And so … I have just read an article which proclaims …
Failing xxxxx’s service taps into method that increases productivity by 200%, slashes time to repair from 333 days to 39, and gets shortlisted for yyyy award…all in 5 months
And they did it without:
- Extra resource
- Targets or
- Bonus schemes
Now as a seasoned analysis I can think of three causes for this transformation ……
- Luck – it is a real sustainable change but cause by some real factor, such as a lack of hard frost, which changed the requirement
- Noise – the change has happened but is not sustainable and next year the figures will be up again
- The 96%
The 96% effect … you ask.
Well many years ago as a software manager I was greated with a new software product whose performance was a 96% reduction on what went before. As an early graphics package just drawing a pie chart led to a program – 96% of which was a copy of standard libraries in each and every such graph. Anyone who knew about development would know not to fall into this beginners trap.
So the 96% improvement could be seen as either an endorsment of the new way or an indictment of the old way. And anyone who was competent in the area would appreicate the different.
So my plaudits to the team that brought about this chnage, but my caution against people who see this as managerial pixie dust. Was it that whatever went before was really bad. If so, and with such a low starting point, then anything, really everything work.
Your choice?????
