RE: TARGET SETTING

["Dirk van Putten" <dvanputten@linear.com>]

Hello DEN:

Is it correct for me to recognize that some target setting is destructive
and some target setting is a "fact of life?" If so, how would I tell the
difference between fact of life targets and destructive targets that create
suboptimization?

Or do all targets create suboptimization no matter what type of target it
is?

What I am getting at is I am unbelievably impressed with the members of the
DEN. I look forward to my DEN e mails every day. They cause me to think and
wonder about life and systems. I love learning from the DEN. But I get
confused about the definitions of aim, goal, purpose, objective, mission,
target, etc. I really think that most of the world wants easy to understand
and easy to apply definitions for these terms. Or better yet, an easy to
understand principle about setting an aim or whatever you want to call it.

I had a conversation with my wife over the weekend while we moved. (By the
way, we didn't meet our target). She is a high school English teacher at a
public school. She is part of a school / education improvement group. She
asked me to review the group's mission statement. She asked, "What is the
difference between a goal and a mission?"

I am not sure the answer to my wife's question is in the minds of the people
of the system at my wife's school. What they need is easy to understand
principles that they can apply. Do they really need to debate whether a
sentence is an aim, goal, objective, etc.? I imagine someone well versed in
the differences in those terms speaking to the group. Right or wrong but I
think it would be minutes before eyes glaze over. To me the important thing
is the definition and understanding of a common aim; a constancy of purpose.

Who is our audience and what is there level of understanding? What is our
audience's need?

This also reminds me of some work being done on the amendment of ISO 9001.
One of the action items is to analyze the use of the terms “identification,”
“identified,” and “identifiable." Seems to me that it would be better time
spent working on the aim of ISO 9001, and more general issues with the
document. Does anyone really care what the difference is in these 3 words?
Does it requires a debate within ISO worldwide? I wonder.

Thank you, Dirk van Putten