> Only after spending time in several leadership roles did Larson realize that getting caught up on finding the right measurement was the anti-pattern. “Often when people start measuring, there's always a concern that their measurement is flawed. And that's true for all functions,” he says. “But I’m a believer in measuring something imperfect, but useful, versus holding out for the perfect metric while measuring nothing in the interim.”
He doesn’t understand the problem. The problem is not the measurement, it’s the judgement that comes with the measurement.
If we are to be judged by a metric that makes wins look like losses/neutral, or losses look neutral, of course we are going to push back. It’s unfair at best, and toxic at worst to make decisions based on bullshit metrics that punish and celebrate the wrong things. On the average it’s more entropy added to the project. It accelerates decay.
The problem is not metrics. It’s the boss making conclusions from them. Particularly if they have to be talked out of the same wrong conclusion every fucking week for months at a time.
Graphs are for asking questions, not answering them. Only if you understand this does the rest sort itself out.
He doesn’t understand the problem. The problem is not the measurement, it’s the judgement that comes with the measurement.
If we are to be judged by a metric that makes wins look like losses/neutral, or losses look neutral, of course we are going to push back. It’s unfair at best, and toxic at worst to make decisions based on bullshit metrics that punish and celebrate the wrong things. On the average it’s more entropy added to the project. It accelerates decay.
The problem is not metrics. It’s the boss making conclusions from them. Particularly if they have to be talked out of the same wrong conclusion every fucking week for months at a time.
Graphs are for asking questions, not answering them. Only if you understand this does the rest sort itself out.