無(wú)形資產(chǎn)計(jì)量外文翻譯-文庫(kù)吧在線文庫(kù)
【正文】 can usually be done with simple inter searches. If methods do exist, assess whether any of them are appropriate, as not all of them will be useful to you. If no appropriate method seems to exist, a new one has to be designed. For both existing and newly developed methods, you need to assess whether it?s possible to collect meaningful data and whether that data will help to answer your questions. It is also important to assess whether the resultant data warrants the costs and efforts of measurement, which can be significant. If no meaningful data can be collected or it?s not really helping you to answer the KPQ or if the costs are not justified, it is necessary to rethink and design different indicators. Once you have decided on an indicator, you should then identify the measurement instrument。 and the reporting formats. Let?s consider how an organization might apply the above approach in practice. A bluechip pany, InterCorp, wanted to measure its partnership with its key supplier — an important intellectual capital value driver. Initially it didn?t design KPQs and instead tried to find the quickest and easiest way to obtain some data. It did a little research and identified a firm that specialized in partnership evaluations and had designed a generic questionnaire. InterCorp outsourced the collection of partnership data to this firm, which started to conduct the survey twice a year. “The aim of performance measures should be to provide meaningful information that helps to reduce uncertainty about intellectual capital and enables us to learn. Measures ought to help us make betterinformed decisions that enable us to improve our performance.” Initially, InterCorp was pleased with the service, since the firm provided detailed reports containing graphs, tables and trend analyses on about 50 different questions. While on the surface, InterCorp seemed happy with how things were going, the partners were telling a different story. They felt that a lot of unnecessary data was being collected, which took them a lot of time and effort. It became clear that all of the data InterCorp was collecting was interesting to know, but that was it. Not one decision had been based on the survey data over the past three years. InterCorp went back to the drawing board and identified the question it really wanted to answer. The KPQ it came up with was: how well are our partnerships progressing? It then considered what data would be needed in order to answer the question and the best collection method. After some deliberation, it agreed that the best solution was to ask the account managers for their assessment of relationships, which wouldn?t require a long survey. InterCorp designed a system that automatically ed a simple form to the account managers with only two questions: ?How would you assess the relationship with Company X? and ?How well is the partnership with Company X progressing?? 6 Next to the questions, the form included scales. Initially these had ten tickboxes ranging from ?very bad? to ?very good?.These were later refined to threepoint scales: ?problematic?, ?indifferent? or ?positive? for the first question and ?worse than before?, ?the same as before? and ?better than before? for the second question. The form also included a field for a written ment. Account managers are now asked to assess the partnership by ticking a box on the scale and providing a short explanation of why they made that particular assessment. InterCorp realised that it might get a biased view if it asked only the account managers, so it ed a version of the form to its partn
畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1