Just a niggling comment here: You note that subjective metrics are "not scientific" but in fact there is a great deal of research into "subjective metrics" like customer satisfaction. There are different definitions of "science" and science can involve both qualitative and quantitative methods and systematic data collection and analysis.
When I managed a usability group, I invited clients to give quarterly feedback on how well the team was doing (ratings and qualitative comments that were then coded by similarity). One issue that emerged from this "client satisfaction" survey was that the type of report desired differed by stakeholders. From that I learned to give clients examples of our reports and ask them for feedback about how well the format would support their needs (requirements input, detailed UI design, high-level consistency issues, etc.). Chauncey > "You should also note there is nothing wrong with subjective metrics. Why > cant your team score itself 1 to 10 on team performance every month, or > even > better, ask your clients & stakeholders to rate your performance. Then at > least you have a metric that is very difficult to manipulate. So what if > it's not scientific: science is not a panacea. If the goal is to get a > sense > of how you're doing and focus team energy, qualitative measures can be just > as effective as quantitative ones. RMPT can work fine with subjective > measures." > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
