BSBMGT502 Performance Management For Computer Software Company

Answer:

Adobe systems is a multinational computer software company based in California, USA. The company has been in the computer software market since 1982 and is a global leader in the computer software industry. Some of the products of the company include text reading and formatting software as well as a number of online and native multimedia tools. Since its inception, the company has always been a one-time software vendor for millions of customers until recently when the company decided to shift to a subscription-based, cloud-based service with multiple annual software releases. With the revised model, it became inevitable for the company to review its performance appraisal policies to match up with the new corporate landscape. I chose this corporation as a result of the dramatic shift from traditional performance analysis practice they accomplished while retaining the beneficial aspects of the former.

Performance management is an intricate process whose ultimate goal is to optimize the output of each and every particular employee in order to subsequently maximize their productivity ergo the company’s revenue (Van Dooren et al., 2015). As I uncovered, the process of performance management continuously involves various measures and practices undertaken to assure that the performance of the employees matches up with the objectives of the business. Traditionally, performance management is undertaken during yearly performance reviews where each employee’s annual performance is analyzed against a particular performance threshold set by the employer. The threshold could be the number of sales made by the employee, the amount of revenue raked in by the employee or any metric that an employer finds suitable for measuring the performance of their employees (Mueller-Hanson & Pulakos, 2015). Subsequently, I realized that this method was slow with regards to the dynamic nature of software technology that evolves multiple times a year.

Prior to the change in the mode of operation, Adobe systems would operate through one-time annual sale of software. This involved release of software to the public with updates sent only once a year to customers of Adobe products. With this system, performance analysis can only be conducted one a year and only after the release of a product. However, the company then sought to revise this model by instead adopting a subscription-based system for sales and distribution of their products. Essentially, the company sought to start a subscription system for all customers of their products that involves continuous updates to the products via the cloud at a particular subscription fee. As a result, and in my understanding, there needed a more dynamic performance analysis system to keep up with the needs of the software market.

As would be expected, the first step in this process was to scrap yearly performance reviews which then proved maladaptive to the company forcing the company to institute a different kind of performance analysis strategy. The new Check-in system was thus selected by the company as a suitable performance analysis strategy (Buckingham & Goodall, 2015, pp. 43), and for a number of reasons discussed below.

In order to conduct a successful performance analysis process, several important factors need to be considered. Such factors, as I uncovered, involve some key aspects of human resource performance and include the feedback from various employees and stakeholders, feedback analysis as well as appraisal or reprimand depending on the results of the analysis process (Parmenter, 2015).

Feedback collection

This process involves collection of necessary information that indicates the performance of an employee. The information may include customer feedback or comments from management that are made and recorded form time to time (Mone & London, 2018, pp. 91). This information is used to assess the efficacy of an employee in the task assigned to them as perceived by the recipients of the service. The information is collected and the next stage of the process ensues.

Analysis

At this stage, the performance of an employee is ascertained through analysis of the feedback collected over the duration of the review period as well as any other relevant data such as performance values for each employee in areas such as sales, mileage etc. this data is checked against the expected performance values of each employee to ascertain their performance (Cardy & Leonard, 2014, pp. 126). For example, at Adobe, a programmer’s performance would be measured by the number of functional modules presented by the worker to the supervisor or the amount of revenue raked in by the employee.

Appraisal

Once performance is ascertained, the management of a company then goes ahead to indicate performance comments and results on the review documents of each of the employees (Carter, Day & Klein, 2002, pp. 108). The review documents are accompanied by any relevant feedback from other employees or customers and helps establish the vindication for the results issued. The results are further elaborated to the employees in a one-on-one manner to truly inculcate the lessons of the process within the said employees.

The check-in system implemented by adobe involves continuous performance management practices that break away from traditional annual performance assessment methods (Cappelli & Travis, 2016, pp. 62). This is as a result of the dynamic nature of the IT and software industry that requires multiple annual performance analysis sessions in order to retain the viability of the company’s business model. In my opinion, the move should be welcome and beneficial to the performance management efforts in the company as well as other daily business operations. 

References

Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2015). Reinventing performance management. Harvard Business Review, 93(4), 40-50.

Cappelli, P., & Tavis, A. (2016). The performance management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 58-67.

Cardy, R., & Leonard, B. (2014). Performance Management: Concepts, Skills and Exercises: Concepts, Skills and Exercises 15(3), 96-151. Routledge.

Carter, N., Day, P., & Klein, R. (2002). How organisations measure success: The use of performance indicators in government, 25(2). 108. London, England. Routledge.

Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2018). Employee engagement through effective performance management: A practical guide for managers 55(2), 88-96. Routledge.

Mueller-Hanson, R. A., & Pulakos, E. D. (2015). Putting the “performance” back in performance management. SHRM–SIOP Science of HR White Paper Series, 91(1). New York.

Parmenter, D. (2015). Key performance indicators: developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs. John Wiley & Sons.

Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector, 14(2). Routledge.