Weighing In Every Day?

Want to lose a few pounds? How often should you stand on a scale and track your weight? “If there’s one thing that comes up over and over with the thousands and thousands of patients enrolled in the Nation Weight Control Registry, it’s that weighing yourself each and every day on a scale has helped people lose weight and keep it off,” says Rena Wing, Ph.D., founder of the registry which includes over 5,000 people who shed an average of 66 pounds and kept it off for six years. “You don’t need to obsess over ounces every day, but keep track of the range – within two or three pounds – of what you weigh,” says Wing.

The lesson is the same for court performance measurement. Once you have taken the first four steps of building a court performance measurement system (CPMS) and identified the right performance measures, it is time to make sure that the measures gets into the hands of the right people at the right time. How frequently should the data for each measure be collected and made available to potential users? When do they need it and how often will they use it?
Who needs the performance data provided by the core measures and subordinate measures in the measurement hierarchies? How will they use that data?

Developing data collection and reporting timeframes for a court’s core performance measure is critical. It requires two things. First, determine the ideal timeframe for availability and use of the performance data for each core performance measure. (If availability of the scale is not a problem, why not track your weight daily?) Second, consider feasibility and costs of data collection and display and to adjust the ideal timeframe accordingly. The result should be a timeframe for collection and distribution of measures that maximizes performance.

See:

Real-Time Performance Data, Made2Measure, March 3, 2006

Core Measures and Measurement Hierarchies, December 31, 2005

Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System, Made2Measure, October 15, 2005

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

Copyright CourtMetrics 2006. All rights reserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more

A Logic Model of Performance Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

Increasingly, the courts' stakeholders -- justice system partners, the general public, litigants, jurors, witnesses, and even the courts’ own court employees -- demand clear evidence that the resources courts expend actually produce benefits for people. Looking for this evidence starts early in the development of a court performance measurement system (CPMS) (see Step 2, Identifying and Defining the Performance Measures Needed and Desired to Help Achieve Goals, October 15, 2005 posting, “Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System”). For every strategic initiative, program or specific strategy, court managers should develop a simple logic model that describes how the initiative, program or strategy theoretically works to achieve the desired results from program inputs through end outcomes. Critical thinking and discussion of the logic of how a proposed program or strategy may bring about results that benefit citizens and the community can reap g
Read more