Weird to say it's simple.
Weird to say it's simple.
My best guess: It is possible to weed out non-productive KPIs, they are still extremely useful for breaking down reality distortion fields, but it takes an honest and thoughtful person with a good grasp of both the business and how the stats are collected - combined with management buy in. I have a feeling highly bureaucratic gov organizations won’t have either the talent, iterative approach, nor incentives to actually find the right metrics that matter.
Those seem like two different problems with two different solutions. For ex: solving the environmental issues for the smaller subset and better correlating grades with actual outcomes in education for everyone. Especially if it risks masking problems and may ultimately harm more than it helps.
OTOH metrics and objective standards are definitely worthwhile indicators. Agreed. In fact, in the modern age of data I think we ought to look at more things to see if there is a latent pattern positive or negative. Reading and math scores are not enough. I want to see physical fitness data. I want to know how many words per minute kids can type. How many dental cavities do they have. Can they pass a civics quiz on state or federal government. Do they know basic geography and have some literacy about the world.
Incentives need to be based on obtainable goals and targeted improvements. Payouts (bribes!) to students for good grades and scores actually really work. Money helps kids internalize the societal value placed on their performance. Similarly, targeted bonuses for teachers work too, but only if formulated relative to the characteristics of enrolled students. See the literature by R. Fryer, for example
Besides, businesses operate on metrics every day. It's the bottom line. It works. You just have to pick metrics that are the goal of the organization.