Summary of "Tutor Pengisian KPI"

Purpose & key message

• The training explains how to correctly fill QPI (KPI) in Tribuana Global Group / Tribona Globa Group (TBG) and stresses that QPI must be aligned to TBG’s 2026 Strategic Map.
• It highlights a common failure mode: “fake/healthy-looking KPIs that measure activity, not output/results,” which can make the company look fine on paper while performance degrades.
• QPI completion is not a one-time form: it must feed into monthly discussions (PIKA meetings) and end in a coaching dialogue plus HR/management review.

Strategic alignment framework (Balanced Scorecard → QPI)

The video positions QPI as Corporate Key Results derived from the Balanced Scorecard, with the 2026 theme: “accelerated and controlled growth.”

• Top-level theme (2026): accelerated & controlled growth (grow/develop quickly but governed).
• Balanced Scorecard perspectives used in the QPI structure:
  • Learning & Growth (foundation)
    • HR capabilities, talent lifecycle, leadership regeneration, corporate culture
    • assessment centers
    • KPI-based HR systems (and LMS/HR enablement in business units)
  • Internal Process (four pillars):
    1. Strategic control
    2. Legal & asset control
    3. External stability & reputation
    4. Internal audit
  • Customer / Stakeholder focus
    • Link customer satisfaction / stakeholder satisfaction CKRs to the right QPI indicators
    • Covers internal + between-divisions + external stakeholders
  • Finance outcomes (results)
    • If foundation + internal process are strong (e.g., SLA met), then:
      • Revenue growth target: >15% (CKR #5 referenced)
      • Cost efficiency improves
      • Financial risk decreases via good governance
      • Organizational productivity increases because business units/customers are satisfied

Actionable rule: Before scoring, participants must verify each QPI indicator is aligned with the 2026 Strategic Map, not just rewritten as a job description.

QPI “healthy vs dying company” playbook (anti-pattern)

The video contrasts proper KPIs vs fake KPIs.

• Anti-pattern: measuring activity volume (meetings, reports, training hours, sales visits, emails sent, exhibitions/events, checklists) with minimal link to business impact.
• Example of fake KPI behavior:
  • Many exhibitions held, but sales conversion remains minimal.
• Correct principle:
  • KPI must be output-based, not activity-based
  • KPI must include:
    • Clear formula/definition
    • Validated data (employee POV + boss POV + mutual validation)
• “Healthy KPI / dying company” diagnosis:
  • If metrics are mostly activity, the organization can still decline despite “green” KPI dashboards.

Scoring system & dictionary-based calibration (4 layers, two sections)

Participants are instructed to review the assessment dictionary and scoring rules before entering scores, because different layers use different weights.

• Layers & dictionary guidance:
  • Layer 1 has a dictionary.
  • Layers 3 & 4 also reference campuses/campuses (per screen) (i.e., specific dictionaries).
  • If scoring is 3, 2, etc., always map it back to dictionary ranges first.
• Two parts for evaluation:
  • Part A (Achievement / results): quantitative achievement vs target
  • Part B (Potential / process / planning & execution): narrative + evidence-based assessment from the working process
• Weighting:
  • Different layers use different weight ratios between Part A and Part B.
  • (Layer 1 example noted: weights were “received from boss” and used accordingly.)
• Layer 1 example scoring rules (Part A):
  • If performance is <80% of target → score 1 (general rule)
  • Specific mapping shown:
    • 80–95% → Score 2
    • 95%+ (example: 98%) → Score 3
    • 100% → Score 3 (demonstrated in the narrative example)

Operational process: timeline, monthly review, validation, documentation

Timeline / release cadence

• Starting in 2026, QPI filling is released every 4 months.
• The video is recorded in April, described as the first period / first collection window for 2026 (January–April period).
• Cut-off example:
  • HRBP may announce a cut-off date such as May 12, before which entries must be completed.

Monthly cadence

• QPI achievement must be discussed every month at PIKA meetings.
• This prevents surprise score changes at the end of the period.

Mutual validation requirement

Modern QPI requires mutual validation:

• Employee submits their POV
• Boss submits their POV
• They reconcile and agree, producing a more objective score

Administrative steps / signatures

The simulation includes:

• Employee signature
• Superior signature
• Approval from direct superior

Even before final approval:

• Participants must still complete the coaching form collaboratively once QPI is discussed between employee and supervisor.

Concrete simulation (Compliance example) + KPI indicators used

A simulated case is provided:

• Employee: Dylan (compliance person)
• Layer: Layer 1
• Period: April 2026

Seven assessment aspects are referenced (examples shown include):

• Compliance with applicable SOPs & regulations (Unit compliance %)
• Completion of document reviews / compliance requests vs SLA
• Number of significant compliance risks identified & mitigated within 4 months
• Compliance with new policy implementation (target mentioned: 100%)
• Training module completion:
  • Example baseline: 12 modules in 1 year
  • For April period: scaled to 4 modules, with catch-up behavior from May to the next period

Narrative of scoring reconciliation:

• Employee initially scored (examples used):
  • Achievement values like 95%, 100%, 3 mitigated risks, etc.
• Supervisor initially adjusted/reduced scores based on:
  • evidence mismatch
  • governance/monitoring maturity
  • innovation/learning not yet meeting the “real impact” definition

Leadership example: dialogue-driven score adjustment (evidence-based)

Behavioral expectations for managers and employees:

• If you assign a score, include evidence
• Reconcile differences via discussion, not unilateral scoring
• If there’s disagreement:
  • compare evidence, data, and dictionary definitions
  • adjust to a mutually agreed score

In the simulation:

• Dylan and supervisor Budi agree on final scoring after evidence review.
• A “3 vs 4” debate on innovation & learning is resolved by checking whether improvements:
  • were accepted by policy makers
  • had management “green light”
  • were not yet fully institutionalized into SOPs or socialized to business units

Coaching playbook (QPI → coaching form → improvement)

After QPI entries and agreement, there is a mandatory coaching step with a form containing 3 parts:

1. Feedback (start of coaching chat)
   • What the employee did well
   • SOP alignment and what must improve
2. Development (potential-based improvement)
   • Feedback must translate into a special assignment (measurable)
3. Improvement (self-development behavioral/personal work method changes)
   • Based on feedback and coaching outcomes

Rules for special assignments

• Must be truly measurable
  • Example: monitoring standards across business units
• Example assignment periods: May–July / May–June, etc.
• Coaching outputs must be actionable
  • Coaching-only “casual chats” are not enough without structured, measurable assignments

Example coaching scenario (recruitment monitoring)

• Employee: Milea Anchika
• Positive achievements:
  • faster recruitment process
  • better responsiveness in coordination
• Improvement needs:
  • recruitment progress not consistently documented
  • candidate evaluation not systematically performed
• Development goal example:
  • become PIC for developing recruitment monitoring standards across all business units
• Target example (by June 2026 at latest):
  • more structured, transparent system
  • consistent use of a recruitment monitoring format

Monitoring requirement: coaching must not stay on paper; supervisors must follow up in subsequent months.

KPIs / targets explicitly mentioned in subtitles

• Revenue growth: >15% (CKR #5 referenced)
• SOP/policy compliance & implementation:
  • New policy compliance target: 100%
  • SOPs/regulations compliance tied to score mapping
• SLA-based compliance metric: document review/compliance request completion planned at 95% SLA (example used)
• Risk mitigation: example target/value: 3 significant compliance risks mitigated within 4 months
• Training modules:
  • 12 modules per year
  • For January–April: scaled to 4 modules, with catch-up logic
• Coaching/special assignment effectiveness targets: example completion by June 2026 at latest

Marketing/sales angle (limited; mostly internal ops)

• “Fake KPI” examples sometimes use sales-like activity metrics (sales visits, proposals, emails).
• The core instruction remains general:
  • convert activity counts into output metrics that affect sales outcomes (e.g., conversion), not just activity volume.

Presenters / sources

• Presenter: Ahmad Madu (also referenced as Mr. Madu)
• Organization referenced: Tribuana Global Group / TBG (and “Tribona Globa Group” as written in subtitles)
• Roles referenced for illustration: HRBP, HR, Managing Director, Team Chiefs, Supervisors, direct superiors/boss (e.g., Budi), employee (e.g., Dylan)

Category

Business

---

Share this summary

Share on X/Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Share on WhatsApp Share on Telegram

---

Is the summary off?

If you think the summary is inaccurate, you can reprocess it with the latest model.

Reprocess summary

Video