Posted by Denham on March 30, 1998 at 07:02:04:

In Reply to: Re: Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Rewards for Performance posted by Robbert Northolt on March 30, 1998 at 03:09:36:

Robbert,

I do not think you will find a system that will work for all and which will be cheap and easy to implement. You are aware of the downsides of individual rewards and the bias of individual ratings, so waht is left is group consensus.

The difficult part is assigning value to what is shared and how it is shared. Counting contribtions gives rise to problems even if this is done at the level of concepts. Assigning value to individual contributions is a costly and time consuming exercise. Is a contribtion that is used by many worth more than one that benefits a single individual?, is a concept that is used directly for a client worth more that one used internally to learn?, What role does uniqueness and scarcity play?.

Most of the groups I work with have adopted a 360 review process, i.e. each person is rated globally by all the others and then grouped in to classes. We have found that ranking of individuals is not a stable measure and leads to many undesireable side effects and internal competition that breaks down trust.

One of my teams uses pairwise comparisons to make the rating process more fair. Included in their model is frequency, content, relevance, timeliness, originality, willingness and value to end customer. I'm not convinced this effort justifies the costs.

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Measuring Robbert Northolt 01:42:56 4/01/98 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: