3 ms·

Metrics are unavoidable, they're just too convenient, but the way they are designed in such an isolated way is what promotes the self-centered attitude that opt

Metrics are unavoidable, they're just too convenient, but the way they are designed in such an isolated way is what promotes the self-centered attitude that optimizes for the individual outcome, disconnected from the local community. Many of those events at a large scale contribute to the tragedy of the commons and to that general feeling of society becoming more selfish and individualistic to a fault. Instead of relying exclusively on metrics like time to deliver, drive style safety, tie in a sensible chunk of revenue or bonus to a local community statistic like percentage of accidents in city X or state Y. That's the end result for that community, less accidents holistically, it serves no one that one idiot didn't crash his van but made 3 other people crash. Imagine McDonald's metrics tied in with obesity rate of a nation, or Facebook's metrics tied in to rise in extremism, or something else accurate/easy to measure that impacts society as a whole. And any sort of engagement metric should be made illegal or capped, numbers of eyes on screen or % of daily hours watching content per user or number of paperclips produced is simply a style of metric that no healthy society wants min-max'd.

esyir 5y ago
One metric is aligned with the goal of the org, the other is orthogonal. One wonders why the second is rarely picked. If I was a chef, my metric isn't going to be reduction of customer obesity. My metric is going to be customer satisfaction with the mail. They're also coming for the latter and not the former.
LegitShady 5y ago
>Instead of relying exclusively on metrics like time to deliver, drive style safety, tie in a sensible chunk of revenue or bonus to a local community statistic like percentage of accidents in city X or state Y. That's the end result for that community, less accidents holistically, it serves no one that one idiot didn't crash his van but made 3 other people crash. If they don't reduce or remove the other metrics then you get conflicting instructions of 'deliver at this insane pace' and 'drive safely' so that the company gets something to reduce liability, but on the ground there is no difference to the drivers because they still have to meet their quota. Now they're just in a no-win situation. >Imagine McDonald's metrics tied in with obesity rate of a nation, McDonalds isn't dealing with their employees on that issue, so it's hardly relevant. >Facebook's metrics tied in to rise in extremism, Facebook isn't dealing with employees on that issue, so it's hardly relevant. >And any sort of engagement metric We're not talking about engagement. This is about an employer telling their employees/contractors to meet a quote that necessitates dangerous driving. Adding a 'but you should drive safely, too!' without reducing the quotas/pace required is basically useless, or maybe worse than useless because now the employees have to balance getting the job done on time vs taking risks, and they'll get in trouble for taking a hit either one.
maxerickson 5y ago
I think it's probably reasonable to measure delivery rates, to do things like fix delivery problems. The issue comes from treating it like something that can be continuously optimized. They should set a reasonable rate as a goal and be done with it, except for things like new processes that increase the rate without burdening the driver (new technology or better routing or whatever). People spending hundreds of dollars on Amazon are saving $0.50 on shipping, doing the deliveries doesn't have to suck, charge $0.50 more.

esyir 5y ago

One metric is aligned with the goal of the org, the other is orthogonal. One wonders why the second is rarely picked. If I was a chef, my metric isn't going to be reduction of customer obesity. My metric is going to be customer satisfaction with the mail. They're also coming for the latter and not the former.

LegitShady 5y ago

>Instead of relying exclusively on metrics like time to deliver, drive style safety, tie in a sensible chunk of revenue or bonus to a local community statistic like percentage of accidents in city X or state Y. That's the end result for that community, less accidents holistically, it serves no one that one idiot didn't crash his van but made 3 other people crash. If they don't reduce or remove the other metrics then you get conflicting instructions of 'deliver at this insane pace' and 'drive safely' so that the company gets something to reduce liability, but on the ground there is no difference to the drivers because they still have to meet their quota. Now they're just in a no-win situation. >Imagine McDonald's metrics tied in with obesity rate of a nation, McDonalds isn't dealing with their employees on that issue, so it's hardly relevant. >Facebook's metrics tied in to rise in extremism, Facebook isn't dealing with employees on that issue, so it's hardly relevant. >And any sort of engagement metric We're not talking about engagement. This is about an employer telling their employees/contractors to meet a quote that necessitates dangerous driving. Adding a 'but you should drive safely, too!' without reducing the quotas/pace required is basically useless, or maybe worse than useless because now the employees have to balance getting the job done on time vs taking risks, and they'll get in trouble for taking a hit either one.

maxerickson 5y ago

I think it's probably reasonable to measure delivery rates, to do things like fix delivery problems. The issue comes from treating it like something that can be continuously optimized. They should set a reasonable rate as a goal and be done with it, except for things like new processes that increase the rate without burdening the driver (new technology or better routing or whatever). People spending hundreds of dollars on Amazon are saving $0.50 on shipping, doing the deliveries doesn't have to suck, charge $0.50 more.