RE: TARGET SETTING

["Richard" <Richard@zultner.com>]

      The problem with target setting is NOT the setting of the target.
Simply setting a target does NOT cause any of the problems cited here or by
Dr. Deming. The problem is (1) how you go about trying to achieve the
target, and (2) how your attempts are evaluated by those in a position to
reward them.

      As an example of "no problem" target setting, consider an athlete who
wants to win a gold medal in their event at the next Olympics. They
determine a time (or level of performance) that they think they'll have to
meet to win, and then they train towards that target. The target is very
useful, as it allows them to evaluate their progress, and consider whether
to change their training, or not. The final measurement at the Olympics is
solely on their performance, and they have no influence on the measurement
system. Does anyone have any problems with such target setting?

      Now, it is possible to set targets and avoid the problems of (1)
apparent improvement (you made the numbers better, but didn't improve the
system), and (2) evaluation by numerical results only (don't look at the
process). For example, many of the Deming Prize companies using Policy
Deployment do set targets, but work towards them, and evaluate progress
towards them, with an understanding of how real improvement is accomplished.


      Eliminating target setting does not solve the problem -- it is merely
avoiding the problem -- which is ignorance of how to improve effectively,
and how to lead, coach, and evaluate such improvement. Targets are useful,
but dangerous -- just like electricity, automobiles, airplanes, etc.

 

Regards, Richard Zultner Richard@Zultner.com