Achievement Measurement

The frequently discussed criterion to improve business achievement and to actualize not only an advancement but constant advancement, presupposes that some apparatus or system actually exists to measure this achievement, as measurement is a necessary condition to control and advancement.

Auditors of management systems are tasked with reviewing the arrangements for managing the ISO Standard's requirement for improvement, and although a few organisations can be seen making the effort to improve performance, seldom is the process well thought through, and in the majority of situations can best be described as 'all show, no go'.

The requirement to define processes and their mutual relationships, despite good intentions, has taken away the attention from business goals, and therefore deranged any possible advancement enterprise. It has become the accepted practice of ISO auditors to ask for evidence of Process Measurement and subsequent improvement activities, and while this is reasonable and necessary, it is also counterproductive in that, like compliance auditing, it ignores the overall needs of the business to meet its objectives as defined within its business plans.

Auditors of a business structure will often spend considerable efforts with discussing and analysing the interconnected process idea of (ISO9001 4.2), without ever attempting to assess the 'value added' aspect of a process, or sub-process. Until a process can be seen to contribute value to the total system there is little point in attempting measurement and improvement. It is not the lot of the external auditor to do this, and generally internal auditors are ill-equipped to do so, and so measurement and improvement efforts continue in support of activities and processes that may add little or no value to the overall objectives of the business.

To maximize the benefits of process measurement and improvement efforts it is clearly necessary to perform some measure of process analysis to remove the 'no value added' aspect of work activity. For most companies, this alone will bring a measure of improvement. After this is completed, the application of performance measurement and possible improvement can be considered. Although, there is still the threat of measuring and maybe improving a work function that adds very little or nothing at all to the total goals of management.

Measurements and improvement efforts against the indices should not concentrate on the process, but instead focus on the top level business objectives. It is these performance measures that need to be supported, rather than local process performance. Too often we witness measurement of a process capability, and possible improvement in that capability that has no bearing on the overall needs of the business. There is, for example, no point in improving process cycle time when the real need is to reduce - say - costs, and there is already ample spare capacity available. Every business will benefit and claim to be striving to achieve reduced operational costs, and while this can be seen to be an objective in respect of scrap and rework (in manufacturing), seldom are the process measures concentrated on the cost of labour or their efficiency of work, yet these are amongst the largest costs of many operations, and will always be a consideration in corporate budgeting.

Until process measurement and improvement relates to the collective and corporate objectives of the business it will continue to be an activity put in place to satisfy the demands of ISO registrars, as opposed to the commercial interests of corporate stake-holders, and will consequently fail to interest local management or to produce any results worthy of recognition.

To sum things up with a process familiar to all management systems, specifically Internal Audit, I feel that there is just one measure of this activity that has considerable value, and it is "How well was an adverse audit finding received?With an answer that goes over only the apparent evidence, or is conflict orientated, the auditor has not completed an adequate job, and this method is accurate for any audit, internal and external. An effective measure here would be the length of time a problem remains open. The amount of negative discoveries should not ever be a metric of an audit system.