Discussion Topic #5 - The Lead Poisoning "C Case"

Within the CPM course class on Managing Performance and Data Based Decision-Making, we were presented with a case study regarding lead poisoning in New York City near the end of the 60's. The case presented some concepts in effective government management, dealing with complex independent systems with competing interests.

After contemplating the scenario for a little while, I had a couple of extra thoughts that might serve for discussion. Unfortunately my readers without access to the class discussion or the original case study may be left in the dark.

As I write this, I do not have a copy of the Case Study in front of me. So my numbers may not be precise, but I don't think it will significantly affect the content.

Journal Reflections for Modual 3.2 - Managing Performance and Data Based Decision Making

[Editors note:  The following is a journal entry addressing specific questions provided by the CPM course instructor Larisa Benson for module 3.2.]

Write your own reflections on what you learned that had the most impact on your development as a leader. What insight have you gained, and what difference will that make in how you lead in the future?

Here is my list of particular things I would like to remember from CPM Class 3.2.

Letting people want to learn about the system will make them want to improve the system.


Inspiring a culture of learning inquisitively should be the focus. Pushing people through a Taylor time motion study that dehumanizes them is not likely to yield as positive a response.


The instructor presented the formula of value as Value = Quantity x Quality/Cost or written V=Q²/C. To me this would be much more accurately written as V=nQ/$. Since Quality may not be constant for each unit produced and C may include more cost than simply money a further refinement might be:

There is value in being able to express (creatively and compellingly) the values and objectives of your organizations through maps and data.

Other advantages of a mapping exercise include:

1. Identifying the Right people
2. Find Right timing
3. Map before you jump
4. Map from other people perspectives
5. Identify pressure and support points

Miller’s Systems of Work Table:

Factory	Widget	Customer	Outcomes
What we do	What we make	For Whom	Why

(Note that this is not the same as the logic map.)

One of the key components of mapping is being able to identify our “Customers”. This identification serves as a tool to see the path forward in being able to better meet a customer’s needs. In identifying the customer what we are really looking for is the “Users” as the object or customer for our widget.

Assumptions about outcomes and customers can be very deceiving. Resolving these through systematic identification can be a key benefit from the mapping process.

Stakeholders may have hang-ups on using the word “customers”, so alternatives such as “users” or “consumers” may be more appropriate. Most of those hang ups tend to stem from the accepted mantra of “the customer always being right”.


Often in public governance, the electorate fills a role most similar to the shareholder with the legislative body being the board of directors.


There are places in the work chain for both “Brokers” and “Producer”. With Brokers, it is important to identify the value they actually add to the process.


The voice of the customer tends to fall into one of the 5 broad categories: Ease of use, Timeliness, Accuracy, Cost, Choice (Customization).


In assessing the operational effectiveness of a system, feedback and refinement is a crucial component. To incorporate feedback we need to be asking the following questions:

• Are there processes to look for and receive feedback?
• Is feedback being received?
• What do you do with the feedback once it is received? (Do we use it for relationship building. Are we viewing it from a purely Transactional or Inquiry viewpoint.)
• Deconstructing the feedback to make improvements can be very difficult and subjective.

Customer Surveys tend to have very marginal value. Some of the key concerns with surveys are the following:

• What do you plan to do with the data?
• Results are of limited value since the responses may be ambiguous or subject to interpretation.
• Customer responses can confuse, provide misleading information.
• The results may not even provide the correct information.
• If you do not share or react to the information gathered in customer surveys, it always results in a decrease in trust.

Given these impediments to customer surveys, focused customer interviews may be a much better source of meaningful feedback.

The Results Map worksheet questions are a good resource for developing a better system map. They are included in the section below.

Limiting outcomes to a tangible scope is important. When the outcome is “all creation will dwell in peace” you have extended your system to abstraction and likely past the point of usefulness. The outcome needs to be something that people can connect to their motivations.


Striking visuals (collapsed building photo) can be key in effective communicating.


Herzog: Motivation cannot be given. Managers can only connect work to internal motivations.


Synergy can be defined as “focused energy”.

To build team synergy, first you must create the opportunity to accomplish something significant.


Book list relevant to this subject: Creating Public Value by Mike Moore, We Don’t make Widgets by Ken Miller, The First 90 Days in Government by Peter Daly