Key figures in focus: The underestimated difference between process and result figures

At the beginning, it should be briefly explained when and why such uncertainties can occur in projects or when working with management systems. A typical occasion is an upcoming certification. But even without this pressure, the question often comes up: “Do we now also need process indicators? ”

As experienced consultants, our clear answer is: Yes, key figures absolutely belong in the toolbox for management and management. We have already discussed in detail how to derive them sensibly in other articles. Here, however, we want to focus on what happens when the question simply starts with “Yes, we seem to need that. So let's set a few key figures so that we can show something” is answered.

This answer may seem a bit overly shirt-sleeved. But exaggerations are often closer to reality than you think and sometimes help to make facts clearer.

If there is a lack of experience with process indicators, managers often tend to look at terms from the process map and set indicators spontaneously — usually those that are already collected in everyday business life. But what is often the result? This often results in measurements that relate more to the overarching subject area and only rarely have a direct connection to the actual process.

A prominent example of various sales processes is the key figure “sales per year” or, for a service delivery process, the overall development of the results of customer satisfaction surveys. Is that wrong? This would perhaps be too extensive. There is no question that there are logical connections between, for example, an offer preparation process and the turnover achieved or a product approval process and customer satisfaction. However, it remains highly questionable whether the named key figures are actually also suitable for measuring the quality of the respective process or the loyalty in its implementation. If we look at the logic backwards — i.e. not thinking of the process in the direction of the result, but vice versa, the result is a clear picture (Figure 1).

When asked what factors influence a result to be achieved, the viewer gets the picture that there are several parallel ones here:

• The quality of the process

• Loyalty in process compliance (compliance)

• Adequate staffing capacity

• Competence and experience of the implementing persons

• Equipping yourself with equipment

• Management and coordination

• etc

Figure 1 is strikingly limited to processes, personnel and resources. From observation, it is clear that the pure Result key figure (turnover) only provides indirect information about how efficient or effective the underlying process is. In order to develop and implement the corporate strategy, it certainly makes sense to check which processes contribute to which results (turnover, customer satisfaction, employee turnover, overhead costs, etc.) in order to have an appropriate sense of strategy when managing the respective processes. But we are not yet meeting the facts of a Process key figure.

Is there a clear order or hierarchy in terms of how process, personnel, and resources affect the outcome? Even though we know cause-effect relationships at company level through methods such as the Balanced Scorecard (a strategy and management method for linking goals and key figures), no generally valid logic can be assumed here.

Depending on the process object and process context, various main success factors can be derived. A model distribution could look like the following, for example:

• Service management: Strong focus on the personnel component

• Industrial production: Strong focus on the resource component

• Standardised support: Strong focus on the process component

It is important to mention that, despite different weighting, all factors more or less always work at the same time. A good process is therefore an essential development framework even for highly trained personnel or optimally adjusted machinery.

It can be concluded from this that deriving key earnings figures is just as valuable as establishing cause-effect relationships that are specifically geared to the desired outcome. Both the underlying processes and the corresponding resources and staffing must be considered. However, the derivation of process indicators should be incorporated into this cascade and substantiated with an appropriate methodology. We recommend the Deriving process indicators by identifying critical success factors.

‍