# Organizational Assessments By:: [[Ross Jackson]] 2023-02-13 Resources, if allocated rationally, are aligned with priorities. Some departments are more essential, productive, or popular than others. Often these relative valuations are implicitly understood. Occasionally, an organization will develop and share, at least internally, the model used to rank the departments. There are certainly pros and cons to making this information available. Most of the negative elements revolve around human feelings. Few people appreciate being marginalized. Two positive elements associated with sharing information are transparency and motivation. Giving people access to the elements of the model and the subsequent departmental rankings provides a basis for understanding. This approach brings everything out into the open and people can discuss all the implications and omissions which may distort the assessment. Second, by making this information available to the departments, they can understand better where to focus attention for improvement. If a given department is ranked last, they can see the elements which inform the model and determine what elements if most amenable to change. Knowing where to focus attention is invaluable. Organizational assessments are tricky. When practical, transparency, honesty, consistency, and empathy go a long way to helping others make sense of the current situation and improve in the future. Making the assessment model explicit helps establish transparency and consistency. Embracing our shared humanity can enhance our honesty and empathy. Analytics is less about replacing humans as it is focused on allowing us to be more effective in our humanity. As an adjunct to our human endeavors, analytics improves areas we do less well or inconsistently. Organizational assessments are improved through the synthesis of what each does best. #### Related Items [[Analytics]] [[Organizational Analytics]] [[Assessments]] [[Priorities]]