Case Unit 06: Revising the Performa

Case Unit 06: Revising the Performance Appraisal System at Victoria Hospital
Recently Victoria Hospital, a thoroughly modern hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, had a thoroughly modern problem. Its performance appraisal system was rapidly becoming an insurmountable pile of papers; and with 1,325 employees, the HR staff recognized that changes were needed.
Performance appraisal forms can range from a simple sheet of paper to very lengthy and complex packets. Victoria performance appraisal system had evolved over the years into a form with about 20 pages per employee. Although some of the length was due to concerns about meeting numerous State and health-care industry requirements, other facets of the system had been developed for administrative reasons.
The existing performance appraisal system was based on a combination of job descriptions and a performance appraisal. In addition, health-care accreditation requirements necessitated using a competency management program focusing on employee development and education. As a result, Victoria had combined the competency profiles with the job descriptions and performance appraisal forms. To complete an appraisal on employees, supervisors and managers scored employee performance on formal weighted criteria and then summarized the information by compensation and benefits class. Those summaries were reviewed by upper-management for consistency, as one would expect. The overall performance appraisal process was paper-intensive, slow, and frustrating because it required a total of 36 different steps.
A steering committee was formed to oversee the process of changing to a better performance appraisal system. The committee established that it was crucial for the new system to better fit the needs of those using it. Also, the committee wanted the system to use more technology and less paper. Based on these general objectives, brainstorming was conducted to find bottlenecks and identify what the ideal auto mated process would look like. At this point, the committee understood the current systems and what key users wanted. After reviewing literature on performance appraisal systems, surveying other hospitals, and looking at software packages, the committee decided it would have to design its own system.
The option chosen consisted of moving the numerical criteria scores from the individual pages of the job description to a summary sheet that provided for scoring up to six employees on one form. Then total scores were calculated by the computer. Also, written comments were moved to a summary sheet dealing only with exceptions to standards.
The most difficult part proved to be the design of the database. It had to be designed from scratch and had to interface with existing HR systems. A software program was written to do the calculations using data already in place, and another program was written to do the calculations. The new process reduced the paperwork from 20 to 7 pages per employee. Supervisors and managers were given the option of using computerized comment sheets. Another time-saver was the ability to use the system to record and document noteworthy employee performance incidents, both positive and negative in nature, as they occurred throughout the year. This documentation feature eliminated the need for a separate note-keeping system that many managers had been using.
To implement the new performance appraisal system, training for supervisors and managers was crucial.
When the training program was developed for the new system, all 97 supervisors and managers were required to attend. During the training, attendees were given a sample package with appraisal forms, a checkoff time line, a resource text, and directions for using the on-line performance appraisal forms.
To determine if the original goals had been met, the committee developed an evaluation form. After the new appraisal system had been in use, an evaluation revealed that 90% of the supervisors and managers felt that the process had indeed been streamlined. The new process was viewed as easier to understand, a significant reduction in paper had occurred, arithmetic errors were prevented, and the appraisal information was clearer and more concise.
The next year the committee reconvened to examine the first year of operation and identify areas for improvement. Since then minor revisions have been made in the performance appraisal system, updates on computer hardware and software were undertaken, and data screens have been simplified for management users. Also, efforts have begun to fully automate the performance appraisal system. In summary, the revision of Victoria performance appraisal system met its objectives.
Questions
1. Which purposes of performance management did the appraisals described in this case fulfill? Which purposes did they not fulfill?
2. What are performance appraisal methods used at Victoria Hospital before and after change? Explain why their new performance appraisal system is more likely to result in more accurate performance appraisals.
3. Evaluate Victoria Hospital’s old and new performance appraisals on the basis of five criteria for effective performance management.
4. Describe some of the advantages and disadvantages of combining job descriptions, performance appraisals, and competency profiles for development as Victoria did.
5. What are possible types of performance measurement rating errors associated with the old and new performance appraisal methods used at Victoria Hospital?

Results (English) 1:

Case Unit 06: Revising the Performance Appraisal System at Victoria HospitalRecently Victoria Hospital, a thoroughly modern hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, had a thoroughly modern problem. Its performance appraisal system was rapidly becoming an insurmountable pile of papers; and with 1, 325 employees, the HR staff recognized that changes were needed.Performance appraisal forms can range from a simple sheet of paper to very lengthy and complex packets. Victoria performance appraisal system had evolved over the years into a form with about 20 pages per employee. Although some of the length was due to concerns about meeting numerous State and health-care industry requirements, other facets of the system had been developed for administrative reasons.The existing performance appraisal system was based on a combination of job descriptions and a performance appraisal. In addition, health-care accreditation requirements necessitated using a competency management program focusing on employee development and education. As a result, Victoria had combined the competency profiles with the job descriptions and performance appraisal forms. To complete an appraisal on employees, supervisors and managers scored employee performance on formal weighted criteria and then summarized the information by compensation and benefits class. Those summaries were reviewed by upper-management for consistency, as one would expect. The overall performance appraisal process was paper-intensive, slow, and frustrating because it required a total of 36 different steps.A steering committee was formed to oversee the process of changing to a better performance appraisal system. The committee established that it was crucial for the new system to better fit the needs of those using it. Also, the committee wanted the system to use more technology and less paper. Based on these general objectives, brainstorming was conducted to find bottlenecks and identify what the ideal auto mated process would look like. At this point, the committee understood the current systems and what key users wanted. After reviewing literature on performance appraisal systems, surveying other hospitals, and looking at software packages, the committee decided it would have to design its own system.The option chosen consisted of moving the numerical criteria scores from the individual pages of the job description to a summary sheet that provided for scoring up to six employees on one form. Then total scores were calculated by the computer. Also, written comments were moved to a summary sheet dealing only with exceptions to standards.The most difficult part proved to be the design of the database. It had to be designed from scratch and had to interface with existing HR systems. A software program was written to do the calculations using data already in place, and another program was written to do the calculations. The new process reduced the paperwork from 20 to 7 pages per employee. Supervisors and managers were given the option of using computerized comment sheets. Another time-saver was the ability to use the system to record and document noteworthy employee performance incidents, both positive and negative in nature, as they occurred throughout the year. This documentation feature eliminated the need for a separate note-keeping system that many managers had been using.To implement the new performance appraisal system, training for supervisors and managers was crucial.When the training program was developed for the new system, all 97 supervisors and managers were required to attend. During the training, attendees were given a sample package with appraisal forms, a checkoff time line, a resource text, and directions for using the on-line performance appraisal forms.To determine if the original goals had been met, the committee developed an evaluation form. After the new appraisal system had been in use, an evaluation revealed that 90% of the supervisors and managers felt that the process had indeed been streamlined. The new process was viewed as easier to understand, a significant reduction in paper had occurred, arithmetic errors were prevented, and the appraisal information was clearer and more concise.The next year the committee reconvened to examine the first year of operation and identify areas for improvement. Since then minor revisions have been made in the performance appraisal system, updates on computer hardware and software were undertaken, and data screens have been simplified for management users. Also, efforts have begun to fully automate the performance appraisal system. In summary, the revision of Victoria performance appraisal system met its objectives.Questions1. Which purposes of performance management did the appraisals described in this case fulfil? Which purposes did they not fulfill? 2. What are performance appraisal methods used at Victoria Hospital before and after change? Explain why their new performance appraisal system is more likely to result in more accurate performance appraisals.3. Evaluate Victoria Hospital old and new performance appraisals on the basis of five criteria for effective performance management.4. Describe some of the advantages and disadvantages of combining job descriptions, performance appraisals, and competency profiles for development as Victoria did.5. What are possible types of performance measurement rating errors associated with the old and new performance appraisal methods used at Victoria Hospital?

Results (English) 3:

案例06：修改单元在维多利亚医院
最近维多利亚医院绩效考核制度，一个全新的现代医院在杰克逊维尔，佛罗里达州，有一个彻底的现代问题。绩效考核体系是迅速成为一个不可逾越的一堆文件；并拥有1325名员工，人力资源人员承认，
变化是需要的。绩效考核表的范围可以从简单的纸非常漫长和复杂的数据包。维多利亚的绩效考核体系已逐步演变成一个约20页每员工表。虽然一些的长度是由于遇到众多的国家和医疗保健行业的要求有关，系统的其他方面已经制定了行政的原因。
现有的绩效考核体系的基础上结合的工作描述，绩效考核。此外，医疗保健的认可要求需要使用能力的管理程序，注重员工的发展和教育。作为一个结果，维多利亚有结合能力分布与工作描述，绩效考核形式。对员工的全面评价，监事和经理的得分的加权标准正式员工绩效，然后总结了信息的薪酬福利类。这些摘要进行上层管理的一致性，一个希望。整体绩效考核过程中的纸张密集型的，缓慢的，和令人沮丧的因为它总共需要36个不同的步骤。
督导委员会，形成监督转变为一个更好的绩效考核体系的过程。该委员会的建立，以更好地适应那些使用它需要新的系统是至关重要的。也，委员会希望系统使用更多的技术和更少的纸。基于这些总体目标，头脑风暴法进行了瓶颈，找出理想的自动化过程的样子。在这一点上，该委员会了解当前系统和关键用户想要什么。通过对绩效考核系统的文献，调查其他医院，看着软件包，委员会决定将要设计自己的系统。
选择包括从职位描述：提供得分最多六名员工在一个表格汇总表的各个页面移动数值标准分数。然后由计算机计算的总得分。也，书面意见被转移到一个表中只处理异常的标准。
最困难的部分是数据库的设计。它必须从头开始设计，必须与现有的人力资源管理系统的接口。一个软件程序已经使用的数据进行计算，和另一个程序来做计算。新工艺减少文书工作，从20到7页每员工。主管和经理给出了使用电脑的意见表选项。另一个节省时间的是使用系统的记录和文件注意员工绩效事件的能力，在自然的正面和负面的，因为它们发生的一年。本文档功能消除了对单独的注意保持系统，许多管理者已经使用的需要。
实施新的绩效考核体系，监事和经理的培训是至关重要的。
当训练程序开发的新系统，所有97个主管和经理被要求参加。在训练，与会者进行了示例包的评价形式，一个相关的时间线，一个资源的文本，并使用网上绩效考核形式的方向。
确定原来的目标已经达到，该委员会制定了一个评价表。在新的评价系统已在使用，一项评估显示的主管和经理90%觉得过程已被精简。新的过程被看作是更容易理解，在纸的显着减少发生，算术错误预防，和评估信息的清晰和简明。
明年重新审查委员会运作的第一年，找出需要改进的地方。自那时以来，次要版本已经在绩效考核系统，对计算机硬件和软件进行数据更新，和屏幕已为用户简化管理。同时，已经开始努力完全自动化的绩效考核系统。总之，维多利亚绩效考核制度修订了它的目标。
问题
1。而绩效管理的目的是在本案例所描述的评估完成？它的目的，他们不满足？
2。在维多利亚医院改变之前和之后的绩效考核方法是什么？解释为什么他们的新的绩效考核体系是更可能导致更准确的绩效评估。
3。探讨维多利亚医院的旧的和新的绩效评估的基础上的五个标准进行有效的绩效管理。
4。描述了结合工作描述的优点和缺点，绩效评估，和权限范围发展为维多利亚是
5。绩效评估评级错误使用的维多利亚医院的旧的和新的绩效考核方法相关的可能的类型是什么？