Participatory productivity management

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Participative Productivity Management ( PPM ) is a by the US motivation psychologist Robert D. Pritchard method developed specifically to promote the productivity of teams. This productivity management was first introduced in the USA in 1983 as the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) and has since been tested and evaluated in a large number of projects in various countries.

Classification of the approach

The approach is related to methods from quality management , such as the balanced scorecard , but expands the idea to include key motivational psychological aspects such as goal setting, feedback and the participation of employees in developing performance indicators. In a direct comparison between balanced scorecard and PPM, PPM must certainly be given preference.

particularities

The focus of the PPM method lies in the intensive participation of employees in the design and maintenance of the system and direct feedback of the results to the work group or the individual employee.

Another special feature of the PPM approach are non-linear contingency or evaluation functions. They indicate how much of an indicator is how good for the overall goal achievement of a team or an organization.

application

The PPM method has been used successfully in many different application areas, countries and project groups. The results show that PPM is a stable and successful method for increasing group performance. PPM has also been widely used in German-speaking countries. In addition to projects from the field of production, results from sales, administration and simple and complex services are now available. A recent study by Roth showed that PPM is particularly successful with complex and knowledge-intensive services .

In a meta-analysis with a total of 83 studies, average effect sizes of d = 1.2 for less knowledge-intensive services (n = 30) and d = 2.4 for projects with knowledge-intensive services (n = 9) were achieved. According to Cohen, values ​​above 0.8 are classified as strong change effects. The data obtained as part of the analysis from 83 field experiments with a duration of at least nine months thus show clear effects of the measure. The meta-analysis also shows that working groups belong to the top 10% after the PPM intervention. These successes continue and are possible in various branches and application areas, such as trade, administration, industry, services and also in competitive sports.

The meta-analysis clearly shows how ProMES leads to these performance effects: Variables that have a positive influence on the effectiveness of the system are the extent to which one orientates oneself on the original scheme for carrying out a PPM intervention, and the quality of the feedback. The effectiveness is negatively influenced by frequent changes to the measuring system. It was astonishing that some sizes, such as For example, trust, number of employees, fluctuation, complexity, management support or the stability of the environment in which a company operates do not affect the effectiveness of PPM. Conclusion of the meta-analysis: A company can catch up with the best in terms of its productivity if PPM or ProMES is used.

The 6 phases of the PPM

According to Pritchard's theory of motivation, motivation is highest when a clear connection between effort and the result of the effort can be perceived. The development of such a connection and thus a PPM system requires six specific steps / phases.

1. Development team
2. Collection of areas of responsibility and objectives
3. Creation of the indicators
4. Creation of the evaluation function
5. Baseline / trial phase
6. Feedback period

Phase 1: development team

In the first phase, a development team is formed. When composing such groups, it is important to ensure that there is a common task in which all group members work. As a rule, a team is made up of employees from the respective organizational unit (e.g. employees from production), representatives from higher management levels (e.g. foremen, department heads) and one or two moderators who are familiar with the PPM method.

Phase 2: Collection of the areas of responsibility and objectives

The start of work in this second phase of the PPM system begins with the group drawing up a complete list of the specific tasks and areas of responsibility of the employees. These are collected and described in detail. The completeness of the tasks is particularly elementary. Likewise, that only tasks are included that can be directly influenced by the employees and that consistency with organizational goals is observed. The result of the collection is usually a comprehensive list with 40–60 entries mixed together. This consists of activities, tasks, goals and requirements. The later specification of this list is part of a joint discussion in which the tasks are summarized, structured and generic terms are formed. This summary of the task areas in clusters is absolutely necessary for the following phases, because they form the basis for the creation of indicators and evaluations.

Phase 3: Creation of the indicators

In this phase, the indicators are created by which the achievement of certain services can be recognized and measured. The indicators serve as measurement parameters. Indicators also form the basis for the measurement system so that the evaluation function can be set up in the next phase. At least one indicator must be determined for each task area. After the indicators have been determined, they are quantified by the employees. The quantification can be based on quantity, quality or time. Important requirements in this phase are:

  • the conscious ability of employees to influence the indicators,
  • the determination of indicators, which is done without great effort
  • the importance and comprehensibility of the indicators on the part of the employees.

If one of the prerequisites is not met, it can lead to the rejection of the PPM and thus reduce work motivation. After the indicators have been determined, the first coordination with management takes place. For this it is necessary that the indicators are accepted and supported by the management so that this model can be implemented successfully. In addition, the indicators must be incorporated into the goals and plans of the organization. Here, the indicators must correspond to the company's goals, because they represent the interface between the strategic and operational levels of the organization. If there is a successful coordination, the PPM becomes a navigation tool for increasing productivity. The indicators serve as a basis for determining the goals of the employees, on which they will orientate themselves. This coordination takes place not just once, but is carried out permanently. The indicators are now weighted. It forms the basis for the systemic measurement of productivity. The weighting creates a connection between the performance provided and productivity. The interval (in this context also called range) that an indicator can take is characterized by three values: maximum value (best expected performance), minimum value (worst expected performance) and normal value (expected value in normal cases). After the ranges for all indicators have been determined, the indicators are compared with one another in terms of their importance. This is done because each indicator makes a different contribution to overall productivity, which is assessed by the achievement of corporate goals. The aim here is to estimate the significance of the individual indicators and their effects on the productivity of the group. The range of values ​​extends from −100 (negative influence) to +100 (positive influence).

Phase 4: Creation of the evaluation function

The indicators with the associated ranges and productivity values ​​serve as the basis for creating the evaluation function. There is a function for all indicators. The visual representation provides a better understanding of the existing relationships between group performance and productivity. The slope of the function reflects the importance of the indicator. A steep slope indicates a large impact of change in performance on this productivity indicator. A slight incline, analogously, has a small effect.

Phase 5: baseline / trial phase

In the last two phases, the designed system should be implemented and its functionality checked. In the baseline or trial phase, the concept is submitted to management for review and approval. When a consensus has been found and all disagreements have been resolved, the measurement system can be regarded as complete and can go into the actual "practical test". In this 5th phase data on productivity are collected with the help of the developed system. The primary aim is to test whether the indicators have been realistically assessed and whether the system can actually be implemented in practice. All data is collected over several weeks so that it can then be used for possible modification of the indicator ranges. This procedure is very important, since the benchmarks until then are usually only based on estimates. To ensure a secure database, the trial phase usually lasts two to three reporting periods. In order to protect the results from falsification, the data obtained are not communicated to the working groups during this time. This is to ensure that the workgroup cannot work with the data yet and that all tasks are initially completed without feedback. In this way, productivity data that are as real and genuine as possible are to be generated in order to create a good basis for comparison, on which the changes caused by the PPM can possibly already be shown at this point in time.

Phase 6: feedback period

At the end of the trial phase, a team meeting is held promptly, which initiates the feedback period and includes the first actual feedback on the data collected. Each team member also receives a feedback report for joint evaluation. One or two members are appointed to create the feedback reports, who then compose the data in writing together with the moderator. At this point, raw values ​​are jointly counted and converted, productivity points and graphics are created for easier analysis. For the feedback sessions, it is important that all members participate. At this point, it is important, among other things, to convey to employees that data analysis is by no means about checking work performance, but rather about developing a basis for effective self-control. During the meetings, the overall productivity is usually considered first. Then the individual values ​​of the indicators are considered. Ways to improve performance are sought here. The report contains the changes from the previous period and the expected values ​​determined after the baseline. In this way, the improvements, deteriorations and the causes are analyzed. In order not to make the measurement periods too long and confusing, the sessions are usually carried out every two weeks or every month. All upstream phases of the PPM work towards achieving the best possible results in this final period. Because this ultimately includes the goals and purpose of the implementation of such a management system. The work processes and productivity data are continuously evaluated through regular feedback. In this way, the PPM can react quickly to changes and adapt and improve productivity.

swell

Essays
  • Arndt Hoschke: PPM - the management system for modern work organization in production, service and administration. In: Uwe Kleinbeck, Klaus-Helmut Schmidt, Wolfgang Werner (ed.): Productivity improvement through goal-oriented group work. Hogrefe Verlag, Göttingen 2001, ISBN 3-8017-1492-6 , pp. 71-83.
  • Robert D. Pritchard, H. Grossmann: Measurement and improvement of organizational productivity. The participatory productivity management (PPM). In: Heinz Holling, Frantz Lammers, Robert D. Pritchard (eds.): Effectiveness through participative productivity management . Hogrefe Verlag, Göttingen 1999, ISBN 3-8017-1492-6 , pp. 1-43.
  • Robert D. Pritchard, Melissa M. Harrell, Deborah Diaz Granados, Melissa J. Guzman: The productivity measurement and enhancement system. A meta-analysis. In: Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 93 (2008), ISSN  0021-9010 , pp. 540-567.
  • Robert D. Pritchard, Anthony R. Paquin: Measuring and Increasing Productivity in Organizations. In: Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 41 (1997), No. 3, ISSN  0932-4089 , pp. 157-163.
  • Colin Roth, Klaus Moser: Participatory Productivity Management (PPM) for complex services. In: Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie. Vol. 4 (2005), No. 2, ISSN  1617-6391 , pp. 66-74.
  • Colin Roth, Klaus Moser: Performance management of groups for knowledge-intensive services. In: Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie. Vol. 8 (2009), Issue 1, ISSN  1617-6391 , pp. 24-34.
  • Daniel Sodenkamp, ​​Klaus-Helmut Schmidt, Uwe Kleinbeck: Balanced Scorecard, Success Factor-Based Balanced Scorecard and Participatory Productivity Management. A comparison. In: Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie. Vol. 1 (2002), No. 4, ISSN  1617-6391 , pp. 182-195.
  • Harrie F. van Tuijl, Ad Kleingeld, Klaus-Helmut Schmidt, Uwe Kleinbeck, Robert D. Pritchard, Jen A. Algera: Measuring and enhancing organizational productivity by means of ProMES. Three practical implications. In: European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 6 (1997), ISSN  1359-432X , pp. 271-301.
Monographs
  • Jacob Cohen: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . 2nd Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale 1988, ISBN 0-8058-0283-5 .
  • Heinz Holling, Frantz Lammers, Robert D. Pritchard: Effectiveness through participatory productivity management . Hogrefe Verlag, Göttingen 1999, ISBN 3-8017-0842-X .
  • Uwe Kleinbeck, Klaus-Helmut Schmidt, Wolfgang Werner: Productivity improvement through goal-oriented group work. Hogrefe Verlag, Göttingen 2001, ISBN 3-8017-1492-6 .
  • Robert D. Pritchard: Measuring and Improving Organizational Productivity. A practical guide. Praeger, New York 1990, ISBN 0-275-93668-6 .
  • Robert D. Pritchard (Ed.): Productivity Measurement and Improvement. Organizational case studies. Praeger, New York 1995, ISBN 0-275-93907-3 .
  • Robert D. Pritchard, Uwe Kleinbeck, Klaus-Helmut Schmidt: The PPM management system. Increased productivity through employee participation. Beck, Munich 1993, ISBN 3-406-35884-5 .
  • Colin Roth: Participatory Productivity Management (PPM) in high-tech and knowledge-intensive services. Results of a study at an international market research company . Publishing house Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 2007, ISBN 978-3-8300-3289-2 .
  • Colin Roth, Daniel A. Schmerling, Nick C. Koenig, Brandon L. Young, Robert D. Pritchard: Enhancing Performance in Sports Teams With ProMES. Poster Presentation at the SIOP annual conference, Atlanta 2010.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Pritchard: Measuring and Improving Organizational Productivity: A practical Guide. 1990.
  2. Pritchard et al.: The PPM management system: Through employee participation for higher productivity. 1993.
  3. ^ Pritchard: Productivity Measurement and Improvement. Organizational case studies. 1995.
  4. Holling among others: Effectiveness through participative productivity management. 1999.
  5. Kleinbeck et al: Productivity improvement through goal-oriented group work. 2001.
  6. Sodenkamp among others: Balanced Scorecard, Success Factor-Based Balanced Scorecard and Participatory Productivity Management - A Comparison. 2002.
  7. Roth: Participatory Productivity Management (PPM) for high-tech and knowledge-intensive services. 2007.
  8. Pritchard et al: The productivity measurement and enhancement system: A meta-analysis. 2008.
  9. ^ Roth & Moser: Performance management of groups in knowledge-intensive services. 2009.
  10. Roth et al .: Enhancing Performance in Sports Teams With ProMES. 2010.
  11. Pritchard & Paquin: Measuring and Increasing Productivity in Organizations. 1997, p. 157.
  12. a b Hoschke: PPM - the management system for modern work organization in production, service and administration. 2001, p. 73.
  13. Pritchard & Paquin: Measuring and Increasing Productivity in Organizations. 1997, p. 158.
  14. Hoschke: PPM - the management system for modern work organization in production, service and administration. 2001, p. 75f.
  15. Hoschke: PPM - the management system for modern work organization in production, service and administration. 2001, pp. 76-78.
  16. a b Hoschke: PPM - the management system for modern work organization in production, service and administration. 2001, p. 82.
  17. Hoschke: PPM - the management system for modern work organization in production, service and administration. 2001, p. 81.
  18. Hoschke: PPM - the management system for modern work organization in production, service and administration. 2001, p. 82f.
  19. Pritchard & Paquin: Measuring and Increasing Productivity in Organizations. 1997, p. 160.
  20. Hoschke: PPM - the management system for modern work organization in production, service and administration. 2001, p. 83.