8

Evaluation standards: simple rules for quick decisions

Rules and standards for modern companies
Why does evaluation, the aspect that concerns the employee most of all and that is vital for
proposal activity, so often hinder the development of this activity? The following reasons are
commonly found:
1. The evaluation standards are too complex.
2. Proposals are not reviewed and evaluated quickly enough
3. On proposals that have been quickly reviewed and evaluated, no decision is made.
4. Too many important aspects must be taken into account.
That is why employees to often hear the response that their proposals are being reviewed or
that someone is looking at it. This usually means that even perfectly functional and useful ideas
are simply piling up on someones desk. In this age of rapid change everywhere, companies can no
longer make do with such sluggish methods. They must be able to solve problems right away;
innovation that takes time is useless. They must review, evaluate, and make, decision on
proposals on the day they are made; only then will they be able to energize their managerial
strategy .
The types and styles of companies in business today are becoming diversified. The ratio of soft
businesses such as services is increasing in relation to manufacturing. Proposal evaluation
standards must be designed to reflect the diversity of the age. Companies with very active
proposal movements have adopted flexible measures that respond to rapid changes. Companies
whose systems are lagging behind the modern approach are quickly becoming obsolete. It is
essential to use a system that is fast enough to meet requirements of the modern era that
evaluates proposal quickly, promptly determines adoption, and implements ideas. The most
important characteristic of a continuous improvement proposal system is simplicity.
Evaluation standards must match the purpose
Many companies use evaluation standards like those shown on page 127. They often include
evaluation points such as efficiency, novelty of ideas, or effort. Each of these categories is
assigned a certain number of points; the total score will determine the grade or class of the
proposal and the corresponding award amount.
Unfortunately, this method is time consuming and confusing for reviewers. To give an example,
even when reviewers gain sense of the proposals worth on first reading, they must still go
through the motion of assigning the points to arrive at the grand total. Thus a proposal that they
know should get only a minimal award will sometimes end up with a total that would garner a
larger award. Then reviewers must erase everything and waste time in another fruitless exercise
to make the point total come out right, trying to make the basic evaluation standards agree with
the rating they think appropriate.
A partial solution to this problem is the quick evaluation chart shown on page 129. This is a
simplified set of instructions explaining classifications of proposals and giving guidelines for using
it.
This chart consists of three levels of evaluation, which correspond to the three objectives a
proposal:
Participation: taking notice of problem areas
Development of skills: generating innovative ideas for countermeasures
Effect: getting results through implementation of the proposal
The participation objective
Participation consists in struggling with work related problems. This is something every
employee is capable of and should be expected to do. A proposal system is designed efficiently for
this purpose. If such a system is to function properly, however, the object and manner of proposal
evaluation must be defined.
The submission of a proposal usually indicates the following.
There is a problem
Someone took notice of the problem and alerted others to it
Someone came up with an idea for solving the problem
Thus, a proposal indicates that the innovator is acting in a positive manner to solve work related
problems. Even if the process ends there, this participation should de appreciated.
There are, of course, various levels of participation. Participation is always influenced by prevailing
attitude in the workplace and in management. It can also de influenced by factors that the
participants are unaware of. Is such cases it is especially valuable if these factors are pointed out in
the form of a proposal.
The skill development objective
While participation can mean simply pointing out a problem, skill development requires devising a
solution to the problem, that is, making an improvement proposal.
there s more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes. There are an infinite number of
ways to solve a single problem, and solutions can be made on various levels. This level depends in
part on the extent of
The understanding of present conditions
The effort to determine the causes of the problem
The study of kaizen teian ideas and countermeasures
The analysis of the potential effect of the implemented proposal
If you are able to see only the present circumstances, the countermeasures you design will
correspond only to the circumstances that are obvious to you. If, on the other hand, you delve into
the cause of a problem, you will be able to submit a creative proposal with countermeasures that
will eliminate this cause.
Evaluation standards traditionally included the item called original idea under the category
called effort. This is because a high level of original thinking reflects and presumes investigation,
research, study, and other activities that involve effort. Originality is also measured by structural
factors such as the concreteness of the proposal and the possibility of implementation.
Certainly it takes ingenuity to come up with proposals that area as inexpensive as possible and
that can be implemented as easily as possible. If there were no limits to the amount of time and
money available, anything at all would be possible, but sheer originality is not by itself a measure
of a proposals worth. More important criteria in determining the level of originality a proposal are
concreteness and possibility of implementation. Only if these traits are present does a proposal
express a high level of original thinking.
The effectiveness objective
The effect that we are evaluating is the substantial effect tangible or intangible of the proposal
once it has been implemented. Only proposal that have been implemented can be evaluated for
their effect.
The distinction between proposals that have not been implemented and those that have is
reflected in the awards system. Payments made for detection of problems and for originality
represent at investment in the training of talented employees, whereas payments made for
effect are considered as compensation for the merit of the proposal.
The distinction is an important one. As said before, even a brilliant idea has no merit unless it is
put to use. This is why proposals that have not yet been implemented should be evaluated only on
their perceptiveness and creative thinking, not on their effect.
What the level of a proposal means
The sections for the bonus payment guide in the quick evaluation chart are arranged in this order:
(1) effect, (2) originality, and (3) detection of problems. These dimension of a proposal are
reflected in the evaluation.
Perceiving a problem has little value on its own, although not perceiving a problem is worse,
signifying that the worker has not progressed beyond the level 0 mentioned earlier the level
characterized by lethargy, indifference, and irresponsibility.
For workers in level 1, the detection of problems level, the hope is that the same workers who
noticed the problem will ask themselves how to fix the problem. Even if they submit only a crude
proposal, they will have progressed to the next level, that of creative thinking. In a level 2
proposal, we are also evaluating a positive attitude and motivation, examining study and research
activities, a necessary part of the process that hones problem solving skills.
On the other hand, the best idea in the world cannot have any effect if it is not implemented. An
implemented proposal one that has an effect is thus always on a higher level. To implement a
proposal, the proposer must obtain permission from supervisors, and must persuade colleagues to
cooperate or help. That requires a lot of effort and work and is another distinguishing factor
between proposals that are untried and those that have been implemented.
The four levels of proposal activity were introduced in chapter 7. The figure on page 133 describes
the objectives and the meaning of the award payments, at each of these levels.
If all I do is notice things (and point out problems), I may be terribly clever, but I will earn no more
than a participation award, around $100 (less than $1). If I also submit a proposal for improving
the problem, whatever it is, the award is upgraded by one level to $200 or $500 (approximately
$1.50 to $3). If this proposal is not implemented, however, my idea, clever as it is, can earn no
more than $500.
Once an idea is implemented and has an effect, an award will be paid corresponding to the effect,
such as $1000 or $2000 (approximately $6 to $12). If an implemented proposal has a major effect,
the award payment may be larger. The precise amount of payment can be determined by
standards prepared especially for these cases or through discussion among reviewers.
In any case, prompt action on proposals is the key to a successful improvement activity. If the
review process takes too a long, or has to be handled by some committee of important people,
the improvement activity will never get off the ground. If a proposal has to go to a committee for
first evaluation, the decision might come after the writers job as changed. It is essential to
implement useful creative improvement ideas as soon as possible.
There is no point in managers spending a long time deliberating whether a proposal should receive
$500 or $1000 (on the level of $3 to $6). For awards payments of $1000 or less, managers should
make a quick decision, saving their time and energy to develop and implement peoples ideas.
A proposal form that starts with effect
In the sample proposal form shown on page 135, the first section to be filled in is entitled effect.
This section is followed by other sections, titled originality (innovativeness, creativity) and
problem detection (observation). Although it may seem to be arranged in reverse order, this
form is used by many corporations.
There are several reasons for beginning the form with effect.
1. One of the basic rules of business is start with the results. A proposal form is no
exception to this rule.
2. It is natural to introduce a proposal by describing the effect it will have, since an intended
effect is what prompts employees to write proposals.
3. The reviewer should know of this anticipated effect from the beginning. Then, he or she
can use that as a basis for grading the proposal or providing further guidance.
The fact is that many proposal are organized in a way that makes them difficult to understand.
Writes tend to focus on the background to the problem, arranging details haphazardly, chaotically
intermixing description, interpretation, complaints, and suggestion. The reviewer is left hopelessly
confused.
To begin with the anticipated effect, however, is to put all ensuing information into context. Once
the anticipated effect is stated, the concept of the proposal is easily explained in the originality
section, which follows. After these sections have been filled in, there is little need for a lengthy
description of the problem itself. Another advantage to this form is its sideby sideplacementof
the problem and the proposed solution.
Using self evaluation for efficiency
The proposal form include two of the quick evaluation charts introduced on page 129. The first
chart is completed by the employee, thus serving as a self assessment of the proposed
improvement. The initial reviewer then completes the second chart as part of the evaluation.
This aspect of the proposal form also has advantages:
1. It makes clear what the employee is suggesting
2. It expedites the process of review and guidance by seting out our reasons for writing it:
We want to point out a certain problem
We want to have our own ideas evaluated and adapted
We want others to acknowledge the effect of our improvement
All these concerns of the proposal writer should be taken into account and specifically evaluated
by the reviewer. The reviewer should appraise each specific area of the proposal, since he or she
has to respond to the proposal. If the employees self evaluation and the reviewers evaluation are
identical, there is no need for a detailed commentary. In such cases, the points that the employee
wants others to acknowledge are clearly validated.
On the other hand, if there is a discrepancy between the self evaluation and the reviewers
evaluation, some commentary and further guidance will be necessary. Even if the employee is
convinced of the proposals worth, his or her supervisor must still study factors such as its safety,
its cost effectiveness, and its influence on the next stage of the process.
Conversely, it is also possible that a proposal given little value by the employee will prove to be a
great idea fromwhich the entire company will benefit. This too requires commentary and specific
feedback.
Rules for business improvement proposals
Proposal systems can have several possible objectives, including
Product development and improvement
Establishment of a new enterprise
Improvement of an existing enterprise
Although the first two categories garner the most media attention, the third category in fact
contributes the most to strengthening the corporate structure. True business improvement takes
place through continuous daily implementation of small improvements at the employees own
worksite, using the creative ingenuity of each person.
To efficiently manage a proposal system, the management should make it clear which of the
categories it considers most important. If it fails to do so, there will be differences of opinion
among the people who promote the proposal activity, as well as among the rank and file
employees. This will create unnecessary confusion and discontent.
While it is natural for different people to have different objectives, the results of these differences
will be that regulations, standards, organization, and methods of management , which represents
the means to achieve these objectives, will also differ.
One example of a strategy for clarifying the objectives of proposal systems is shown on page 139.
This strategy has the following characteristics:
Improvement activity is considered part of a persons actual job and thus is expected of everyone.
The most important are those made I a persons own job.
Implemented proposal should be promoted especially actively. Employees submit these to their
direct supervisors, making them an occasion for on the job training
Proposals for other departments are considered reference proposals;they are treated as useful
only as a second opinion. This helps to prevent unnecessary disappointment and also saves time
and labor.
How to appraise a reference proposal
The reference proposal concept is a most important new approach. This is a response to the fact
that proposals for other departments are the source of bottlenecks in the evaluation and
implementation system.
Most conventional proposals systems are initially swamped by a large number of proposal for
other departments. It is said that the spectators understand the game better than the players and
indeed, it is easier to see other peopleserrors than to see you own. That is why outsiders
sometimes do come up with creative proposals that present fresh and original concepts.
The problem with this free ranging approach is what to do once these ideas are collected.
Submitting proposals is one thing, but someone has to review them and decide whether to use
them. The reality is that most ideas submitted through such a proposal system will remain
permanently under review.
To stay competitive, however, companies should not ignore proposals from other departments.
Rather, each department should actively gather information on a daily basis and remain open to
various points of view, opinions, and ideas, which takes a lot of effort and energy. They should
accept proposals from people working in other fields gladly and with gratitude, provided that
these people are seriously trying to make work easier and more efficient.
Proposal and opinions that come from outside the department represents valuable reference
material and should thus be treated with great respect. On the other hand, the truth is that much
of such material will not be useful even for reference; that accounts for the stck response of
were looking into it.
It is probably also true that only when each department is able to resolve its own problems, is is in
a good position to assess proposals from outside. Once it has reached this stage of proficiency, the
department can develop new kaizen activities easily.
It is fine to be able to say anything to any other department, but unless improvement activity in
ones own department is in very good shape, a person can hardly bring about progressive
development in the company. This is one reason why kaizen activity encourages proposals that
represent implemented ideas of company employees. Such an approach makes it obvious where
the real emphasis of improvement activity should be.
No matter how modest a proposal may be, its implementation is a great boost for the morale of all
the employees. This is an example of strengthening the structure. To strengthen its position, a
company must develop improvement skills in each department and create an atmosphere
conducive to improvement activity.
Business improvement, which is the main target, can be achieved only if the improvement activity
involves close cooperation between subordinates and their supervisors. It would be nonsense to
create a system for submitting improvement proposals directly to a management committee,
circumventing direct superiors. Moreover, a manager would be foolish to approve a proposal
without first consulting the writers supervisor.
On the other hand, bosses are human too, and they have their own prejudices and fixed ideas. It is
important to have some mechanism to prevent the harm that could come from such behavior.
One possible way is to maintain a system of direct appeal to upper management, but only as a
supplementary system.
Rules and standards that are used in one corporation are not always applicable to another
corporation. They must correspond to the actual state of things at each company. If there is any
common denominator, it is to keep the rules of proposal activity simple so that people can refer to
and use them easily.