I mostly found them to be a political tool. In that role, they can work very well. (My role being one of observation, not use of / manipulation.) Of course,

I mostly found them to be a political tool. In that role, they can work very well. (My role being one of observation, not use of / manipulation.) Of course, they aren't really even trying to objectively measure and improve performance. I mean, they work well for furthering the politics and furthering the ambitions of those in control of the review process. I didn't find this very productive, in terms of the organizational performance nor, long-term, well-being. Existing powers become entrenched, and turf becomes more important than progress. Eventually, "outsiders" are brought in, one way or another, to break this up. And most of them know very well and make a career of putting themselves first. The review process tends to be or become separated from day-to-day work and communication. It exists "out-of-band", and it can end up -- including deliberately -- uninformed by and mis-informed about that actual day-to-day and project results. I.e. It's very easy to manipulate. And there are always people more than willing to take advantage of this.