The first article in this series on performance management within the fleet division discussed the overall benefits of implementing performance management systems. These benefits include increased transparency and accountability, management of operations, allocation of resources, and financial planning.
It also discussed the various types of performance measures often used in the municipal or public setting including workload performance measures, efficiency performance measures, effectiveness measures, and productivity measures.
This second part of this series focuses on the process of developing performance measures by examining various criteria and characteristics to consider while creating metrics. Creating performance measures without criteria is akin to navigating without a compass. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s also without direction and prone to error. Criteria provide structure to performance measurements, ensuring they meet the needs of the fleet division and are aligned with organizational goals. They also enhance comparability and support continuous improvement, making them an integral component of the performance management development process. By using criteria, fleet divisions can transform performance measurements into powerful tools for accountability, decision making, and long-term success.
It’s important for fleet supervisors to develop performance measures using clear and well-defined criteria because criteria function as the foundation that ensures the measures are fair, accurate, and meaningful. Without criteria, performance measures risk being arbitrary, inconsistent, or irrelevant. This article explores commonly used criteria to develop performance measurements within the fleet division.
1 Photo by ShutterStockStudio/Shutterstock.com.
CRITERIA
Valid: First and foremost, performance measurements must accurately measure what they are purporting to measure. A valid performance measure must accurately capture the aspect of performance or outcome it was intended to evaluate rather than something tangential or unrelated. For example, a valid performance measurement within the fleet division might be the number of oil changes completed per month, assuming the goals is purely to measure output. Validity ensures that performance measures are not just convenient statistics but are actual measurements of whether the fleet division is achieving its intended purposes.
Relevance: Performance measures should matter and be meaningful to the intended audience. They should be clearly related to the activity being measured. While performance measures can indeed be valid and reliable and meet all other criteria identified in this article, if the measurement isn’t relevant to the audience, it is worthless. For example, a valid and reliable measurement of the average sick time use within the fleet division is not likely relevant to the general public, who are more interested in the status of apparatus rather than the inner workings of the fleet division. As such, a measurement of sick time is not relevant.
Reliable: The best performance measurements are accurate, with little variation because of subjectivity. They are consistent and reproduceable, provide stable indicators of performance over a period of time across different situations, and are free from bias. Reliable performance measurements are quantifiable or otherwise qualitatively assessed by using proper data collection methods. An example of