MANY ORGANIZATIONS TAKE measurements or metrics because they have the capability to measure, rather than determining why they need the information. Unfortunately, measurement for the sake of a number or statistic rarely makes a process better, faster, or cheaper. A poor measurement can hurt a process if incorrect decisions are based on the result of that measurement. People at all levels of organizations continue to take measurements hoping that they will shed light on the best way to provide a product or service. Though fraught with good intentions, these poorly contrived measurements add to the confusion of what should and should not be measured.
Metrics Process Model
Until a year ago, many of the communications and information metrics of Air Force Space Command (AFSC) were taken because they had been collected for years, and people thought those metrics must have a purpose.
At that time, many metrics were not being used to make a decision based on fact, but fulfilled a headquarters' requirement to report on information by a certain date every month. After a fairly extensive study, the AFSC Senior Communicator (SC) changed the format and collection of many of these metrics, while deleting the requirement for many that had little value.
Like many discoveries, the process for metrics collection and analysis in this directorate was the result of a change in leadership. Communications metrics at AFSC seemed to provide good information, since senior leaders did not complain about content or format of the 30 metrics collected at the headquarters level. Haphazard metrics collection continued until a number of new senior leaders asked why these metrics were being collected and if they were the right measurements for their organizations. These questions sparked a complete review of the metrics collection, analysis, and reporting process.
