Employee Experience and Engagement Metrics
Employee experience and engagement metrics focus on “respect for people,” where people include individuals involved in the delivery of the process (e.g., staff and faculty, administrators responsible for the process, volunteers, external contractors).
Metrics Related to Employee Subjective Evaluations of Experience and Engagement. Examples of performance metrics related to subjective evaluations of experience and engagement include: assessment/feedback instruments targeting employee perceptions and attitudes collected immediately after participating in the LHE experience (e.g., post-RIE evaluations by team members); and employee surveys of attitudes (e.g., employee satisfaction, involvement, challenge, etc. with the current process in which they are involved).57 Follow-up structured focus groups and interviews may provide additional qualitative responses that can be summarized into a quantitative metric as well (e.g., Pareto Chart).
Financial and Business Performance Metrics
Financial and business performance metrics focus on issues such as cost, revenue generation, market share, and return on investment (ROI). They are often lagging indicators of improvements to a process since they generally occur later in time than the more immediate improvements documented through quality and operational metrics. As such, they are less indicative of change immediately following the RIE. In addition, one should be cautious that an overreliance on financial and business performance metrics does not inappropriately influence the RIE or the overall application of LHE (e.g., it would be “un-Lean” to reduce costs by overburdening employees or implementing unsustainable short-term changes to a process).
Metrics Related to the Cost of the Process. Examples of performance metrics related to the cost of the process include: cost per unit of service (e.g., the full cost of the faculty and staff hours involved in a grade appeal); and time savings (e.g., the decrease in the time required of the beneficiary and/or the provider by the process after implementing RIE solutions).
Metrics Related to Cost Savings and Cost Avoidance. Examples of performance metrics related to cost savings and cost avoidance include: personnel costs (e.g., salary and benefit savings from positions no longer needed due to process improvements that are eliminated following voluntary retirements/resignations is cost savings; expanding counseling services without having to add more staff is cost avoidance); space usage (e.g., savings from leasing fewer square feet of lighted and conditioned office space needed to deliver the service is cost savings; expanding services in the current footprint is cost avoidance); reduced cost/expenditure (e.g., a reduction in actual expenses such as the savings in paper and toner cost or printer/ copier leases is cost savings); and total costs (e.g., the discounted price of purchasing copy paper in bulk plus the costs of warehousing and moving the letterhead from warehouse to user).
Metrics Related to Revenue Generation. Examples of performance metrics related to revenue generation include: direct revenue generation (e.g., increased rental of campus space to outside organizations); and indirect revenue generation (e.g., increased tuition revenue attributable to a successful student retention RIE, increased grant overhead return due to RIE changes to grant application process that increased external grant dollars).
Metrics Related to Return on Investment. ROI performance metrics consider the benefits from the RIE (reduction in rework, reduction in cost per unit savings, time savings, etc. converted into dollars) relative to the University’s investment in conducting the RIE (e.g., team member wages and benefits during the RIE, team facilitator/mentor costs, space rental, direct and indirect costs converted into dollars). ROI can be conducted at the RIE level (i.e., a separate ROI calculation for each RIE) or a more macro level (i.e., an ROI analysis for the university-wide LHE program; see the University of Washington ROI discussion in Chapter 3). These analyses require agreement on how savings are calculated (e.g., using a common average employee salary when calculating savings from a reduction in process time) as well as the time period for calculating benefits (e.g., a 1-year period; a 3-year period with “depreciating” benefits of 100% in year 1, 66% in year 2, and 25% in year 3) given that some benefits will continue over time.
ESTABLISH METRICS FOR DOCUMENTING RIE IMPROVEMENTS: FRESHMAN MOVE-IN
The team facilitator and team leader reviewed the gathered information from beneficiaries and visits to other campuses to establish what beneficiaries value and expect from the freshman move-in process. These were used to propose metrics that would measure the benefits expected from an improved move-in process (e.g., a decrease in total time to complete move-in, fewer round trips to unload a vehicle, fewer problems with rooms on arrival, and improved satisfaction with the move-in experience by freshman students and parents).
Final Thoughts on Establishing Metrics for Documenting RIE Improvements
A large number of metrics are available, and even more can be created based on what beneficiaries value and expect. The choice of metrics will be different across RIE projects, specific to the types of improvement identified by beneficiaries, the team charter, etc. for the process under review. There should be agreement on a manageable set of metrics that adequately represent the breadth of the improvements to the process expected from the RIE. When at all possible, baseline data should be collected prior to the RIE to document improvements realized after the RIE is completed. The following considerations might be helpful when selecting or developing performance metrics for the RIE:
■ The performance metrics selected should include measures of what beneficiaries value and expect of the process
■ The performance metrics selected should include measures that reflect what different beneficiaries value and expect of the process
■ Specific and focused quantifiable measures will be more useful than general measures
■ Direct measures are generally more useful than indirect measures
■ Performance metrics can come from a variety of sources (e.g., archival data, monitoring the process, focus groups)
■ Performance metrics can include other measures important to the administration, but they should not dilute or deflect attention from the needs and expectations of the beneficiaries.