标题: Objective 和target 的区别 [打印本页] 作者: 丫丫 时间: 2011-11-3 13:05 标题: Objective 和target 的区别 ISO9000有要求公司建立自己的目标。最近我拿了一些例如进料合格率，退货率的数据给客户看，他们说这是Target, Not Objective. 请大家说说他们的区别作者: 大力水饺 时间: 2011-11-3 13:05
有什么区别？一起听听长长见识。作者: xar7879 时间: 2011-11-3 13:06
我也不明白，听听各位大侠的指点。作者: 何去飞 时间: 2011-11-3 13:06
其实就是文字游戏：
如果是Zero Defect那就是Objective
如果是1000 PPM，那就是Target!作者: 丫丫 时间: 2011-11-3 13:06
客户稽核要看的，感觉好象是Objective 是个大方向，例如今年报废率要降低10%，那target 就是具体的数据，例如 20%一季度， 到四季度是10%作者: 天之晓 时间: 2011-11-3 13:06
Objectives define an endpoint of concern and the direction of change that is preferred - all else being equal, more is better than less, or vice versa. In contrast to targets or goals, objectives as used in SDM do not define specific quantitative thresholds that must be achieved. They are not analogous to regulatory standards for water or air quality that establish fixed targets, (e.g., BC's "provincial water quality objectives"
In a typical target-setting process, targets are established first (e.g., reduce emissions by 50%, increase salmon habitat by 50% Yet at the time of setting the target, little or nothing is known about how the target will be achieved (the alternatives), or what it will cost, either financially or with respect to other objectives (the trade-offs
Target-setting is suitable when:
a) there exists a clear threshold of effects - i.e., below some threshold we are safe and above it we are not;
or
b) it has been shown that there exist many low cost, no-regrets actions to achieve the target.
However, there are relatively few situations where one of these conditions holds. In most cases, biological or human health effects lie on a continuum, true thresholds either don't exist or are unknown, and low-cost no regrets actions have already been undertaken.
In the SDM process, the implications of different targets are explored through evaluation criteria and alternatives, so that the trade-offs are exposed before a target is adopted.
Suppose for example, that a decision process is underway for establishing industrial discharge permits in a watershed. For one contaminant of concern, suppose that there exists a widely cited "no observed adverse effects level" or NOAEL, and that this level is currently regularly exceeded in the watershed. An SDM process in this case could establish an evaluation criterion for the "number of exceedences per year of the NOAEL". The NOAEL is not set as a target that must be achieved at all cost, but it is recognized as a significant benchmark, and so it is useful to report the expected consequences of the alternatives with direct reference to this benchmark. The SDM process can then go on to test the implications of different targets through alternatives. One alternative may be designed to allow zero exceedences, another up to five per year, and another up to twenty per year. One can imagine that these alternatives would involve different permit levels or technology standards for various dischargers in the watershed, and that each alternative would have different implementation costs and possibly different performance with respect to other contaminants and hence differences in other environmental effects. The consequence table should expose these trade-offs. Decision makers can then select the alternative with the most desirable balance across the objectives, which may or may not be one that allows occasional exceedence of the NOAEL作者: 鸦鸦 时间: 2011-11-3 13:06
感觉上还是有区别的, 不过咱们中国人好象是分不出来作者: 五哥 时间: 2011-11-3 13:06
前者侧重于指标性;
后者侧重于目的性.作者: 大力水饺 时间: 2011-11-3 13:06
受教了。。。原来如此。。。。
简单来说就是OBJECTIVE就是战略目标，TARGET就是战术目标。