Instructions Using the case/project you have been building all semester, convince the executives that evaluation and feeding back results are critical and worth the time and resources. For this presentation, please follow these instructions: Presentation Objectives Consider the following in your presentation: How often should you provide feedback? Cite evidence for your rationale. What are the most creative ways to look at the feedback data, observations, and analysis? o Share a minimum of three ideas, including your rationale: Why do you think they are good ideas? Again, cite your rationale (at least one citation). o Make sure to really sell your ideas to the sponsor. Persuade them to include feedbackget to the why by using compelling data and sources, and connect it to their organizational benefits.

CASE BELOW:

In a report of your findings, critique the evaluation and appraisal process. Consider the use of evidence versus proof. Based on previous lessons and your research, consider what evaluation and appraisal actions or methods worked well and what could have improved the evaluation process and provided objective data on the change effort's success. Provide an overview of the OD effort discussed in your interview.

The interviewee, Blake, is responsible for managing the safety of employees and providing rail service to over thirty different customers on over two hundred fifty miles of rail lines. Blake discussed the metrics used by Union Pacific, which were established before his current position.

Six key metrics were identified to help identify success in the new plan, including Industry Spot and Pull %, Velocity, Human Factor Derailments per 100,000-man hours, Car Terminal Dwell, Locomotive Dwell, and Problem Logs execution. Blake would have added a customer satisfaction metric if he could redo the process. The evaluation portion of the change event began in July of 2021 when the team was tasked with measuring success on a local level due to an emphasis on customer satisfaction performance that Union Pacific adopted. The marketing and sales department developed most of the KPIs, which were indicators of customer satisfaction. An outside consulting firm was contracted to compile surveys and interviews to develop KPIs that would be indicators of customer satisfaction. The change effort was measured using KPIs and a dashboard criterion, and the evaluation process showed the benefits of the project by changing the way success was measured. By using the six key measures, every day, the team could easily see how they performed the day before or any other date range.

However, Blake believed that the organization could make improvements to help boost employee morale or increase motivation and productivity. Although there have been strides to improve morale, there is still a disconnect from the headquarters down to the field level.

Blake believes that C-suite employees should spend more time out in the field to see how difficult it can be to execute a plan that looks easy to do on paper. The evaluation and appraisal process could have been improved by using objective data to assess the change effort's success.

Evidence-based evaluation methods would have provided objective data on the change effort's success, while proof-based methods would only provide subjective data. To improve the evaluation process, the organization could have used surveys or focus groups to assess customer satisfaction, employee engagement, and productivity. These data could then be used to identify areas for improvement and inform future change efforts.

Additionally, the organization could have used performance metrics to measure the impact of the change effort on the organization's overall performance. Overall, the evaluation and appraisal process were effective in measuring the success of the change effort, but it could have been improved by using objective data to inform decision-making.

For instance, employee engagement, a crucial component of corporate performance, cannot be measured using any metrics. Similar to this, there is no yardstick to gauge the organization's financial performance, which is essential for long-term sustainability of the change process.

Second, Blake offers no proof of the manner in which the evaluation and appraisal process was carried out or the means by which the metrics were calculated. Although the team's six main metrics were valuable, it is not apparent how the company gathered the data or how the data was analyzed. Moreover, no statistical analysis or validation of the employed indicators was mentioned. The validity and reliability of the review and appraisal process as well as the metrics employed are called into doubt by this dearth of evidence.

Lastly, Blake makes no mention of the manner in which the conclusions of the evaluation and appraisal process were applied to decision-making or other course of action. There is no proof that the company used the information to enhance operations or alter plans, even though the team defined the six critical indicators to measure success. It is uncertain how well the evaluation and appraisal process drive organizational transformation in the absence of a clear connection between those processes and the organization's decision-making procedure.

In conclusion, even though Blake description of the evaluation and appraisal process is well-structured and specified, it still needs to be improved in terms of its scope, use of evidence, and connections to decision-making. The company can think about incorporating more measures that gauge financial performance and staff engagement in order to enhance the review and appraisal procedure. The organization may also offer greater proof of how the metrics were calculated, validated, and used to inform decisions and take action. Finally, the company should think about adopting a stricter evaluation and appraisal methodology that incorporates statistical analysis and validates the metrics employed.