It should be noted that the key objective of electronic valuation is to technologically enhance the assessment and evaluation of the conducted improvement practices with the purpose of adding accuracy and precision to the data acquired. Unlike other alternatives, it is highly accurate and objective because it does not excessively depend on inherent biases or inclinations. The three pros of electronic monitoring are increased productivity, improved quality, and reduced operational costs (Berman et al., 2019). The three cons of the given approach are privacy concerns, negative perception of surveillance, and the lack of trustworthy peer input.
I am only partially in favor of electronic monitoring because I think it provides a powerful method of enhancing the existing frameworks of monitoring with the use of more accurate and reliable technology. However, I additional believe that it should not be the primary or sole measure of conducting such a process. In addition, it should be less invasive of someone’s privacy, which implies that people should not feel and perceive as if they are being constantly monitored or watched (Berman et al., 2019). It might stall their creativity and proactivity since electronic valuation is rather rigid and static.
Moreover, electronic valuation needs to be properly and fairly designed without intentionally or intentionally favoring one group over another. For example, employees with more technical and precise outputs might be able to adapt to this framework better than workers with more creative or less ‘visible’ performance outcomes. The strength of electronic valuation needs to be benefited from, but its weaknesses need to be compensated with other means. In other words, a combinational approach might result in more objective and accurate results.
Reference
Berman, E. M., West, J., Bowman, J. S., & Van Wert, M. R. (2019). Human resources management in public service: Paradoxes, processes, and problems (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.