Seeing Connectedness Through Data

It is often said that we cannot improve what we cannot measure. It is true! That is like saying we cannot improve what we cannot see because data allow us to see where we are and where we could be. But there is more that measurement does. It directs and drives action and tightens accountability. It is not enough to see. It is equally important, if not more, to act on what we see.

If we see convincing evidence of a spike in our clients or customers and see an accelerating trend, we do not wait till the increase overwhelms our people, processes, and resources. We do not wait till our organization’s reputation for timely and quality service is in tatters and employer turnover is through the roof because of stress (distress in contrast to eustress) or sickness. Yet, hiring more people and throwing more resources may not be the best solution. By hiring more people, we may reduce the level of employee stress per unit of time all right, but we may have just prolonged the period of stress. We just “postponed” the stress breaking point and therefore, turnover. Resources (if available) should be provided at necessary levels to address a problem and not so we can tell stakeholders that we are doing something about the problem.

The obvious solution is often not the best solution! Throwing more resources may increase our organization’s effectiveness but it could diminish its efficiency. More creative solutions like re-structuring or role-redefinition (not by leadership taste and preference but as a result of analysis, e. g, job analysis) may fit the bill better.

But how can data help us see the depth and interconnectedness of things going on in an organization, especially in large organizations? First, we must be able to identify what counts or what matters and have a measurement for that. Not all that are countable count. If we are in a service organization, chatting or interviewing a client or customer can be counted but they do not count as much as service actually provided. Counting the number of chats with clients without actual service is not success. It may just lead to client complaints.

Second, we must recognize that a service or product has multiple dimensions or for purposes of quantitative analysis, “coordinates.” A product or service is a result of specific levels of skills, knowledge, resources, and processes put together to meet customer or client needs or requirements. If any of these factors are less than is required then either there is no service or product or if there is, it is not satisfactory for clients or customers. A product or service is a proportional embodiment of all those factors.

To make the interconnectedness of various organizational factors more visible or apparent, we can develop composite indicators to capture, or at least, “indicate” the multiple dimensions of a service or product. Composite indicators combine multiple indicators into single scores. For example, instead of the single indicators number of clients or customers served and number of employees, we can have number of clients or customers served per employee. Instead of the single indicators number of clients and amount of budget, we can have amount of budget per client.

What difference does the composite indicator make? In the example, they indicate productivity and efficiency. It allows one to quickly see whether employees are working beyond healthy productivity levels and whether the cost of serving a client is increasing. While the single indicators help us to spot effectiveness gaps, the composite indicators help us spot efficiency gaps.

We can develop a single composite indicator to indicate organizational health. Or we can develop a composite indicator for each vital concern, e.g., those in the Balanced Scorecard. With adjustment to a common measure, we can come out with a chart similar to the Wellbeing Wheel to track progress, but this time our organization’s wellbeing. Such a chart allows us to take a quick-glance assessment and monitoring of organizational health.

Also, the use of composite indicators reduces the number of indicators to track. There is a point when the number of indicators and data blinds us from what we need to see. There is a cost in storing and sharing data just like inventories. If we do not know what they are there for and we do not use them, instead of investments, data become expenses.