each entrance/exit, plus a mobile spare).  And the bronze commander(s) actually do it (…present and responsive on each entrance/exit).  Also the Gold commander will openly seek and take expert advice from specialist advisers (negotiation, public order…) as part of that decision making process.  A simple and effective framework to structure the broader suite of components.

So a map by which to navigate that wood of trees…not the only map nor indeed the perfect map.  At least a functional map, with a clearer view of the landscape, with some places visited and some places yet to be explored.

A Framework for Performance Information

There are frameworks and there are frameworks. The latest best practice data management framework is that provided by the Code of Practice for Official Statistics published by the UK Statistics Authority (see Statutory Statistical for the overview).

While designed for the public sector it's based on more generally applicable principles which hold fast in other sectors.  However that is quite detailed, and while outcome focussed, there are 74 business practices to consider. So it's worth being open to some of the predecessors who facilitated the preliminary debate and did some of the earlier consolidation in a simpler way.  Not necessary simple, just simpler.

Notably is the Framework for Performance Information - "FABRIC".  A joint product from the National Audit Office, Audit Commission, Office for National Statistics, Cabinet Office and HM Treasury.  The irony is that a decade on the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury are now legally bound to be compliant with the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice. What goes around, comes around.

Like all such frameworks they tend to give you the "test answers" rather than the "workings" to get there.  But perhaps more frustratingly, there can be lots of good content that can seem more than a little unconnected...framework, criteria, components and so on.  So here's that Framework for Performance parts summarised, and the big picture distilled.

A. Framework for Performance Information

How performance data relates to the business...

B. Criteria for Individual Performance Measures

So what makes a good measure...

C. Components for Managing Performance Measures

Planning, assuring and using measures.   And mapping on the relationship with Framework (A) above...

D. Corporate Performance Framework - Distilled.

So this is my take on what that framework might look like if integrated and presented as a whole, to get a better sense of the relationship of those parts.  Developed from the various elements, this is structured this around the nature of business activity - which is after all is the focus of performance measurement - in terms of corporate activity (resources, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes) and corporate success (economy, efficiency and effectiveness).