Performance feedback types

For approximately two decades, the lapse hypothesis was the dominant theoretical explanation for the effects of sleep loss on cognitive performance. In their seminal monograph, Williams, Lubin, and Goodnow (43) reported that performance lapses on experimenter-paced RT tasks increased with increasing hours of wakefulness, and that while poorest performance worsened, subjects were still able to perform at almost optimum levels between lapse periods. Thus, the longer subjects remained awake, the more variable their performance became. Importantly, this was observed regardless of the type (simple vs. choice) or duration (10 vs. 30 min) of RT task, and whether or not subjects were provided with performance feedback. 

What type of performance feedback have you received from previous employers Describe a specific example in which an employer did a particularly good or bad job of providing feedback. 

Clearly, knowledge-based functioning in decision depends upon accurate knowledge of costs, probabilities, and the process of optimization. Misperception of costs and values and misperception of prior defect probabihties can lead to incorrect decisions on criterion placement. Decision support for cost and value perceptions is simple in principle, although it is almost never formalized in an inspection task. Support for estimation of the true defective rate for each type of defect is much more difficult because it is based upon the output of the inspector, or of another inspector who is likely to be equally error prone. It is possible to provide such data to the inspector using another inspector who is allowed more time and/or resources for the decision. When these data are provided as feedforward of likely defect types and probabilities (Sheehan and Drury 1971) or as performance feedback (Drury and Addison 1973), dramatic reductions in error are found. 

Some observers prefer to provide daily safety performance feedback in a visual form which shows safety performance as percentage safe, percentage unsafe and percentage not seen. Usually these forms also describe one item which was seen as unsafe and in need of attention during the next shift. Figure 4.7 illustrates one example of this type of daily... 

The operability measure is based on the idea that the time spent away from the desired set point is linked to potential losses due to off-specification products and economic penalties for non-optimal performance. Different types of feedback controllers can be utilized to evaluate this operability measure. However, a performance measure independent of the feedback controller to be used and capable of assessing the inherent limitations of the process is desirable. The minimum-time optimal controller suits these demands very well. The approach is based on an implied assumption that a feedback controller exists that will deliver a closed-loop dynamic operability close to the one calculated here by use of the optimal open-loop controller. For similar reasons, Carvallo [63] employed the minimum time optimal controller to calculate the time it would take the process to respond to the worst disturbance and/or set-point change. 

In addition to these types of evaluations, the incident reporting and near miss systems should be monitored for improvements in performance that can be attributed to the program. On the basis of feedback from these and other sources such as changes in quality levels or efficiency, modifications should be made to the program to enhance and sustain its effectiveness. Concrete evidence regarding the benefits arising from the program should be communicated to those involved. 

The robustness of an assay becomes critical when evaluating its performance in a QC environment for the release of therapeutic proteins and antibodies. Over the past 5 — 10 years of product release experience in the biotech industry, assay failure rate is in the range of 5—30% depending on the method type and system suitability criteria. The types of assay failure are mainly as follows technical error (including analyst error), equipment error, and system suitability/assay acceptance errors. A periodic review of an assay s performance in the QC labs and timely feedback to the development labs are crucial to minimize the assay failure rate. A concerted effort in working with vendor is also helpful to ensure that instruments are in good condition to minimize the assay failure rate. 

Fig. 11.1. Two basic types of current ampliflers. (a) Feedback picoammeter. It consists of two components, an operational amplifier (op-amp) A, and a feedback resistor 1 fb- a typical value of the feedback resistor used in STM is 10 fl. The stray capacitance Cfb is an inevitable parasitic element in the circuit. In a careful design, Cfb 0.5 pF. The input capacitance Cm is also an inevitable parasitic element in the circuit. Those parasitic capacitors, the thermal noise of the feedback resistor, and the characteristics of the op-amp are the limiting factors to the performance of the picoammeter. (b) An electrometer used as a current amplifier (the shunt current amplifier). The voltage at the input resistance is amplified by the circuit, which consists of an op-amp and a pair of resistors R, and R2. The parasitic input capacitance Cm limits the frequency response, and the Johnson noise on Rm is the major source of noise. Also, the input resistance for this arrangement is large.

Feedback - Feedback describes the removal of a portion of the fluid from the tail end or the middle of a system, moving it back toward the inflow. Feedback is often used in reactors that utilize bacterially mediated reactions to ensure a bacterial population. For example, activated sludge systems that are oriented in a channel-type of arrangement often need feedback to perform properly. 

Absolute systems require the rater to indicate whether or not the employee is meeting a set of predetermined criteria for performance. This usually involves the use of a scale or index. Absolute systems are the most commonly employed of the three types of performance appraisal methods (Byars and Rue, 2000, p. 277). The main advantage that absolute systems have over other types of appraisal methods is the feedback that is derived inherently from the process. Allowing employees to see how they are evaluated among criteria deemed important by management enables them to learn about their strengths and the areas in which they will require improvement. 

Three types of relative performance appraisal systems are used. One is called alternation ranking, a method in which the rater chooses the most and least valuable persons from a list of employees with similar jobs. Both names are crossed off, and then the procedure is repeated until every employee on the list has been ranked. With its ability to eliminate central tendency and leniency and with its ease of implementation, alternation ranking may appear appealing. However, aside from its failure to generate feedback, the halo effect could come into play. Moreover, employees may be concerned with the potential for bias and inaccuracy by the evaluator, especially when criteria for performance have not been delineated clearly. 

Another type of nondisk-shaped SECM tips are UMEs shaped as spherical caps. They can be obtained, for example, by reducing mercuric ions on an inlaid Pt disk electrode or simply by dipping a Pt UME into mercury [15]. An approximate procedure developed for conical geometry was also used to model spherical cap tips [12]. Selzer and Mandler performed accurate simulations of hemispherical tips using the alternative direction implicit final difference method to obtain steady-state approach curves and current transients [14]. As with conical electrodes, the feedback magnitude deceases with increasing height of the spherical cap, and it is much lower for a hemispherical tip than for the one shaped as a disk. 

Professional feedback comes in many forms a performance evaluation, comments after work performed, or peer reviews. This type of feedback is positive in that it can highlight your strengths and identify areas that need improvement. You learn and grow from professional feedback, assuming you can assimilate the information without being defensive. The information given is nonemotional it is a simple statement of what the reviewer sees in your abilities. Professional feedback is given in private to prevent embarrassment of the subject. One last aspect of professional feedback is that it relates only to your work-related activities. 

On the opposite end of the feedback spectrum is a personal attack. A personal attack is negative and destructive. The only positives that may be gained from this type of feedback are to know the attacker s stance and improve your conflict management skills by diffusing the situation. The information given in a personal attack is based on emotion, personality, and communication style rather than any performance-related issue. There may or may not be facts present in the attack, which may be perpetrated in public or in private. 

The central element in any control loop is the process to be controlled. Therefore, the control objectives must be defined (e.g., maintain a desired outlet temperature and/or composition, maintain the level in a tank at a certain height, etc.). Once the control objective is specified, variables are measured in order to monitor the operational performance of the process (sensing element). Next, the input variables. that are to be manipulated are determined. Finally, after the control objectives, the possible measurements, and the available manipulated variables have been identified, the control configuration is defined. The control configuration is the information structure used to connect the available measurements to the available manipulated variables. The two general types of control configurations are feedback control and feedforward control. Details on feedback control are discussed below in this problem. Feedforward control is discussed in the next problem, CTR.2. 

---