|
|
|
|
|
by duey
4386 days ago
|
|
I've witnessed this first hand - we recently started rolling out measured goals in our warehouses. This involved staff getting set daily goal counts for certain tasks (products shipped, products put on shelves etc.). As soon as we rolled out metrics everything that wasn't measured became a low priority. For example, we were not measuring cycle counts (stock take) so immediately the number of cycle counts plummeted, which increased our out-of-stock errors. We had instances of staff hoarding incoming shipments from suppliers at their workstations in order to get higher rankings. Overall the warehouses went from being generally efficient to extreme performers on measured metrics. I think metrics can be clearly powerful, but you have to be very careful about what metrics you choose to implement. |
|
If underperforming on your metrics will cause some pain, humans in general want to avoid pain, and you ARE employing smart people who are paid to solve problems and do analysis ... well, duh some metrics gaming will happen: people avoiding pain.
Probably this will have an opposite affect than what the measurer wanted: people hording things/information/output specifically to improve their metrics, people working around the metrics (outside the managed systems), or essentially spamming the system ("oh you found a bug in my you're reviewing? Can you file a new bug on this?... so my closed bug count for the week goes up...")