Speaker A I want to try the couple try to hit the couple of things that weren't hit. I had other things I was going to hit. And you're going to just we'll just go through them. Okay. It all right. Talking about measures, one of the things that I was concerned with that we haven't really talked about here at this point is well, first is we can take measures by counting things. I think what Alf did, in one sense, we saw the details of how we generate the relationships and what those relationships are. And we saw some really good approaches to how you summarize the impact of it from how big an impact is that. And one of the things I'm very interested in is how do we create within this body of people ways to compare across organizations so that we can generate language and we can generate methodologies where if Holste's organization says, these are the numbers, you would agree with it. And we begin to get confidence. And I think we need that so that we can tie into the economic community and, you know, these numbers are reasonable, that this is a value of an organization. Now, one of the ways to do that is if we begin to put economic measures into some of these things, and one of the ways we could do it that would be easy for us is by applying felt fair pay rather than the actual compensation within the organization. It also makes it easier to if you're going to let's suppose you had a website where members of that website could publish their information blind, but have access then to the information of other organizations. And that's something we might be able to do at a societal level, but.
Speaker B It'S all the benchmark data.
Speaker A Well, that's what it is. That's what I'm getting at. Yeah. Okay. And I think that would be extremely valuable because I don't have the satisfaction that we've seen enough data that ties the organizational structure, specifically, which we can measure in value with results, with economic results. We have some data. The data that I have looking at 1000 roles. Now, in the quest for common language, how do we talk about role to role or design issues within the organization? Is the organization designed so that every role reports to a role, a different stratum person to manager relationship, which you posted about. This is a fit and this is not a fit. And person to role relationship are all the kind of things that we're playing with. And those numbers are nine organizations. And how let me see how requisite those organizations were or how antirequisite they are. So here you had, out of 980 people, 166 roles with poor design. In other words, we designed the roles with wrong relationships, 380 people with relationship with their manager being problematic. Just really repeat of what you were showing. Now, what gets interesting is various ways to present this information. I identify people as underutilized, slightly underutilized. Underutilized means they're a stratum lower than or their stratum higher than the role in the stratum, higher than the role. Slightly underutilized says they're in the same stratum, but they're not fully utilized. Their role is below them in the same stratum requisite stretched. They're in the right stratum, but they're not up to their role. Over committed means they are over their head. So that would be one way to represent the graphic representation always gets interesting because here we're saying that that red line which is over committed is impacting the whole business. So you got one person in stratum one, and that one person is over committed. You had a business disaster in this situation. It was not a good situation. So where the problems are is an issue and there are ways we might represent it that we easily can get a handle on where the problems are. This is a separate organization and just looking at it, you get a feel for which one do you think is running better? Okay, then I tried another approach is I said let's suppose we take felt fair pay. And I have some formulas on how I did that. You can take felt fair play, apply it to a role and say that's the value of the role. You can take felt fair play and pay and apply it to a person's potential, which is what potentially you could get. And here I looked at two manufacturing organizations and basically the blue says match to manager, enroll requisite match to manager but over role, which implies that the manager is over the role also. But it means you have a healthy relationship situation in that situation, if you look at it and then the numbers, those are millions if you look at it from a percentage standpoint now you kind of get a feel for the two organizations economically. How are the two organizations equated in the goodness of their organizational structure? Let's see same information. Okay, then I was thinking in terms of measurement, goal type things, and I just put this in a balanced scorecard kind of basis saying what's your strategy? Minimize the instance of mismatch between individual potential and complexity of role. Okay. Target each person is assigned to a role that's close, I said within a third of a stratum to what their capability is. Measure could be percentage, current position where they are, end of the year mismatch. So there can be structural goals like that. Now, one of the things that we found in practice is it's not all that easy to change these numbers. Okay? I don't know if that's been your experience. They were more durable than we expected and harder to change. Management was resistant to make that scale of a change in a short period of time. All right, if you then say let's look at across organizations. Here's an example of different size organizations doesn't tell us a whole lot. But if we move over and look at it as percentages, we really see some differences in the structure of the organization. So basically, here's my point. If we could get common definitions, because these relationships, we're all using the same ones. I mean, you both talked about the same relationships, get agreement on what we're going to call them, and then when we do our Valuing, if we choose to use felt fair pay as a methodology, then we could all use felt fair pay. And as an organization we could say, okay, this is one X, and agree what one X is for this year. And now we've got a whole bunch of people that are now coming in alignment in the measures that they're making.
Speaker B Healthcare pay and time span are the.
Speaker A Only two measures of that kind. That's all we need.
Speaker B Yeah, that's all we need. If you were in the pharmaceutical field, no one would play around without using them. I mean, that's for sure.
Speaker A Okay.
Speaker B A doctor that is not using the diagnostic tools that are available to detect the cause of the disease or would try to deal with the symptoms, is that so?
Speaker A Here's an example of the same organizations, and there's the range of percent of situations that were good or bad by the model that we just looked at. All right, any comments or questions? I think we're opening.
