|
|
|
|
|
by jdmichal
4110 days ago
|
|
> I think the general notion that it is more difficult to improve things that you can't/don't measure is fairly accurate. To be somewhat pedantic: The difficulty of improving a thing does not change based on you measuring it. If I, say, measure the response time of a service, it's still just as difficult as it was before to improve the response time of the service. Furthermore, any improvement you do make will not change based on you measuring it. If I do improve the response time of the service, it will be just as improved whether or not I measure the change. So, measuring does nothing but allow you to quantify the improvement you have made. It doesn't make improving a thing easier, and it doesn't make improvements better. That said, there's plenty of scenarios where impartial measurements are critical. If you don't know what to improve, broad measurement across the entire system can provide an answer. If there's indecisiveness about which action will provide the best improvement, then impartial measuring will provide an answer. If you don't trust your perception, or cannot perceive the result, then impartial measuring can also provide an answer. |
|
Measurements will usually encourage attention and effort to change in a way that non-measured things are unlikely to.
On that basis, I'd argue that even things that are very difficult to measure quantitatively would benefit if a suitable proxy was found that could be measured.
Of course, you do have to be careful that your proxy is suitable!