These include but are not limited to operational performance management (OPM), business performance optimization (BPO), corporate performance management (CPA) and enterprise performance management (EPM). Despite the difference both operate on one principle which attempts to increase the efficiency and profitability of the organization right up to the optimum level.

In order to achieve this aim, the organization has to muster all its resources whether it is human capital or technology aids with the overriding aim of reducing costs, increasing output and growing profits. The challenge is getting all departments to understand their work in times of increasing efficiency and profitability. Many of them will have vested interests and their own agendas. The institutional culture that you have encouraged in your company will also have an impact in terms of the extent to which staff members are willing to join your efforts at performance management.

Evidence shows that performance management process does go hand in hand with change management. In order to prioritize the company’s core objective, there will have to be significant period of organizational change. Where there is change culture resistance is not far off. It will take a lot of work to get the whole organization to work in sync. The larger the organization the greater the complexity of effecting change.

Performance management by its very nature seeks to create minimum performance standards. It can create rewards and sanctions depending on the level of compliance. The strategic nature of its operations means that it often takes precedence over the day to day routine. It also creates a fear of management as people may believe that their jobs are being restructured and will eventually disappear from the payroll.

Performance management is a process and not just an incident. It is imperative that there is a continuous assessment in order to ensure that the changes and performance standards are not a one-off administered in haste but part of a well planned strategy to improve performance. Staff members should be encouraged to record the results of their own work and review their own performance in line with the standards that have been set.

There is always a risk that business performance management is created and supervised as a top-down activity. This is an approach that is likely to attract the stiffest resistance from members of staff who may feel that they are being dictated to by management. Rather efforts should be made to ensure that even the lowest employee believes that performance management is in their best interests. If they are to do well then the rewards will go to them in terms of promotion and better conditions.

There is a debate to be had about whether the government should be involved anyway. However the limits of this article do not allow for such extensive debate. Needless to say there is a general consensus that the Information Technology systems existing in many healthcare systems across the world are quite expensive and often do not meet the needs of the end users.

There have been various examples of government departments or private companies commissioning large business IT systems to administer healthcare only to later discover that these are either inappropriate or way over budget. The government sectors are particularly notorious for this. They get sold on by smooth sales people who juggle management speak for the benefit of bored managers.

Just to get an easy life, the IT system is commissioned anyway. This is despite some opposition from a lower ranked employee who, knowing how the business works on a day to day basis, will already have worked out that the new IT systems will not be able to deliver the kind of service that is required. When that employee begins to experience problems with the IT system, they are reprimanded for being resistant to change.

Once the complaints grow then the IT system is temporarily withdrawn until further investigation. Either the whole thing will be shelved or the company will join the vicious cycle of organizations that have to update or replace inappropriate technology systems.

This is the type of scenario that is played out like some tragedy over and over again. For some this is costly and unacceptable in such a sensitive industry that affects the personal lives of millions of people. Where it is government funded, this sort of business IT mismanagement takes resources away from other critical activities and reduces the scope of coverage when attempting to deliver healthcare services. What then is the solution for preventing such problems or dealing with them once they have overcome?

One of the more persuasive suggestions is that all stakeholders should be involved in selecting new information technology. There will be a divergence of need between a clinician, an administrator, a senior manager and a patient. Even the IT technician will have their own perspective as to what needs to work. Rather than selectively consult with just one among the many groups, it is far better to consult with them all. It might take a bit longer than would normally be required but the end result is that healthcare IT systems will be durable and appropriate to the people who use them.

The first thing to recognize that process means that activities are interrelated. The negligence of one part will lead to the collapse of other parts. The need to keep a strategic perspective to any activities will become even more acute if there is a particular problem with a process that requires undue attention from the managers. If a consequence of this attention is that other parts of the project fail, then it will show a lack of attention to the idea of strategic oversight.

The manager cannot be expected to know every aspect of a business process but what they must know are the implications of that process on the business. You can get away with not knowing what something is as long as you understand the role it plays. Subordinates will be able to assist in getting over the detail. The responsibility for executive action over process links is a serious matter.

Structure also has a role to play here. The manager does not need to dictate every single convolution of a business process. However they could be well advised to create a template of minimum standards to which each team can work. The lack of structure has been known to work very well amongst creative people but given the importance of business performance management, this approach is less desirable. Therefore as a minimum the various aspects of the organization should be structured enough to at least be able to communicate and work with other departments.

Managers need to be aware of the evolutionary nature of business processes. This is a necessary progression for them to either cope with change or as a result of innovation by different members of the organization. The manager should not be in a mindset where they have a prepared negative answer to any form of request from the teams to change the processes. This sparks of traditionalism and failure to consider that innovation can be harnessed even during a performance management exercise.

On the other hand the manager also needs to be weary of those employees who change things just for the sake of changing things. They will suggest innovations that add little value to the business but create an awful lot of trouble and work for everyone else. Others might be on an ego trip and will be looking to impress managers with their endless proposals for improvement. The key is to strike a balance between allowing genuine innovation to flourish and preventing unnecessary shocks to the existing business systems in the name of giving overzealous employees an energy rush.