> Yes, yes we can.
Of course we can. But can we do it in a meaningful way, such that the metric itself doesn't become a subject to optimization?
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
Of course we can. But can we do it in a meaningful way, such that the metric itself doesn't become a subject to optimization?
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
By making the metrics part of a sustaintable company-wide goal. If there's a company-wide goal to increase X kind of revenue by Y% making actionable targets on how a team can contribute (not lazy shit like "our changes should contribute Z% of that Y%"), and within that create for a person another smaller metric based on that.
Also, medical facilities… you certainly could define it as profit, but that bothers me and many other people.
You could define it as patients seen, or “cured” but that incentivizes very quick but probably poor care.
You could define it as intensity of treatment or amount of care given, but you’d probably end up in a situation where 1 incredibly sick person has every doctor treating them.
You could define it as…
In real world, most things don't work out that way. What metrics do you use to measure surgeons' success? If you use fatality rate, then as a result surgeons will refuse to do more risky surgeries which will put their ratings at risk, which makes the healthcare worse, instead of better.