When we have people and orgs do things for us, we need ways to rate them. So we can pick who to have do what, and how much to have them do. And how we evaluate suppliers matters a lot, as they put great effort into looking good according to the metrics we use.
I think you're missing a risk variable, which is why it appears anomalous to you that Results based evaluation is seldom used. Most buyers would love to pay only for Results, but most Suppliers refuse.
Because not only is it that "action is risky, not always reliably producing desired results" but also articulation - risk arises from the inexact articulation.
That's two risk variables to multiply your expected return by.
Yes, "The more aspects of what we want that we can articulate and verifiably measure," the more we can use Results. Sales and commission is a classic example.
But with anything subjective - a painting, happiness, child rearing - as a Supplier, you not only run the risk that your action may not produce the desired results, you also run the risk that the Buyer will claim the result produced does not match what was desired.
How do you know you settled a lawsuit for the best deal? You don't, so you go with Prestige. Is it any wonder that class-action lawyers that work on contingency have such low Prestige?
How do you know someone will care for your child the best way? You don't, so you go with Loyalty. Is it any wonder that babysitters have such a bad reputation with respect to infidelity?
How do you know someone will make you the most happy? You don't, so you go with Record. Is it any wonder that people so easily bore of paid substitutes.
And procedures? Procedures are not about producing results. They are about getting people to accept the outcome.
How do you deal with results being good for one provider in normal times but unwilling to bite the bullet and provide results in bad times? Some companies, organizations, and individual signal loyalty in a way that makes it worth giving up some results in normal times. Moreoever, some are better at gaming any results based measures. Consider China. Many were happy to take the tradeoff of lower quality for cheaper prices. But now the foreign policy externalities of dealing with China are being revealed, and long after many industries have disappeared entirely from the domestic market.
Sure. I don't mean to say that paying for results is strictly inferior to the other methods. I just mean to say that, for practical purposes, there are often good reasons to use the other methods.
You can still apply constraints and evaluations on process and product, then still only pay for the results. Like that’s how I buy food at the grocery store which is eg certified organic
The problem with paying for results is that people often don't know the quality of what they're getting. If I eat a chicken burger that's filled with super unhealthy trans fats, it'll taste great and fill me up- it'll appear to be a great food I should pay a large amount for. But, a professional, whether appointed by the government or that I follow through a prestige network, could inform me the chicken burger I'm eating is actually bad and I should not want to eat it unless I'm starving.
What are you willing to give up to spread these ideas? This seems no different from any other economic or social meme one might want to spread. How have others succeeded recently?
Gay rights and universal healthcare have clear particular victims. Tax the billionaires has villains…
You could villainize hospitals more, pointing at vague invisible asset managers as the ones that encourage excess treatment and high pricing. You could find particular people who were ‘tricked’ into unnecessary treatment and destroyed their health or their livelihoods.
People like ideas that have been tried already, especially by sexy countries. Could find a few particular examples of successes of paying for results. Then suggest this is proof the idea would work everywhere. (Shipping prisoners to Australia is one salient example in history.)
Would be helpful to have a small unattractive group that especially hates this idea. Could just act at if there’s one if you don’t have one yet. Surely they will manifest eventually anyway.
This is all tongue in cheek obviously.
It’s a shame that our public dialogue is not more inclusive of broad spread out effects and distant temporal things…
To appeal to trump types and maybe other conservatives, you could say that consumers have gotten a bad deal and we need to renegotiate, get services on our terms, find people who work for us, instead of us working for them!!! Could say that particular politicians have been bought off by particular companies, choosing politicians and companies that push people’s buttons the right way. Could point out this raises the power of the individual and lowers the state, to an extent.
More generally, you could speak in the language that normal people understand, or find someone else to.
You could create a movement with the right kernel that attracts motivated young people from different places and classes and especially artists and others inclined to frequent skillful speech acts.
If You could find some passionate angry saintly person to champion this…
I agree with this methodology. I'll start with government:
Results - F
Record - F
Prestige - Either A+ or F depending on who you are and where you separate out on the political spectrum.
Loyalty - F, and that doesn't depend on where you are on the political spectrum.
Procedure - A+, they have that in spades.
If they were rated on Yelp as a supplier to humans of 'good governance', they're 1 star. But they're also a monopoly, and there might other places to go, but they're equally as bad or worse.
The Results section made me think of Fred Brooks' book "The Design of Design" where he outlines general classes of design tradeoffs. The idea of contracts was framed within the context of hiring an architect to build a house. The class of tradeoff is Early vs. Late [Decision] Binding. The benefit of Early Binding is clearly defined expectations for price and deliverables. The benefit of Late Binding is flexibility in terms of incorporating the feedback from the Design/Implementation phases but has the downside of unconstrained time/resource requirements.
I think you're missing a risk variable, which is why it appears anomalous to you that Results based evaluation is seldom used. Most buyers would love to pay only for Results, but most Suppliers refuse.
Because not only is it that "action is risky, not always reliably producing desired results" but also articulation - risk arises from the inexact articulation.
That's two risk variables to multiply your expected return by.
Yes, "The more aspects of what we want that we can articulate and verifiably measure," the more we can use Results. Sales and commission is a classic example.
But with anything subjective - a painting, happiness, child rearing - as a Supplier, you not only run the risk that your action may not produce the desired results, you also run the risk that the Buyer will claim the result produced does not match what was desired.
How do you know you settled a lawsuit for the best deal? You don't, so you go with Prestige. Is it any wonder that class-action lawyers that work on contingency have such low Prestige?
How do you know someone will care for your child the best way? You don't, so you go with Loyalty. Is it any wonder that babysitters have such a bad reputation with respect to infidelity?
How do you know someone will make you the most happy? You don't, so you go with Record. Is it any wonder that people so easily bore of paid substitutes.
And procedures? Procedures are not about producing results. They are about getting people to accept the outcome.
That is an issue with ALL of the ways to evaluate.
How do you deal with results being good for one provider in normal times but unwilling to bite the bullet and provide results in bad times? Some companies, organizations, and individual signal loyalty in a way that makes it worth giving up some results in normal times. Moreoever, some are better at gaming any results based measures. Consider China. Many were happy to take the tradeoff of lower quality for cheaper prices. But now the foreign policy externalities of dealing with China are being revealed, and long after many industries have disappeared entirely from the domestic market.
"Yes there are obstacles to applying it widely, but such problems are often exaggerated"
Sure. I don't mean to say that paying for results is strictly inferior to the other methods. I just mean to say that, for practical purposes, there are often good reasons to use the other methods.
You can still apply constraints and evaluations on process and product, then still only pay for the results. Like that’s how I buy food at the grocery store which is eg certified organic
The problem with paying for results is that people often don't know the quality of what they're getting. If I eat a chicken burger that's filled with super unhealthy trans fats, it'll taste great and fill me up- it'll appear to be a great food I should pay a large amount for. But, a professional, whether appointed by the government or that I follow through a prestige network, could inform me the chicken burger I'm eating is actually bad and I should not want to eat it unless I'm starving.
So true. How could we pay for governance after we get it? And who are we paying?
What are you willing to give up to spread these ideas? This seems no different from any other economic or social meme one might want to spread. How have others succeeded recently?
Gay rights and universal healthcare have clear particular victims. Tax the billionaires has villains…
You could villainize hospitals more, pointing at vague invisible asset managers as the ones that encourage excess treatment and high pricing. You could find particular people who were ‘tricked’ into unnecessary treatment and destroyed their health or their livelihoods.
People like ideas that have been tried already, especially by sexy countries. Could find a few particular examples of successes of paying for results. Then suggest this is proof the idea would work everywhere. (Shipping prisoners to Australia is one salient example in history.)
Would be helpful to have a small unattractive group that especially hates this idea. Could just act at if there’s one if you don’t have one yet. Surely they will manifest eventually anyway.
This is all tongue in cheek obviously.
It’s a shame that our public dialogue is not more inclusive of broad spread out effects and distant temporal things…
To appeal to trump types and maybe other conservatives, you could say that consumers have gotten a bad deal and we need to renegotiate, get services on our terms, find people who work for us, instead of us working for them!!! Could say that particular politicians have been bought off by particular companies, choosing politicians and companies that push people’s buttons the right way. Could point out this raises the power of the individual and lowers the state, to an extent.
More generally, you could speak in the language that normal people understand, or find someone else to.
You could create a movement with the right kernel that attracts motivated young people from different places and classes and especially artists and others inclined to frequent skillful speech acts.
If You could find some passionate angry saintly person to champion this…
And if record, prestige, or loyalty are the results wanted?
I agree with this methodology. I'll start with government:
Results - F
Record - F
Prestige - Either A+ or F depending on who you are and where you separate out on the political spectrum.
Loyalty - F, and that doesn't depend on where you are on the political spectrum.
Procedure - A+, they have that in spades.
If they were rated on Yelp as a supplier to humans of 'good governance', they're 1 star. But they're also a monopoly, and there might other places to go, but they're equally as bad or worse.
The Results section made me think of Fred Brooks' book "The Design of Design" where he outlines general classes of design tradeoffs. The idea of contracts was framed within the context of hiring an architect to build a house. The class of tradeoff is Early vs. Late [Decision] Binding. The benefit of Early Binding is clearly defined expectations for price and deliverables. The benefit of Late Binding is flexibility in terms of incorporating the feedback from the Design/Implementation phases but has the downside of unconstrained time/resource requirements.