Measuring LO LO7860

Michael McMaster (Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk)
Thu, 13 Jun 1996 06:19:08 +0000

Replying to LO7833 --

I have two responses to Marilyn's questions about measuring learning
that I think extend it a bit. Both are based in having some theory
of learning against which to create measures.

The first is that we look to the results that, by our theory we would
say, "Learning has occurred if these have occurred." Increases in
productivity without increases in capital input might be an obvious
one. (We might even attribute increases in productivity WITH new
capital input - especially that incremental bit above what other
users attain.) Other measures such as creating new products/services
without new "core competencies" or capacities might qualify. Or
increasing speed of successful response to clients or to breakdowns may
be another. % of new products in the sales mix is one used by 3M.

The second area, also requiring a theory against which to test, might
be measuring that the components or processes of learning are
actually happening. (These combined with the above make a powerful
case.) The rate of proposal and testing of new theories or
approaches might be one. The number of contacts with "outside"
practitioners might be one. The number of hours spent in seminars or
specific learning activities conducted by ones own employees for
other employees (or maybe for outsiders) may be another.

We have come to suspect the latter type because they can be perverted
to do or appear to do what doesn't make any difference. In my
observation, these "perversions" are merely intelligent human beings
doing what makes sense to them in the system. In a fairly well
integrated system, people do not twist it but apply their
intelligence to the ends of the system because it makes sense to
their own interests and views.

For example, in a different area, Gil Amelio in the early days of
turning around National Semiconductor granted the power to spend $200
to every employee without approval. Did costs rise as many feared?
No. They went down immediately. Why? Apparently because, when no
such responsible, intelligent expenditure could be made it appeared
to an intelligent employee that they should request more than they
needed and hoard scarce and potentially needed resources. When they
could order as required, they used up their hoards and spent only as
required in the moment.

Michael McMaster : Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
of the universe. Heraclitus

-- 

Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>