Pointless metrics
-
I sometimes question my sanity, but then I have a day like today and I remember that I'm a rock of sanity in an increasingly turbulent sea of madness. It seems to me that the whole of civilization will soon collapse under the weight of meaningless statistics. Today's mantra is "If it can't be measured, it has no value", and what a stupid notion this is; companies, governments, local authorities, schools... you name it, they all collect huge amounts of data and the vast majority of it is completely and utterly useless. But it's not only useless it's also dangerous: if you're busily analysing how many paper-clips were used in the last month, who then is keeping an eye on your sales which have just dropped 15%? Madness. Where did this notion come from? Why did it come into being? When did it come into being? I asked these three questions of three jumped up MBA's today, in what would prove to be a fairly free and frank meeting. The answer? Blank looks. I know my industry like the back of my hand. I've forgotten more about it than most people will ever know, and I do not tolerate fools gladly - especially not the jumped up type. So when one of these simpletons brought up the subject of quantifying a hugely insignificant part of their business, I simply asked, "You do realise that what you're talking about represents less than 0.1% of your annual turnover? You do realise that if you spent any more than five seconds looking at that data it would cost the business more than twice its worth? You do realise that this would be a complete waste of time and you'd be better off analysing something of worth?" Blank looks. And so I think I managed to answer my own questions: this idiocy came about when jumped-up guff talking morons, with their shiny MBA's and no actual talent for anything moved into positions requiring business know-how, knowledge, acumen, common sense, skill and a bit more drive than it takes to produce a nice looking business process diagram or a colourful chart in Excel. The bad news? I think they're here to stay.
I'm going to give the normal developers escape clause "The requirements were not defined!" :) I recently designed a system that will calculate order quantities for volitile sales of perishable goods, and I assumed the precision is important, but I was told that I was "optimising in the noise". Looking back I was optimising in the noise, but I was never told that during design. As in all, balance is required. The important metrics need to be defined to the people using the metrics, and the people using the metrics need to understand the concept of noise...
____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
-
I sometimes question my sanity, but then I have a day like today and I remember that I'm a rock of sanity in an increasingly turbulent sea of madness. It seems to me that the whole of civilization will soon collapse under the weight of meaningless statistics. Today's mantra is "If it can't be measured, it has no value", and what a stupid notion this is; companies, governments, local authorities, schools... you name it, they all collect huge amounts of data and the vast majority of it is completely and utterly useless. But it's not only useless it's also dangerous: if you're busily analysing how many paper-clips were used in the last month, who then is keeping an eye on your sales which have just dropped 15%? Madness. Where did this notion come from? Why did it come into being? When did it come into being? I asked these three questions of three jumped up MBA's today, in what would prove to be a fairly free and frank meeting. The answer? Blank looks. I know my industry like the back of my hand. I've forgotten more about it than most people will ever know, and I do not tolerate fools gladly - especially not the jumped up type. So when one of these simpletons brought up the subject of quantifying a hugely insignificant part of their business, I simply asked, "You do realise that what you're talking about represents less than 0.1% of your annual turnover? You do realise that if you spent any more than five seconds looking at that data it would cost the business more than twice its worth? You do realise that this would be a complete waste of time and you'd be better off analysing something of worth?" Blank looks. And so I think I managed to answer my own questions: this idiocy came about when jumped-up guff talking morons, with their shiny MBA's and no actual talent for anything moved into positions requiring business know-how, knowledge, acumen, common sense, skill and a bit more drive than it takes to produce a nice looking business process diagram or a colourful chart in Excel. The bad news? I think they're here to stay.
IMHO the essence of the problem at hand is the application of quantitative analysis to qualitative systems. A classic example is the fairly recent system of judgement of the performance of university professors. The government in its wizdom decided the lives of university professors was too cushy so they introduced a scheme whereby they would be judged on how many papers they published per year, three papers and the counters were off your back. NOT ONE of the really significant pieces of accademic work released in the last millenium that I am aware of was written in a year let alone four months. The quality of there work was completely disregarded in favor of its quantity. What great master pieces does this mean we'll lose? There's no way of telling.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life. Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
-
However, there is a fine line between tracking metrics and determining a statistical correlation between paper clip use and sales.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest HemingwayI have visions now of a company where all the order paper work is clipped together with a paper clip. Within the business this is the only use for them. Now i see an MBA with a pretty graph showing how use of paper clips drives profits. We must use more paperclips. Use of paperclips is shown to directly increase sales.
-
I have visions now of a company where all the order paper work is clipped together with a paper clip. Within the business this is the only use for them. Now i see an MBA with a pretty graph showing how use of paper clips drives profits. We must use more paperclips. Use of paperclips is shown to directly increase sales.
-
I sometimes question my sanity, but then I have a day like today and I remember that I'm a rock of sanity in an increasingly turbulent sea of madness. It seems to me that the whole of civilization will soon collapse under the weight of meaningless statistics. Today's mantra is "If it can't be measured, it has no value", and what a stupid notion this is; companies, governments, local authorities, schools... you name it, they all collect huge amounts of data and the vast majority of it is completely and utterly useless. But it's not only useless it's also dangerous: if you're busily analysing how many paper-clips were used in the last month, who then is keeping an eye on your sales which have just dropped 15%? Madness. Where did this notion come from? Why did it come into being? When did it come into being? I asked these three questions of three jumped up MBA's today, in what would prove to be a fairly free and frank meeting. The answer? Blank looks. I know my industry like the back of my hand. I've forgotten more about it than most people will ever know, and I do not tolerate fools gladly - especially not the jumped up type. So when one of these simpletons brought up the subject of quantifying a hugely insignificant part of their business, I simply asked, "You do realise that what you're talking about represents less than 0.1% of your annual turnover? You do realise that if you spent any more than five seconds looking at that data it would cost the business more than twice its worth? You do realise that this would be a complete waste of time and you'd be better off analysing something of worth?" Blank looks. And so I think I managed to answer my own questions: this idiocy came about when jumped-up guff talking morons, with their shiny MBA's and no actual talent for anything moved into positions requiring business know-how, knowledge, acumen, common sense, skill and a bit more drive than it takes to produce a nice looking business process diagram or a colourful chart in Excel. The bad news? I think they're here to stay.
Not just MBA's but PMP's[^] I work in a division called Software Engineering Branch (not really it's name, but close). Of about 20 people about 15 of us use to be programmers. Now only I am left as the sole developer in the division. The rest were transformed to PMP's, Security something or others (WTF, I don't know what thier title is) and Section 508 "compliance specialists". They have morphed into zombies spewing some sort of management-wannabee-speak and producing nothing, kinda like lawyers. I ignore them and plow on and do development, do demo's and continue to do the job of a developer, but I feel like that "I am Legend" in a very bad horror zombie movie.
MrPlankton
-
I sometimes question my sanity, but then I have a day like today and I remember that I'm a rock of sanity in an increasingly turbulent sea of madness. It seems to me that the whole of civilization will soon collapse under the weight of meaningless statistics. Today's mantra is "If it can't be measured, it has no value", and what a stupid notion this is; companies, governments, local authorities, schools... you name it, they all collect huge amounts of data and the vast majority of it is completely and utterly useless. But it's not only useless it's also dangerous: if you're busily analysing how many paper-clips were used in the last month, who then is keeping an eye on your sales which have just dropped 15%? Madness. Where did this notion come from? Why did it come into being? When did it come into being? I asked these three questions of three jumped up MBA's today, in what would prove to be a fairly free and frank meeting. The answer? Blank looks. I know my industry like the back of my hand. I've forgotten more about it than most people will ever know, and I do not tolerate fools gladly - especially not the jumped up type. So when one of these simpletons brought up the subject of quantifying a hugely insignificant part of their business, I simply asked, "You do realise that what you're talking about represents less than 0.1% of your annual turnover? You do realise that if you spent any more than five seconds looking at that data it would cost the business more than twice its worth? You do realise that this would be a complete waste of time and you'd be better off analysing something of worth?" Blank looks. And so I think I managed to answer my own questions: this idiocy came about when jumped-up guff talking morons, with their shiny MBA's and no actual talent for anything moved into positions requiring business know-how, knowledge, acumen, common sense, skill and a bit more drive than it takes to produce a nice looking business process diagram or a colourful chart in Excel. The bad news? I think they're here to stay.
What else are these people going to do with their fancy degrees? Besides they have to pay off their loans... "Professional Management", as these MBAs are often referred to, have been the bane of the American business environment and have successfully destroyed everything intelligent people originally built... minus the crooks likes John D. Rockefeller. You can thank Milton Friedman and his "Chicago Boys" for most of this...
Steve Naidamast Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@ix.netcom.com
-
It's part of the lure of more precise data. The more we can measure the more we know but what has happened is that those consuming the measurements do not understand the systems being measured and/or the systems doing the measuring. There is a point where the accuracy of the data reduces to the point of uselessness, but the preciseness at which it is being measured remains constant. Lots of people miss this subtletly. And then there's those who don't actually take the time to understand what is going on and just want to show a graph. They use graphs and figures which are then answered with more graphs and figures (or which, in the following quarters, must be compared to the latest graphs and figures) with no one stopping and saying 'yes, but is this meaningful'. Pretty pictures mean people don't have to think and make lazy assumptions. I think the best I've seen lately was the reports of the tripling of Safari usage. Essentially p from, I think, 3 people to 9 people. Compared to the gazillion people using Firefox and IE.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
What complicates the problem is the fact that 97.654329% of statistics are made up on the spot (+/-63.7694433%). And only 12.76553% (+/-66.6666%) of people believe them anyway, so the 43.65592% (+/-180.7776663%) of people wasting their time coming up with them are wasting 100%(+/-0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%) of both their time and the time we spend listening to them.
-
It's part of the lure of more precise data. The more we can measure the more we know but what has happened is that those consuming the measurements do not understand the systems being measured and/or the systems doing the measuring. There is a point where the accuracy of the data reduces to the point of uselessness, but the preciseness at which it is being measured remains constant. Lots of people miss this subtletly. And then there's those who don't actually take the time to understand what is going on and just want to show a graph. They use graphs and figures which are then answered with more graphs and figures (or which, in the following quarters, must be compared to the latest graphs and figures) with no one stopping and saying 'yes, but is this meaningful'. Pretty pictures mean people don't have to think and make lazy assumptions. I think the best I've seen lately was the reports of the tripling of Safari usage. Essentially p from, I think, 3 people to 9 people. Compared to the gazillion people using Firefox and IE.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Reminds me of a story I first heard on Paul Harvey news years and years ago about an island society that started measuring EVERYTHING and pretty soon there were only 3 people actually DOING ANY WORK. Then they snuck off the island in the middle of the night! It's funny until you realize it's happening to you. :wtf: ... Cheers, Owen
-
I sometimes question my sanity, but then I have a day like today and I remember that I'm a rock of sanity in an increasingly turbulent sea of madness. It seems to me that the whole of civilization will soon collapse under the weight of meaningless statistics. Today's mantra is "If it can't be measured, it has no value", and what a stupid notion this is; companies, governments, local authorities, schools... you name it, they all collect huge amounts of data and the vast majority of it is completely and utterly useless. But it's not only useless it's also dangerous: if you're busily analysing how many paper-clips were used in the last month, who then is keeping an eye on your sales which have just dropped 15%? Madness. Where did this notion come from? Why did it come into being? When did it come into being? I asked these three questions of three jumped up MBA's today, in what would prove to be a fairly free and frank meeting. The answer? Blank looks. I know my industry like the back of my hand. I've forgotten more about it than most people will ever know, and I do not tolerate fools gladly - especially not the jumped up type. So when one of these simpletons brought up the subject of quantifying a hugely insignificant part of their business, I simply asked, "You do realise that what you're talking about represents less than 0.1% of your annual turnover? You do realise that if you spent any more than five seconds looking at that data it would cost the business more than twice its worth? You do realise that this would be a complete waste of time and you'd be better off analysing something of worth?" Blank looks. And so I think I managed to answer my own questions: this idiocy came about when jumped-up guff talking morons, with their shiny MBA's and no actual talent for anything moved into positions requiring business know-how, knowledge, acumen, common sense, skill and a bit more drive than it takes to produce a nice looking business process diagram or a colourful chart in Excel. The bad news? I think they're here to stay.
-
I sometimes question my sanity, but then I have a day like today and I remember that I'm a rock of sanity in an increasingly turbulent sea of madness. It seems to me that the whole of civilization will soon collapse under the weight of meaningless statistics. Today's mantra is "If it can't be measured, it has no value", and what a stupid notion this is; companies, governments, local authorities, schools... you name it, they all collect huge amounts of data and the vast majority of it is completely and utterly useless. But it's not only useless it's also dangerous: if you're busily analysing how many paper-clips were used in the last month, who then is keeping an eye on your sales which have just dropped 15%? Madness. Where did this notion come from? Why did it come into being? When did it come into being? I asked these three questions of three jumped up MBA's today, in what would prove to be a fairly free and frank meeting. The answer? Blank looks. I know my industry like the back of my hand. I've forgotten more about it than most people will ever know, and I do not tolerate fools gladly - especially not the jumped up type. So when one of these simpletons brought up the subject of quantifying a hugely insignificant part of their business, I simply asked, "You do realise that what you're talking about represents less than 0.1% of your annual turnover? You do realise that if you spent any more than five seconds looking at that data it would cost the business more than twice its worth? You do realise that this would be a complete waste of time and you'd be better off analysing something of worth?" Blank looks. And so I think I managed to answer my own questions: this idiocy came about when jumped-up guff talking morons, with their shiny MBA's and no actual talent for anything moved into positions requiring business know-how, knowledge, acumen, common sense, skill and a bit more drive than it takes to produce a nice looking business process diagram or a colourful chart in Excel. The bad news? I think they're here to stay.
It's also that many people like placing themselves above the rest - provides them with the esteem (and not only) they lack - and one way of doing that is looking a process from the grand perspective (mainly statistically) and thinking that they have a clearer picture of how well things work over a spread aspect of the business and over a large period of time. Another post in this threat named a few companies that were doing fine since the MBAs took over and possibly helped the close. I bet that up until the last moment statistics may well have shown that the overall was good and there was nothing to worry about. Unfortunately people study and get degrees because THEY need them, NOT the business they work at. So the Where, Why, When this notion started if fairly simple to understand. It started because there are people who wish to receive the respect simply for being good looking, sharp dressed, cool and having stored knowledge that they never put to good and meaningful use for anyone. With the IT so widely available, anyone with Excel and an MBA can do it (and get away with it). PS: We don't use paper clips but staples ..... OMG, WHAT SHOULD WE DO ???? :laugh: