I have been measured for my entire life. I am guessing most of
us have been. From the moment we were born, we have been assessed in some way,
shape, or form. “She is such a good baby, she hardly ever cries.”, “Isn’t he a
good boy, he is so polite.”, or “She is
so easy, she already sleeps through the night.”. Those statements could quickly
be followed by the comparisons we have been also endured for a good portion of
our lives. Yes, from childhood, through school, and through work an assessment
has been done to show how we are doing in the world, compared to others, or
compared to some standard to which we are exposed. Measurement is part of our
lives. It is also part of project life.
As I was researching this article, I found several quick
quotes about measurement and performance. Most suggest that what you measure
drives the outcomes. That would go for individual and project performance. There
is also a clear understanding that measuring for measuring’s sake will not
drive improved performance. There must be a purpose to the metric being used, a
relevance to the desired performance, and a specific way to identify success
through the measurement. Too often, metrics are put in place that drive behaviors
that can cause more harm than not. Too often, the metrics used are not balanced
to ensure that there is a roundness to the outcomes. An example is measuring
how quickly a task is completed without measuring the successful completion of
the task. This can be found in defect remediation. Quickly closing defects to
have the test cases fail again does not support the project although showing
that the team is closing defects quickly is seen as a positive outcome. Closing
the lower severity defects to improve the metric also looses sight of the
critical defects. In other words, a balanced approach to all that we measure in
a project is critical to avoid improving one area to the detriment of another.
What I would love to do is suggest that there are always
specific metrics to follow and when those are showing project health your
project and for that matter you will be successful. Those metrics do not exist
because of the simple reason that all projects are not created equally. What
that means is that projects, due to the very nature of what projects are, are
never the same and cannot be governed by the same metrics. The technologies
change, the circumstances may shift half-way through and you discover what you
were measuring before provides little guidance, or the core values of the
stakeholders, their primary concerns, their agendas, may be different.
A primary driver of the metrics that require monitoring is
the stakeholder community. Let’s say there are 5 or 6 primary categories of
metrics to track which align to some of the areas of the PMBOK. For example, the
cost may be the most critical metric to track due to a tight budget. It could
be that a specific architecture must be implemented, and other areas are
flexible. That would mean that tracking changes to the underlying architecture
would be monitored closely. Or perhaps quality is the specific driver of the
project. Finding out what is most important and then setting those items in
priority order will support the project in being able to determine what is most
critical to measure and monitor.
Lastly, having the ability to measure is important, however,
it is not the only thing that is crucial to a successful project. it is
possible to lose sight of what the measures are suggesting when we focus too
intently on multiple data points, increasing granularity, and continuous monitoring.
We measure to see what is working and what is not working, not simply to measure.
Making use of the metrics to formulate a plan of action and then measuring to
see what progress is being made against the plan is a healthy use of metrics. Without
driving behavior change, process change, or action plans through the
implemented metrics, the metrics do not provide anything except reporting. It is
not until we implement changes based on our understanding of what the metrics
are telling us that we fully comprehend their value.
What about how we measure ourselves and our successes and,
yes, our failures? Well, we get to ask the same questions. What am I learning
based on what I am measuring? Am I measuring what I value or what someone else
values? Is there meaning in the metrics and what actions am I willing to take because
of understanding the metric? How can I use this information to put a plan in motion?
What does this information tell me about what I am practicing daily? What is
the feedback that I am receiving and how can I use it to improve me?
