You are not a football team

Every week there is commentary in  the US press about the productivity of football (NFL and/or college) teams or individual players.

This is not productivity - it is about performance  ... but fails to use an output/input ratio ... the very essence of productivity.

Player performance is important - but US sport (or sports reporters) uses far too many spurious  statistics - and language that upsets a relative purist - the winningest team and so on.

They cite previous performances ands results between two teams as if it might have some bearing on the current matchup.

I am sure fans find it interesting ... I hope they do because a lot of resource goes into compiling these statistics ... but do they do harm.

I can image in a player on team X saying after a loss to team Y, "Well, its 27 years since we've beaten them - what do you expect?"  If you build a reputation, some players and teams will succumb to it.
Statistics are real - but can be used to motivate if applied and employed correctly.

Think before you apply measures - in football, and in business

Become a roile nmodel

Do you want an innovative organisation - a creative workforce?

If so, think about when you last had an original (or half original) thought. Not recently?

Well, if you can't think originally, why and how do you expect your staff to do so?

You need to be disciplined about thinking - and about adopting approaches and techniques that encourage creativity. You need to work at it - to practice those techniques and force yourself into situations where you have to think.  (I recommend looking at TRIZ - look  it up!)

When you start thinking, you can start encouraging your staff to do so.

What's it like being a role model? You are about to find out.

Examine the results

I have recently been writing assessments for students on productivity-related courses.  This is one of the more difficult exercises in academic life - and, of course, exceedingly important ...both for the quality of the qualification involved  -  and  for the future life of the students.

One of the advantages is that it makes you think carefully about what you are testing - and therefore about the content and makeup of the course.  Assessment is in some ways a summary of the course - setting out its main purposes.  The big distinction between different types of course is whether, on successful completion, students should know stuff - or be able to do stuff.  This reflects massively in the forms of assessment you can use. Testing 'doing' is much harder than testing 'knowing'.

I am much more interested in the 'doing' - after all I want people to be able to improve productivity, not know about improving productivity in theory.  I think the assessments we use are getting better at testing the 'doing' but our situation, and our testing, is complicated because wev are creating online courses - with online assessments.

I will improve - I review student performance on assessments and try to work out where the flaws in the assessment itself have contributed to poor performance.

What I am trying to do, of course, is to improve my productivity - not in producing more assessments in the same timescale (though that would be nice) but by improving the quality of the assessments - and thus the value offered to customers(students).

Think about this when you train - and assess the effectiveness of your training by formal or informal assessment.

Productivity pops up everywhere, doesn't it!  If you can't improve your own productivity, how can you expect to encourage and urge others how to do it?