My client was a New Zealand Crown Financial Institution (CFI) that provided insurance cover for residential land, contents, and buildings damaged by natural disasters.
We needed a way to measure the performance of the contractor workforce to make certain the field work was properly completed and damage was being accurately assessed.
- “Quantity” was the only metric used to measure performance.
- There was no qualitative measurement.
- Ten small claims badly assessed was better than 2 large claims properly assessed.
We wrote an algorithm that extracted data from three separate SQL databases. We weighted data to generate a simple measure presented as three metrics: “Quantity, Quality, Consistency”. We delivered weekly automated performance management reports enabling a contractors performance to be tracked and reviewed for training opportunities.
It’s was a tough project. People don’t often like being measured. There was push back from field staff, team leaders, and operations managers.
“I spent time touring the field offices, meeting with the field staff and team leaders, explaining why we needed measurements, and eliciting their input into what they thought the important parts of performing the job were.”
At this point I had been contacting to this client for 6 years. I started in the field assessing claims. I had managed teams, managed field offices, and was the Workforce Planning Manager. I knew the job and the challenges.
We presented six Q&A sessions field offices containing 200-300 contractors. The first question I asked was: “Would you like to provide input into the way your performance is going to be measured?” This question was intended to ignite a fiery debate.
We were able to uncover frustrations and grievances. Once session took 2.5 hours! In the end we elicited requirements from the workforce about what they thought would be fair and reasonable performance measurements.
We wrapped it all up in a presentation for a workshop with the senior managers and were able to negotiate an agreed on measurement solution.
We took a contentious issue to the field workforce and asked for feedback from the people who were to be measured. We uncovered some “corporate performance” issues that we were able to repair.
My takeways is: “People don’t mind thier performance being measured, so long as they have a say, and the masurements are fair and reasonable”.