Customization Approach

We are firm believers in reliable assessments. If your organization is going to invest time and money implementing a 360 degree feedback assessment then you need to be confident that the survey measures what it is intended to. This is why our content experts focus on meeting customization requests while maintaining reliability. We can maintain assessment reliability whether you choose to slightly modify an existing Task Cycle® assessment, or create a new assessment, drawing from our extensive library of tried and tested competencies.

Here is our approach:

1. We start by having an open dialogue with you.
   Together we determine your goals.
   


2. We identify the best foundation.
   We select the foundational assessment that most closely matches the role that needs to be measured.
   


3. We look at your unique culture, competencies, and values.
   This helps us identify the survey dimensions (competencies) that need to be removed, added, renamed or reworded in order to correspond with your organization's culture and values.
   


4. We customize the assessment to meet your needs.
   We draw from several hundred of our validated dimensions to help build your new assessment. Survey and feedback report language can also be customized, creating an instrument that is aligned with your organization's terminology and unique vocabulary.
   


5. We test it to see if it holds up.
   We can then test the survey against a pilot group from your organization, ultimately factor analyzing the results to make sure there are not a high number of non-responses, or other statistical concerns. If tweaks are needed, they are made prior to a full rollout.
   


6. We roll it out to the entire group/organization.
   And we're off! After enough survey responses have been received we even have the option to create customized norms.

Why use reliable assessments?

Good measurement is crucial to your change initiatives. You need to know where you stand at the start and when you finish. Otherwise, you have no accountability. To do this, your assessments must meet two basic criteria:

• They must yield operational relevance. The dimensions must make sense to all participants, and executives concerned. They must also demonstrate practical validity, meaning that scores on the instruments must relate to performance.
  
  Otherwise, if the instruments have face validity only - acceptable because they look right - but have not been shown to relate to measured performance, then you have a problem justifying investments in your programs. If you do not have good assessments of performance, you should use instruments whose validity can be demonstrated on comparable jobs.
  


• They must be sufficiently reliable over time to assess any change resulting from your programs. If the measures are less reliable than necessary, any change can be mistakenly interpreted. Change may appear to take place when in fact, it does not; or conversely, good change programs may be evaluated negatively because real differences are unreliably measured.