ValueFinder: 60 sources of value in people development

The ValueFinder is the core instrument of the Value of Investment system, which goes back to Prof. Dr. Herbert J. Kellner. It answers the question of what benefit a training or development measure is to deliver for those involved. To do this, it captures the benefit expectations in individual interviews, in which the interviewee first ticks the categories that apply to them and then answers the questions in the chosen categories.

The catalogue is structured by three target groups. From the company’s point of view, working climate, risk reduction, learning culture and productivity count. From management’s point of view, acceptance, solutions, speed and efficiency count. From the employees’ point of view, competence, security, access and motivation count. Each of the twelve categories contains five individual benefits, making 60 sources of benefit in total.

Each individual benefit is queried via the same eight benefit factors. Expectations clarify what the interviewee or the company wants to achieve in relation to this benefit. Own initiative asks what has already been done independently. Contributions from others ask what contribution is expected from others, for example from managers, employees, superiors or the company. Project contribution clarifies what the specific project can contribute to this benefit.

The priority factor places the benefit on a priority scale, in some cases explicitly on a scale of 1 to 10. Consideration in return asks what the interviewee or the company is prepared to contribute within the project. Monetary value asks what monetary value is attached to the benefit. Finally, cost of forgoing asks what must be given up or what consequences threaten if the benefit is not achieved.

The last two factors are the key to calculating value. They translate working climate, willingness to learn or prestige into figures that can be linked to the company’s value drivers. The following chapters set out all twelve categories with their individual benefits and the characteristic questions for each.

The first category from the company’s point of view is working climate. It comprises five individual benefits: a collegial atmosphere, less filtering of information, more open communication, fewer intrigues and a lower stress level.

For a collegial atmosphere, the questions are what expectations the company has of achieving it, what it has already done to create it and what contribution it expects from employees. It is also clarified what the project can contribute to improvement, what importance a collegial atmosphere has for the company and what it is prepared to do for it. The questions conclude with the monetary value the company attaches to a collegial atmosphere and what it must forgo if it is not achieved.

Less filtering of information concerns the expectation of what happens when information is filtered less, personal commitment to this and the contribution expected from managers and employees. The questions are how the project can improve the current situation, how important the measure is on the priority scale, what the interviewee personally contributes to its success, what financial advantage the measure brings and what disadvantage arises if information continues to be filtered.

More open communication is explored via the expectations of it, the measures taken independently and the contribution expected from managers and employees. Further questions are what the project can contribute to increasing it, what importance it has, what the interviewee is prepared to invest within the project, what monetary value they attach to more open communication and what they must forgo if the status quo remains.

For fewer intrigues, the questions cover expectations of reducing them, measures already taken to avoid such situations and the behaviour expected from employees and managers. Added to this are the project’s contribution, the importance of improving the working climate, the degree of willingness to support, the effect on earnings and the negative consequences feared if the project is not implemented.

A lower stress level concerns expectations of reducing it, the measures the company is taking to this end and the contribution employees and managers can make. The questions cover the project contribution, the importance on the priority scale, the company’s consideration in return, the monetary value of stress reduction and what the company must forgo if the stress level does not fall.

The second category from the company’s point of view is risk reduction, with the individual benefits fewer bad investments, lower employee turnover, less misconduct, a decrease in error frequency, and entrepreneurial thinking and action.

For fewer bad investments, the questions are about expectations, the measures the company has taken to avoid them and the concrete contribution expected from management and employees. They also cover the project’s contribution, the importance of sound investment practice, the willingness to contribute something within the project, the monetary value of reducing bad investments and what the company would have to forgo if bad investments continue.

For lower turnover, the expectation is already framed quantitatively: by how many percentage points should the turnover rate fall? The questions cover measures taken independently, the contribution expected from management and employees, the project’s contribution, the importance of lower turnover for the company, one’s own consideration in return, the monetary value of the reduction and what is forgone if no reduction occurs.

Less misconduct concerns expectations, measures taken independently and the contribution of managers and employees. This is followed by the project contribution, the importance on the priority scale, the willingness to contribute something to the reduction, the monetary value and what is forgone if the reduction is not achieved.

For a decrease in error frequency, the expectation question is: by what percentage and over what period should error frequency be reduced? Further questions are where the interviewee sees their own contribution, how the management board can be supported in achieving it, what the project can contribute, what rank the decrease has on the priority scale, what one is prepared to contribute, what reducing errors brings in monetary terms and what consequences it would have for the company if error frequency does not decrease.

For entrepreneurial thinking and action, the questions cover expectations, the way it is encouraged among employees and the contribution employees must make. Added to this are the project contribution, the importance on a scale of 1 to 10, the consideration in return, the monetary value of an increase in entrepreneurial thinking and action and the consequences if it is not encouraged.

The third category from the company’s point of view is learning culture. Its individual benefits are faster market adaptation, more self-directed learning, increased collaboration, an increase in unstructured learning and greater willingness to learn.

For faster market adaptation, the questions are about expectations, measures taken independently and the contribution expected from management and employees. This is followed by the project’s contribution, the importance on the priority list, the consideration in return within the project, the monetary value of faster adaptation to the market and what is forgone if it is not achieved.

More self-directed learning concerns expectations, measures taken independently and the contribution that the individual employee and manager can make. The questions cover the project contribution to increasing self-directed learning, the importance of the topic, what the company contributes to the project, the monetary value of more self-directed learning and what is forgone if it is not increased.

For increased collaboration, the questions are what is expected from introducing more collaborative work processes, what the company will do to encourage a learning culture of increased collaboration and what contribution is expected from those involved in the project. Added to this are the project’s contribution, the priority attached to collaboration, the effort one is prepared to make to encourage collaborative learning, the estimated monetary effect on the company and what is forgone if collaboration is not increased.

For an increase in unstructured learning, the questions cover expectations, measures taken independently and the contribution expected from employees and managers. This is followed by the project contribution, the importance on the priority scale, one’s own commitment within the project, the monetary value of the increase and what is forgone if it is not achieved.

Greater willingness to learn concerns expectations of employees and managers, what has already been done to encourage it and the basic attitude expected of them. The questions are what the project can contribute to encouraging willingness to learn, what importance increasing it has, what one is prepared to do for it, how highly the value of greater willingness to learn is estimated and what must be forgone if employees and managers do not increase their willingness to learn.

The fourth category from the company’s point of view is productivity, with the individual benefits better self-management, less downtime, easier expansion, continuous system optimisation and a higher level of performance.

For better self-management, the questions are about expectations, the measures the company has taken so far to encourage it and how employees and managers can improve their self-management independently. They also cover how the project can encourage self-management, what priority it has, how the management board will support and participate in the project, what monetary value independent employees and managers have and what consequences it would have if self-management were not improved.

For less downtime, the expectation question is to what percentage downtime should be reduced. The questions cover the management board’s measures to reduce the absence rate, the measures with which the workforce can reduce downtime, the project’s contribution and the priority of the reduction. Added to this are the company’s willingness to do something, the possible savings and cost reductions from a lower absence rate and the costs if downtime is not reduced.

For easier expansion, the questions cover expectations, the measures taken so far to make it easier and the contribution employees and managers can make. This is followed by the project’s contribution to upcoming expansions, the importance within the corporate objectives, the company’s consideration in return, the increase in profit from a simplified expansion process and the consequences if expansions are not simplified.

Continuous system optimisation concerns expectations of increasing it, what the company has done so far and the contribution management and employees are to make. The questions cover the project contribution, the importance, the company’s consideration in return, the monetary value the company attaches to continuous system optimisation and what is forgone if the systems are not continuously optimised.

For a higher level of performance, the questions cover the expectations associated with raising employees’ level of performance, the measures to support it and the contribution employees are to make. Added to this are what the project does to ensure it, the importance on the priority list, one’s own contribution, the monetary value of the increase and the consequences if it does not succeed.

The first category from management’s point of view is acceptance. It comprises easier controls, fewer conflicts, smooth agreements on objectives, the development of a performance community and a greater ability to deal with criticism.

For easier controls, the questions are about expectations of easier means of control, one’s own contribution to this and how the manager being interviewed can be supported in making control processes easier. They also cover the project’s benefit in implementing the new controls, the value on the priority scale, the contribution to securing the project’s success, the monetary benefit of introducing easier controls and what is forgone if controls are not made easier.

Fewer conflicts concerns expectations of reducing them, what the manager is doing personally to this end and how employees could contribute. The questions are how the project can help reduce conflict situations, what priority the reduction has, how much time and money is to be invested, what costs the project can save the company and what consequences an unchanged situation would have.

For smooth agreements on objectives, the questions cover expectations, measures already initiated and the measures the management board can take. This is followed by the expected contribution of the project, the assessment of priority, one’s own contribution to the project, the monetary value of smooth agreements on objectives and the costs caused by problematic agreements on objectives.

For developing a performance community, the questions are what one hopes to gain from it, what one has already done for it and what is expected from the employees of the individual departments. Added to this are the project’s contribution, the importance of building a performance community in one’s own area of responsibility, what one will contribute to encouraging it, the estimated monetary value of solid performance communities and the question of what happens if nothing is done.

A greater ability to deal with criticism concerns expectations of employees, what has already been done to improve it and how employees themselves can work on their ability to deal with criticism. The questions are how the project can help increase the individual’s ability to deal with criticism, what importance it has, what one is prepared to contribute, how a greater ability to deal with criticism translates into monetary value and what the company must expect if it is not increased.

The second category from management’s point of view is solutions. Its individual benefits are greater willingness to take risks, employees who think along, transfer support for employees, interactive problem-solving and handling difficult situations.

For greater willingness to take risks, the questions are about the expected effects, what has been done so far to strengthen it and the contribution expected from the executive board. They also cover the extent to which the project can strengthen willingness to take risks, how important greater willingness to take risks is, how the manager will contribute personally, what increase in sales they expect from the project and what disadvantages and costs could arise if the project is not implemented.

Employees who think along concerns expectations of independent thinking, what has been done to encourage employees to think along and what the company must do to create the conditions for this. The questions are how the project can motivate employees to think along, what importance thinking along has, how the manager will motivate their employees to do so, what value employees who think along have and what must be forgone if they do not.

For transfer support for employees, the questions cover expectations, the measures taken so far and the way the company can provide transfer support. This is followed by the project’s contribution to increasing it, the importance on the priority scale, what the manager will do, the monetary value of greater transfer support and what is forgone if it is not provided.

For interactive problem-solving, the questions are which problems the manager will face in future that should be solved interactively, which measures have already been taken to solve problems through dialogue and what contribution employees must make. Added to this are the project contribution, the importance of interactive problem-solving, the measures to encourage it, the extent to which costs could be reduced and the consequences if problems are solved as before.

Handling difficult situations concerns which difficult situations should be resolved better in future, what has been done so far to improve problem-solving competence and which external measures could be used. The questions are to what extent the project increases problem-solving competence, what priority factor handling difficult situations receives, what one is prepared to contribute, whether problem-solving competence in one’s own area can be expressed as a monetary value and where the risk lies in not improving this competence.

The third category from management’s point of view is speed, with the individual benefits faster decision-making, shorter product development times, faster time to market, faster response to conflict situations and quicker processing of orders.

For faster decision-making, the questions are about the expected effects, what has been done so far to speed it up and whether there is a need for action to speed up decision-making in cooperating departments. They also cover how the project can speed up decision-making processes, what priority they have, how the project can help the manager with this in future, what monetary value is attached to faster decision-making processes and what costs would arise from continued lengthy decision-making.

Shorter product development times concerns the prospects that would open up, the measures with which development phases have already been shortened and the areas in which employees can shorten product development. The questions are to what extent the project can streamline development times, what importance it has on the priority scale, how the manager will engage in it, what additional profit the company can realise through shorter development times and what costs or dangers arise from development times that remain long.

For faster time to market, the questions are what one hopes to gain from bringing products to market faster, how the market launch of earlier products has already been accelerated and which areas of the company need to optimise their speed. This is followed by the question of how the project can uncover existing delays, the placing on the priority scale, speeding up preparations in one’s own department, the financial opportunities from acceleration and the costs if the current speed remains.

Faster response to conflict situations concerns expectations, what has been done so far to speed up the response and what is expected from employees so that they themselves become aware of conflicts more quickly. The questions are how the project can reduce response time, what priority it has, how the manager can on their own initiative become aware of conflicts more quickly in future, whether a monetary value can be attached and what consequences non-implementation could lead to.

For quicker processing of orders, the questions are what one hopes to gain from faster processing, how deadlines have so far been met or beaten and how other departments can contribute to faster processing. Added to this are the project’s contribution, the priority of acceleration, the phases of orders with potential for improvement, the monetary value of faster order processing and the long-term consequences if processing is not successfully accelerated.

The fourth category from management’s point of view is efficiency. Its individual benefits are less duplicated work, better time management, exceeding the corporate objectives, more efficient meetings and better use of existing data.

For less duplicated work, the questions are about expectations, what the manager does to prevent duplicated work and the coordination they expect from their employees and the company. They also cover how the project can reduce duplicated work, how high it ranks on the priority scale, what one is prepared to do for the project, what savings would result if duplicated work could be prevented entirely and how much an unchanged situation impairs the company’s efficiency.

Better time management concerns concrete expectations, what has already been done to organise it better and what is expected from employees for an improvement. The questions are how the project can make time management more efficient, what priority it has, how the manager will drive better time management to ensure the project’s success, what costs the project can save and what risks arise if current time management remains unchanged.

For exceeding the corporate objectives, the questions are what is expected if the objectives are exceeded, through which initiatives this has been achieved so far and how employees can be motivated to do so. This is followed by the project’s help in exceeding the set objectives in future, the place on the priority list, the willingness to invest, the monetary value in which exceeding the targets is expressed personally and the consequences if the corporate objectives are not achieved.

More efficient meetings concerns expectations, the way the manager has been able to make previous meetings more efficient and the contributions expected from the other participants. The questions are how the project can specifically improve the efficiency of meetings, what importance it has, which elements will be made more efficient, how high the cost savings are estimated to be and what the consequence would be if efficiency is not increased.

For better use of existing data, the questions are about the opportunities this creates, the way existing data is used as well as possible and what employees can do. Added to this are the measures with which the project helps achieve more effective use, the priority on a scale of 1 to 10, the methods for more effective use, the potential savings and the estimated profit lost through inefficient use of data.

The first category from the employees’ point of view is competence. It comprises more responsibility, more independence, greater acceptance by management, more decision-making authority and stronger self-criticism.

For more responsibility, the questions are about expectations of taking on more responsibility, the measures taken independently in order to be able to take it on and the contribution expected from the company. They also cover what the project can contribute to extending responsibility, what importance this extension has on the priority list, what consideration in return the interviewee offers, what monetary value they attach to their greater responsibility and what they must forgo if they decline more responsibility.

More independence concerns expectations of increasing it, the steps taken and the support expected from the company. The questions cover the project’s contribution, the importance on the priority scale, the way the company will benefit from the new capability, the monetary benefit the person derives from the increase and what is forgone if no gain in independence is achieved.

For greater acceptance by management, the questions cover expectations, measures taken independently and what the company can contribute. This is followed by the project’s contribution, the importance of this acceptance for the interviewee, their consideration in return, the benefit of greater acceptance in monetary value and what is forgone if acceptance cannot be increased.

For more decision-making authority, the questions are what expectations exist of increasing it, what measures have been taken to obtain or increase authority and what contribution is expected from superiors. Added to this are the project contribution, the importance of more decision-making authority, the consideration in return for extended authority, the monetary benefit of an extension and the consequences if decision-making authority is not extended.

Stronger self-criticism concerns expectations of the capacity for self-criticism, the measures taken independently to increase it and what is expected from the environment so that the person can think and act self-critically. The questions are how the project can encourage self-criticism, how important self-criticism is considered to be for developing one’s own competencies, what consideration in return is offered, what monetary value the person attaches to the resulting increase in market value and what they must forgo if they do not maintain or increase their market value.

The second category from the employees’ point of view is security, with the individual benefits an increase in market value, better promotion prospects, a secure job, greater social security and financial security.

For an increase in market value, the questions are about expectations, the measures taken independently to maintain or increase one’s own market value and the contribution expected from the company. They also cover the project’s contribution, the importance of increasing market value on the priority scale, the consideration in return, the monetary value the person attaches to the increase in their market value and what is forgone if market value is not maintained or increased.

Better promotion prospects concerns expectations of personal promotion prospects, one’s own contribution to achieving these goals and the expected contribution of the company. The questions are what the project can contribute to realising the idea of promotion, what importance promotion has, what consideration in return is offered if a promotion is offered, what the person would like to earn after their career step and what they lack if they receive no promotion prospects.

For a secure job, the first question is what the person understands by a secure job. This is followed by the questions of what they themselves do to secure their job, what securities they expect from the company, what the project can contribute to a more secure job, what importance a secure job has on the priority list, what consideration in return they offer, what monetary value they attach to a secure job and what they would have to forgo if they lost their job.

For greater social security, the questions cover expectations, what the person does to maintain their social security and the benefits they expect from the company. Added to this are the project’s contribution to increasing it, the importance of greater social security, the consideration in return, the monetary value of social security and what is forgone if it is not maintained or increased.

Financial security concerns expectations of personal financial security, the measures already taken and the contribution expected from the company. The questions are how the project can contribute to increasing financial security, what importance it has on the priority scale, what consideration in return is offered, what monetary value is attached to it and what must be forgone if financial security is not achieved.

The third category from the employees’ point of view is access. Its individual benefits are targeted development opportunities, valuable information, more exchange of experience, involvement in strategy development and integration into important decision-making processes.

For targeted development opportunities, the questions are about expectations, the measures the person has taken for their own development and the contribution expected from the company. They also cover the project’s contribution to increasing development, the importance of targeted development opportunities, the consideration in return, the monetary value the person attaches to their development opportunities and what is forgone if they do not receive them.

Valuable information concerns the extent to which the person expects to be informed about important developments, what measures they have taken themselves to obtain valuable information and what measures they expect from the company for this. The questions are how the measure can contribute to this, what importance access to valuable information has on the priority scale, what consideration in return is offered, what monetary value is attached to this access and what must be forgone if it is lacking.

For more exchange of experience, the questions cover expectations, the measures taken independently to maintain or increase the exchange and what is expected from the company in this respect. This is followed by the project’s contribution, the importance of the exchange of experience, the consideration in return, the monetary value of more exchange and what is forgone if it is not achieved.

For involvement in strategy development, the questions are how the person would like to be involved, what they have contributed to strategy development to date and what contribution they expect from the company. Added to this are the effect of involvement on their motivation, the personal importance of participating, the willingness to contribute something, the monetary value of involvement and the consequences if they are not involved.

Integration into important decision-making processes concerns expectations of involvement, the measures the person has taken to be involved and the concrete steps they expect from the company. The questions are what the project can contribute to this, what importance involvement in important decisions has on the priority scale, what consideration in return is offered, what monetary value greater involvement has and what must be forgone if the person is not involved in decision-making processes.

The fourth category from the employees’ point of view is motivation, with the individual benefits more frequent suggestions for improvement, stronger opportunities for identification, more targeted recognition, more prestige and greater profit sharing.

For more frequent suggestions for improvement, the expectation question is why the person wants their suggestions for improvement to be accepted more often. The questions cover the measures taken independently to get suggestions adopted, the encouragement or assistance expected from superiors and how the project can help produce better ideas. Added to this are the importance of suggestions being accepted, the consideration in return expected from the company for suggestions for improvement, the value that implementing the suggestions has in the person’s eyes and what is forgone if suggestions are rejected.

Stronger opportunities for identification concerns expectations of increased identification with the company, one’s personal contribution to this so far and what the company can do for stronger identification. The questions are how the project can support this, where the person places their identification on a scale of 1 to 10, what consideration in return the company can expect from them, how high the monetary value of “identification” would be if they had to express it and what they miss out on if they do not identify more strongly.

For more targeted recognition, the questions are from whom the person expects more targeted recognition, what they have done to receive feedback and in which situation they expect more targeted recognition. This is followed by the benefit of the measure with regard to more targeted recognition, its importance, the consideration in return, the monetary value attached to more targeted recognition and the effects if it is not forthcoming.

More prestige concerns expectations, what the person does to increase their personal prestige and what they expect from the company in this regard. The questions cover the project’s contribution to increasing prestige, the importance of this increase, the willingness to contribute to it oneself, the monetary value of an increase in prestige and what is forgone if prestige is not improved.

For greater profit sharing, the questions cover expectations, the measures taken so far to achieve greater profit sharing and the contribution expected from the superior. Added to this are the project’s contribution, the priority on the scale of 1 to 10, the consideration in return within the project, the monetary value of greater profit sharing and what is forgone in the long term if it does not materialise.