Hacker News Reader

Comment by ergest | Hacker News Reader

That’s because metrics are great for optimization and fine tuning features but terrible for innovation

One reason might be that great innovators don't naturally gravitate towards middle management (or management consulting), so the metrics are flawed out of the gate.

We don't have the tools to measure the complex dynamics and factors that result in innovation.

Do you have evidence for this claim? I think metrics are absolutely invaluable for innovation.

What is innovation but throwing 100 things at the wall and seeing which two of them stick? And to quickly get a sense of which things have stuck to the wall, metrics are the only reliable way.

It probably depends on the type of innovation. If you are trying to do things differently, metrics are invaluable — most modern internal innovation teams use metrics to build and manage an idea funnel.

However, if your innovation strategy is to do different things, you will likely be focused on market differentiation, customer development etc. Common practice is to refer to AARRR metrics for this, but it’s not like metrics themselves are the main focus.

Anecdata: on a couple of projects our metrics have told us that do things differently will not get us to target, forcing hard choices to go do different things to get there. But it is usually an uncomfortable fight to get the boat turned around, especially if people have already invested a lot of money and ego in the earlier decision tree.

Also purely anecdotal, but I think it takes a different skillset to pivot correctly, which execs who work in a corporate environment focused on doing things differently often lack. That’s where external consultants usually get involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com