Each measure should be
| |
Relevant |
Does the measure attempt to capture success in one of the organisation's objectives?
|
|
What does the measure tell you about how the organisation is performing?
|
Able to avoid perverse incentives
|
Does the measure encourage any unwanted behaviour? (For example not reporting mistakes)
|
|
Could you improve performance against the measure without improving performance in real life?
|
|
Does the measure allow innovation? For example, does the measure discourage changing the way a service is delivered?
|
Attributable |
Can the measure be influenced by the organisation's actions?
|
|
Is it clear where accountability for the measure lies?
|
|
Is there an estimate of the degree to which the organisation affects the measure?
|
|
Could a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timed) target be set against the measure?
|
Well-defined |
Can the measure be expressed clearly, so that it is easy to understand?
|
| Does the measure have an unambiguous definition, so it can be collected consistently?
|
Timely |
Does the measure provide information in time for action to be taken?
|
|
What's the lag between the event and information becoming available?
|
|
Does the measure provide information frequently enough to track changes and take actions?
|
Reliable |
Is the performance measure accurate enough for its use?
|
|
Has the measure been checked by appropriate specialists? (for example statisticians, social researchers, accountants or scientists)
|
|
Is the measure responsive to change? Will it show significant changes in performance? Will the measure change because of random 'noise' rather than actual performance?
|
Comparable |
Does the measure allow comparison with past performance?
|
|
Does the measure allow comparison with other organisations delivering a similar service?
|
Verifiable |
Given the documentation could an objective outsider come up with the same results?
|
|
Does documentation exist so that the process behind the measure can be validated?
|