4 ms·

I agree with you completely except on one part. Metrics is not the only solution to this. The other option, more difficult but more effective if you can pull it

by kqr 4y ago

I agree with you completely except on one part. Metrics is not the only solution to this. The other option, more difficult but more effective if you can pull it off, is for individual contributors to not make these mistakes in the first place. Having executives fix the bad decisions by individual contributors is sort of treating the symptoms rather than the underlying cause. It adds extra work because now everyone has to produce numbers about their work in addition to work -- and some of the numbers might not be better than tea leaves, statistically speaking. So how do you get ICs to make the correct decision? Training, ownership, free flow of information about strategy and market, involving everyone in setting the direction, etc. The opposite of the instinct of an executive going by the numbers. ---- To stave off an eventual misunderstanding: I'm not saying you shouldn't measure what you do, operationalise your definitions, define in advance when you reject your hypotheses etc. I'm just saying that producing these numbers for yourself and your peers is far more effective than doing it for someone removed from the day-to-day business because they don't have the same context and nuance.

mathattack 4y ago
I agree with everything you say. And bad numbers are awful. At some point of organizational size, executives can’t stay on top of everything and make good decisions without quantitative metrics. That doesn’t mean making everyone full time metric gatherers. It doesn’t mean looking at the data uncritically. It doesn’t mean ignoring what you can’t measure. It does mean smartly measuring what you can.
- kqr 4y ago
  The alternative solution is that executives don't make decisions, only coordinate between the people on the ground who have the necessary context to make decisions.
  - mathattack 4y ago
    That works for 80% of the problems, and something that should be done. Some problems require optimizing for the whole rather than individual teams or departments. How do you allocate capital between business units if you aren’t measuring ROI? How do you decide what practices work best if you’re not measuring how people work and what they’re doing?
    - kqr 4y ago
      Not all functions are best evaluated through ROI, but if you're an executive whose hammer is ROI you'll start to look at everything as a liability. Free markets are generally better at allocating capital than central control. It's also more flexible in adapting to different measures of success. Standardising work is especially important that it's done by the participants in said work, and not dictated from above. That can be done democratically.
      - mathattack 4y ago
        Agree. Very few execs are good enough to base capital allocation decisions on gut feel alone though. “It feels like we are short on internal audit” versus “a firm our size should be doing these 10 audits per year. An audit takes $y and if we don’t do it, the consequences are measurable with Y….”
        kqr 4y ago
        You keep saying you agree with me that executives should not make this type of decision and then you somehow circle back to how we can enable executives to make that type of decision. That's the opposite of what I'm saying! I'm not sure I understand what's going on there.
        mathattack 4y ago
        I’m saying both. I agree that not every call is an ROI decision, but execs need some data beyond feel for most capital allocation decisions.
closeparen 4y ago
> is for individual contributors to not make these mistakes in the first place. Exactly. Is the individual contributor working on something different than what the metrics would describe because they are dumb and irrational? Or because their experience, domain knowledge, and good judgement give them an insight that the KPI wouldn't? People certainly can be dumb and irrational, but we should at least be open to the possibility that people who are up to their eyeballs in a problem domain know something about what "better" and "worse" look like that a number-cruncher doesn't.
lupire 4y ago

by kqr 4y ago

mathattack 4y ago

I agree with everything you say. And bad numbers are awful. At some point of organizational size, executives can’t stay on top of everything and make good decisions without quantitative metrics. That doesn’t mean making everyone full time metric gatherers. It doesn’t mean looking at the data uncritically. It doesn’t mean ignoring what you can’t measure. It does mean smartly measuring what you can.

kqr 4y ago
The alternative solution is that executives don't make decisions, only coordinate between the people on the ground who have the necessary context to make decisions.
- mathattack 4y ago
  That works for 80% of the problems, and something that should be done. Some problems require optimizing for the whole rather than individual teams or departments. How do you allocate capital between business units if you aren’t measuring ROI? How do you decide what practices work best if you’re not measuring how people work and what they’re doing?
  - kqr 4y ago
    Not all functions are best evaluated through ROI, but if you're an executive whose hammer is ROI you'll start to look at everything as a liability. Free markets are generally better at allocating capital than central control. It's also more flexible in adapting to different measures of success. Standardising work is especially important that it's done by the participants in said work, and not dictated from above. That can be done democratically.
    - mathattack 4y ago
      Agree. Very few execs are good enough to base capital allocation decisions on gut feel alone though. “It feels like we are short on internal audit” versus “a firm our size should be doing these 10 audits per year. An audit takes $y and if we don’t do it, the consequences are measurable with Y….”
      - kqr 4y ago
        You keep saying you agree with me that executives should not make this type of decision and then you somehow circle back to how we can enable executives to make that type of decision. That's the opposite of what I'm saying! I'm not sure I understand what's going on there.
        mathattack 4y ago
        I’m saying both. I agree that not every call is an ROI decision, but execs need some data beyond feel for most capital allocation decisions.

closeparen 4y ago

> is for individual contributors to not make these mistakes in the first place. Exactly. Is the individual contributor working on something different than what the metrics would describe because they are dumb and irrational? Or because their experience, domain knowledge, and good judgement give them an insight that the KPI wouldn't? People certainly can be dumb and irrational, but we should at least be open to the possibility that people who are up to their eyeballs in a problem domain know something about what "better" and "worse" look like that a number-cruncher doesn't.

lupire 4y ago