I have been asked to explain a little more about the ‘average’ approach from the book Performance Intelligence at Work that we Performance Intelligence at Worktalked about in the last posting. So here is an supplementary posting for you to consider.

I am a FreeCell addict. I am fascinated by the game and I play it more than I should, I guess. Since I am a performance measurement nut, one of the features I like about the game – part of the Windows basic package, for those who haven’t come across it – is that it keeps score. After each game – win or lose – you can check your cumulative score. This allows you to calculate your average – how you are performing at the moment in Dr Julie’s terms. I have played many thousands of games over the years, so what I do is play a series of 100 games, enter my percentage wins for that 100 games, then start again. The reason I do this is simple. After a number of games have been played, the winning or losing of one game has a minuscule  effect on my overall average. Even a run of 50 wins – which I achieve sometimes – has a tiny effect on a database of 5000, but is significant in a series of 100.

Over the years, my average has progressively risen till it now stands at 85.7. That means that for each set of 100 games I have played in 2009, I have won an average of 85.7 games.  Individual sets range from 78 to 94. At the end of my first year of playing FreeCell, my average score was only 79.3, so I am getting better. My average is rising.

The same principles I apply to FreeCell apply in the world of work, especially for routine activities – those that probably take up most of your day every day. This is especially relevant  to operations staff whose job outputs seem not to change from day to day. Take processing invoices, or insurance claims, or handling accounts, or making product.

Over the five years I have been addicted to FreeCell, I know my average has improved.  Has the processing performance of each of your staff improved over the five years that they have been working for you? And if not, why not? How many invoices are processed by your best performer as compared with the quantity of your worst performer? And – more importantly – is that person being rewarded for it, or is the person who averages 10 invoices an hour being paid the same as the person who processes 20? I suspect that if you check carefully, you will find that the latter is the case, which would naff me if I were the one processing 20!

There are major implications here for several areas of business

1. Reward
your better performers deserve more reward than those who do not perform as well. Simply relate the individual performance against the group performance, and the averages become clear.


2. Performance Improvement
Why is there a disparity in performance? How can the below average performers be helped to raise their average – and with it, the average performance of your department? Perhaps training is an answer, but perhaps it is a system problem. Ask the people who are doing the job. They will know.


3. Staffing
What if your company is intending to increase its customer base by 10% in 2010. Can your department cope, or will you work till 7 each night instead of 6? Do you need a 10% increase in staff, which may amount to 0.1 of a person. (Where do you find 0.1 of a person?)

Please consider these issues, and share your thoughts with our blog readers.