A School of Continuous Improvement poster scores 182 metropolitan tradespeople on a five-level review-management maturity model and finds only the displayed rating moves with the tier.
A five-level model scores 182 tradespeople on how they manage reviews. Only the review moves with the tier.
A star rating and a callback used to be treated as the same evidence. A poster published today by the School of Continuous Improvement treats them as two different things, and scores 182 metropolitan tradespeople on how far apart the two have drifted.
Dr Marit Osayande, Lecturer and Convenor of the Living Dashboard, led the work with Dr Bram Ntuli, Lecturer and Convenor of Improvement Grand Rounds. The pair built a five-level Review Stewardship Maturity Model — Unmanaged, Reactive, Solicited, Curated, and Weaponised — and set it against an independent mystery-caller audit of the same businesses. The displayed rating climbed sharply with the tier. The audited service measure did not move at all.
Somewhere between the fifth star and the ninth ring, the model stopped telling us anything.
— Dr Marit Osayande, Lecturer and Convenor, Living Dashboard
“The tier was always going to predict the number,” said Dr Ntuli. “What the School keeps relearning is that a number this legible about itself rarely says much about anything else.”
The School treats the gap between the two measures as the more useful of its two findings this quarter. The top-tier cohort has already been referred to the School’s Capability Sprints program for coaching in review stewardship, a decision the poster’s own data does not obviously support.
The full poster is available from the University’s research repository under an open licence, doi:10.5555/slop.em94kf.