Policy Review and Course Correction

Why it matters

The purpose of a policy review meeting is not to defend past decisions but to make the next decision for moving closer to the shared goal. For this, it is not enough to show the goal and the realized rate side by side. Which implementation was actually completed, whether the impact assumption is valid and where the resource was used are also examined. Unfinished work, a wrong cause assumption and changed demand require different responses. Answering all of them with work harder prevents learning. The review starts from data produced with the same definition; result, factor and activity information are not used in place of one another. A negative result is information that makes the need for a decision visible.

In a quarterly evaluation the periods must be combined correctly. The simple average of rates from months with different order counts may not give the delivery rate of the whole quarter. The same problem applies to the goal. From each month's goal rate the targeted on-time delivery count is calculated; these counts are added and divided by total orders. The realized counts are combined the same way. That way it can be seen how many orders and how many percentage points the gap is. When calculating the monthly totals, check that the same order does not appear in more than one period. If there is a due-date carryover between periods or late recording, explain its effect; do not make a choice that makes the rate look favorable.

Activities being finished does not mean the strategic result happens on its own. If the implementation is complete but the factor has not changed, the design of the solution or the condition of its application is examined. If the factor has improved but delivery has not, other obstacles, a delayed effect or a wrong relationship assumption are investigated. If the implementation is late, the resources and preconditions are checked. These distinctions bring different decisions to the same goal gap. Bringing easy jobs forward to raise the number of completed projects can delay getting closer to the important result. At the end of the review, the work to stop, to continue or to rescope is chosen explicitly. The capacity of the next period must not stay invisible in the shadow of past commitments.

Changing the metric definition because the result is bad breaks the comparison. Moving the date of a late order forward and removing it from the period does not improve the delivery process. A real recording error can be corrected; but the rationale for the correction, the old and new values, the affected periods and the approval record are kept. If the metric is really not suited to the purpose, a new definition can be set up going forward and explained; it is not joined to the past series as if it were continuous. Changing the goal can also be the result of a resource and condition decision; it must not become a tool for hiding failure. Course correction is changing the work to be done in the future without rewriting the past. This distinction is the basis of reliable learning and accountability.

Formula