Metrics_ How to Improve Key Business Results - Martin Klubeck [65]
Denzin's four types of triangulation aren't an exact match to the different types that I use for metrics—and that is partly due to the nature of the use of our results. While Denzin is giving guidance for sociological research that has the purpose of finding deeper truths within his field and having those truths debated and challenged within the scientific community in journals and experiments—our needs (yours and mine) are much simpler and more practical.
______________________________
1 Norman K. Denzin, Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1970).
The need for different investigators is relatively unnecessary in my field, although it is critical in the field of research to avoid bias in the analysis. I agree with having different data sources, different perspectives, and different methods. I refer to perspectives as viewpoints. Let's now look at my version of triangulation.
Triangulation as a Practical Application
In 2003 I developed a concept of using multiple measures to construct a comprehensive metric. I was developing a metrics program for my IT Department and I needed to create a complete story that answered two questions posed by the top executive officer. His first question was: “How are you doing?”
He was inquiring about the health of our IT organization. A simple but driving question. It created not only a set of metrics, but it sent me on a journey that culminated in documenting many of the methods and theories that I've captured in this book.
The executive's second question was a great companion to the first: “How do you know?”
I think I liked these questions more for their simplicity and directness than anything else. They drove our organization toward a viable, practical metrics program.
Triangulation of Measures
I focused on the Effectiveness quadrant of the Answer Key (Figure 7-1), choosing to qualify the question as being from our customers' point of view—because the executive asking it was our top-level customer. While the executive may have cared about how efficiently we were conducting our affairs, his first primary concern was how well we were serving our customers.
Figure 7-1. The Answer Key
When I developed the metrics to answer these questions, I knew it was critical to produce an answer that would be accepted as accurate. Besides the need to have controls around the collection and analysis, I needed a basic construct for the metric.
I knew the quadrant. I knew the possible measures that would fit (or at least a starting point). I also knew how to test the measures for alignment with the Product/Service Health quadrant.
But to ensure we gained a comprehensive picture, I fell upon triangulation—the use of three or more measures to answer the question. In the case of effectiveness, we identified the primary ones—Delivery, Usage, and Customer Satisfaction—from the Answer Key, as shown in Figure 7-2.
Figure 7-2. The Product/Service Health quadrant
Rather than select one or two, I determined that we should use all three, which would provide a fuller picture. Each measure had different characteristics in their sources and methods of collection.
Delivery addressed the need for objective measures of how well we provided our services and products. This measure would capture data on our effectiveness without customer involvement. The best source would be the trouble-tracking and reporting tools used by the IT department. One of the benefits of metrics is that it highlights tools you are already using.
By using the data from these tools, it drove the units to capture the data more accurately and frequently