One of the defining
characteristics of Kaufman's work is his emphasis on "need" as a
noun, not a verb; it is a gap in results and consequences, not a gap in
resources or methods. Kaufman explains when "need" is used as a verb,
it presupposes a solution before identifying the actual problem to be solved.
When using 'need' as a verb, an intervention has been selected prior to a clear
definition of the actual gap in results that would be addressed. Once a gap, or
need, is accurately identified, only then can a means be sensibly selected for
moving from current to desired results.
Kaufman expanded
this approach to "need" from looking at gaps in products to gaps in
outputs and then outcomes: from building block results to results delivered
outside the organization to external client and societal results - what the
organization used, does, produces, and delivers and the consequences all of
that adds measurable value for our shared society. Used in this way,
cost-consequences estimates may be made to prioritize closing gaps on the basis
of the cost to meet the need as compared to the costs to ignore the need.
Kaufman identified
three types, or levels, of needs: Mega, Macro, and Micro.[6] And Change, Choices,
and Consequences published by HRD Press. The following table details
the levels of needs and their definitions.
Name of the
Organizational Element & Level of Planning
|
Brief Description
|
Outcomes/Mega
|
Results and their
consequences for external clients and society
|
Outputs/Macro
|
The results an
organization can or does deliver outside of itself
|
Products/Micro
|
The
building-block results that are produced within the organization
|
Processes
|
The ways, means,
activities, procedures and methods used internally
|
Inputs
|
The human,
physical, and financial resources and organization can or does use
|
These levels of
needs are also levels of planning for any organization and indicate a
relationship between the levels. Alignment of objectives at each level is
critical to ensure that planning translates into clear organizational
operations and ensure that activities at each level add value back up the chain
linking measurable to societal value-added.[7] As a consequence, no level of
results is any more important than the others. Rather, it is the alignment of
all levels that is critical to achieving desired results.
Extensive examples
of planning and aligned objectives can be found in Moore, 2010 and Moore,
Ellsworth & Kaufman, 2008.[8]
No comments:
Post a Comment