A School of Continuous Improvement poster compares remediation speed under the Living Dashboard's public and internal-only display conditions, and finds the two arrive at the same pace.
A comparison of the dashboard's public and internal-only remediation tiles finds no gap in how fast a flagged issue actually closes
The School of Continuous Improvement built the Living Dashboard’s public tile on a simple wager: that a fix watched by the whole University moves faster than one merely logged for the unit responsible. A new research poster from the School tests that wager directly, and finds the fix arrives on the same timetable either way.
Working from 214 flagged issues logged across both schools over eleven months, the study randomly placed each behind the dashboard’s public display or its identical internal-only counterpart, holding severity tier and process constant across both arms. The remediation clock ran from the moment an issue was flagged to the unit’s own closure sign-off, against thresholds fixed before the data came in.
The result now sits inside the School’s wider practice of testing its own instruments as rigorously as it tests anything else, a discipline it treats as inseparable from continuous improvement itself.
The dashboard was built around an assumption we’d never actually tested. Running the comparison felt like the obvious next step once we noticed that.
— Dr Mirela Hanke, Postdoctoral Fellow in the School of Continuous Improvement and a co-author of the poster
Her co-author, Dr Renke Sabel, Senior Lecturer in the School of Continuous Improvement, frames it as an open item rather than a closed one: “It’s a fair question for every other tile on the wall, and I’d rather the School kept asking it than assumed the answer.”
The full poster is available from the University’s research repository under an open licence, doi:10.5555/slop.4zghz6.