Thanks for sharing, indeed! The tone is charged but, if I'm being honest, I share many of the same sentiments and in no more eloquent terms. I've always considered them a pretty cruel imposition for people working at an operational level, people that have already pledged to give nearly half—and in many cases, it's much closer to all—of their waking life to the Wikimedia movement.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hopefully we (as an org) are aiming for KPI's that measure actual end-user > value and impact ("outcomes") as opposed to measuring our own internal > amounts of work ("outputs"), or worse (e.g. "how much time an employee > spends in the bathroom"). > Therein lays the crux of the problem for me: Our KPIs have been employed completely backwards. We didn't start by defining KPIs for organizational impact (likely because we lack organizational initiatives and strategy to begin with) or for intermediary goals (there are no intermediaries of 'undefined'). Instead, our ED mandated that teams use KPIs to measure their own individual conceptions of success which, in the absence of any similar accountabilities measures at the C-level, amounted to saying "prove your worth to us." Leaving teams to formulate their own models of success without any shared consensus about the bigger picture has also rendered our KPIs biased and unverified—in other words, they are pseudoscientific. Every second spent on fulfilling KPIs in an organization of such strategic and operational disparity is a huge waste of donor money in my opinion. And just because I saw "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it" in the article, I have to follow up with this article. :) http://www.druckerinstitute.com/2013/07/measurement-myopia/ -- Dan Duvall Automation Engineer Wikimedia Foundation <http://wikimediafoundation.org>
_______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
