And the Winner Is … Business by Data

Not even close, at least in the business sector.

In the last posting, I suggested that court managers listen actively and patiently to what people have to say no matter what truth-finding ways and means they’ve used including: (1) the truth we feel (including “truthiness”); (2) the truth that is given to us; (3) the truth we ferret out ourselves by reason and logic; (4) and the truth we perceive through our senses and empirical data, including performance information.

No one method is foolproof, I argued. Each can complement and correct the mistakes of the others. Better to use all four methods, though we may favor one. The common ground is where the truth is more likely to reside.

I advised – sensibly I think -- that we not we not discredit those who prefer to reach the truth in ways different from ours. Apparently, business does not see it that way.

“We’ve had management by objective and total quality management. Now it’s time for the latest trend in business methodology: management by data,” writes Scott Thurm in last Monday’s Wall Street Journal. He quotes Stanford business professor Robert Sutton praising data-driven enterprise and deriding prior business management techniques as “faith, fear, superstition and mindless imitation.” Professor Sutton is co-author with Jeffrey Pfeffer of Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense. Strong words!

In my defense, I say, first, I agree to a degree. After all, I am a champion of performance measurement and see it as a foundational organizational system upon which all other organizational systems (e.g., strategic planning) depend. Second, by suggesting that we balance data-driven truth-seeking with intuition, heart, common sense, history, logic and reason, I espouse the ever so sensible discipline of mental models as put forth by management guru Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline. At the very least, says Senge, becoming more aware of the mental models or preconceptions of others – including their truth-seeking ways, I would add -- can help you become a more nimble leader and manager.

In fairness, the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that in at least one key area –innovation -- business success cannot come from data-drive truth-seeking alone. David Girouard, a vice president and general manager of Google, is quoted as saying: “You can’t time or plan for innovation. It has to come from the heart of somebody with an idea.” Scott Thurm of the Wall Street Journal concludes his article by saying that there’s “no single formula for business success.”

So, while I would agree that the business by data is the front runner, other ways of getting to the single version of the truth may not be far behind. Why not award some silver and bronze instead of disparaging the efforts? I stick to my advice to allow people to be heard who do not necessarily use the scientific method to seek their version of the truth.

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

© Copyright CourtMetrics 2007. All rights reserved

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more