3 ms·

> If you can't measure how well you're performing, There are a lot of assumptions baked into that statement, not least among them: (1) that being unable to pu

> If you can't measure how well you're performing, There are a lot of assumptions baked into that statement, not least among them: (1) that being unable to put a number on it means you can't tell if you're improving or not; (2) that this all boils down to a number anyway (or a reasonable set of numbers); (3) That such numbers are actually predictive. There are two primary reasons people complain about metrics in my experience: (1) They're difficult/tedious to get and/or (2) they lead companies to focus on the wrong actions. These would belie the claims you're making. (I can't tell if you're making them personally, or just echoing what you've heard, so I'll argue against the generic theory) Turn your scenario around: We have a system. Experts in the field agree the system is more likely to cause poor decisions than not. Should we continue the system? (And trying to gather metrics on whether the system works or not is not the solution, because the question at hand is if metrics accurately guide decision-making.)

kuzehanka 8y ago
You are preaching to the choir. I am just explaining why KPIs are prevalent and probably not going away any time soon. The business world is full of mediocre people who will cling to mediocre but predictable methodologies rather than take any kind of risk, especially if that risk is based in their own competence. The devil you know, etc.
PeterisP 8y ago
In the expected environment such as large corporations, the desire for an objective (even if bad) metric is driven by the fact because yes, being unable to put a number on it does mean you can't tell if you're improving or not - in every case you'll have some people making points why they believe it's improving and other people making points why it's becoming worse, with the arguments mainly driven by politics; in the absence of such numbers, any claims about a suborganization will be even less reliable as bad metrics - bad metrics can be manipulated, but no metrics means that claims can have no relation with reality at all. And regarding your latter paragraph, the answer to "Should we continue the system?" depends on what alternative systems can plausibly be implemented for making the same decisions. If the current system causes poor decisions, but the alternatives are even worse (or there are better alternatives which we are unable to implement), then we should keep the current system. Yes, the whole system would work better if people could just agree on what best needs to be done, and which activities are useful for achieving these goals, but often they can't. Metrics are a solution to a particular problem - an environment with limited trust and plenty of subjective politics, where any non-metric system for evaluating success and assigning benefits will be gamed as well. There possibly can be other solutions, but "simply" not having that problem isn't a solution.

kuzehanka 8y ago

You are preaching to the choir. I am just explaining why KPIs are prevalent and probably not going away any time soon. The business world is full of mediocre people who will cling to mediocre but predictable methodologies rather than take any kind of risk, especially if that risk is based in their own competence. The devil you know, etc.

PeterisP 8y ago

In the expected environment such as large corporations, the desire for an objective (even if bad) metric is driven by the fact because yes, being unable to put a number on it does mean you can't tell if you're improving or not - in every case you'll have some people making points why they believe it's improving and other people making points why it's becoming worse, with the arguments mainly driven by politics; in the absence of such numbers, any claims about a suborganization will be even less reliable as bad metrics - bad metrics can be manipulated, but no metrics means that claims can have no relation with reality at all. And regarding your latter paragraph, the answer to "Should we continue the system?" depends on what alternative systems can plausibly be implemented for making the same decisions. If the current system causes poor decisions, but the alternatives are even worse (or there are better alternatives which we are unable to implement), then we should keep the current system. Yes, the whole system would work better if people could just agree on what best needs to be done, and which activities are useful for achieving these goals, but often they can't. Metrics are a solution to a particular problem - an environment with limited trust and plenty of subjective politics, where any non-metric system for evaluating success and assigning benefits will be gamed as well. There possibly can be other solutions, but "simply" not having that problem isn't a solution.