Slashdot Mirror
The Four Fallacies of IT Metrics
snydeq writes "Advice Line's Bob Lewis discusses an all-too-familiar IT mistake: the use of incidents resolved per analyst per week as a metric for assessing help-desk performance. 'If you managed the help desk in question or worked on it as an analyst, would you resist the temptation to ask every friend you had in the business to call in on a regular basis with easy-to-fix problems? Maybe you would. I'm guessing that if you resisted the temptation, not only would you be the exception, but you'd be the exception most likely to be included in the next round of layoffs,' Lewis writes. 'The fact of the matter is it's a lot easier to get metrics wrong than right, and the damage done from getting them wrong usually exceeds the potential benefit from getting them right.' In other words, when it comes to IT metrics, you get what you measure — that's the risk you take."
It's bad business planning, but it's also the way any big name linux distroy works. Something not working on your Red Hat Linux? No problem, call us! And that's how they make money. They make money on the promise of fixing problems, and that includes saying that their OS is broken.
Losers realize this simple fact, instantly think of several ways to game the metric, then don't do it figuring that "obviously" the decisionmakers realize the metric is horribly broken. Then they get laid off. Winners spend hours, days, or weeks coming up with one way to game the metric, pat themselves on the back for being so clever, and do it. Then they get promoted, eventually to a position where they come up with metrics of their own.
This problem was aptly portrayed in the classic dilbert comic strip in 1995.
I'm going to code myself a minivan.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
Such metrisc also disincentivize people taking proactive steps to reduce the number of incoming tickets (i.e. making the system/environment more robust or your users more educated), and disincentivizes managers for so doing by reducing the number of people needed to service incoming tickets (thus reducing the size of the empire and the pay grade of the manager).
I've seen both "disincentives" in action. It ain't pretty.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Metrics are great for some things. For making sure that your employees are working they are terrible. I used to work in a metric free environment and there was a great team atmosphere. Then metrics came along and it all went to hell. Now everyone is so focussed on making their numbers look good that the whole organisation is suffering from a weird sense of internal competitiveness. People no longer collaborate on difficult problems because there is no measure within the metrics system to reflect that this occurred. People who used to be innovative are no longer so, because they are not rewarded for spending time innovating. It has achieved nothing good that I can see.
Probably the same people who consider number lines of code written per hour as a good metric to evaluate their employees productivity.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The quote above is from Jerry Weinberg, and it is true.
There's an entire brilliant, short book about this problem: Measuring and Managing Performance in Organizations by Robert Austin (1996). It's actually a fairly rigorous, somewhat philosophical work, but it is pretty unrelenting to documenting that, indeed, trying to manage by metrics almost always introduces distortions, which in turn are almost always counter-productive. The problem isn't just with IT, it's with any type of effort that seeks to reward or punish based on metrics.
The only metrics that I've found actually useful in IT are those that are predictive -- for example, aiding to estimate the actual delivery date of a project under development. The metrics that seek to somehow measure "accomplishments to date" solely for the purpose of reward or punishment are always gamed and are almost always useless. ..bruce..
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
Good. glad to see that some VP did the smart thing for once and cut the middle managers instead of the people who actually get the work done.
Its not just the losers. Talented and rational technicians and engineers bend to the rules of the system too. Basically you get what you incentivize, what your reward. If you reward people for complying to some metric then they will generally comply. It does not matter what everyone agrees is right, it does matter if management says quality is important. If the metric decides whether you get to keep your job or get that raise then the metric is what the company gets regardless of what the company asks for or whether the company's goals are actually advanced.
Be warned: my example is way off topic, but a pet statistic I keep track of.
There is no such things as bad statistics, only bad layman statisticians who don't understand what the numbers actually measure.
Take lines of code, for example. Some people hate it because you can bloat the numbers by adding comments, neglecting to consider how useful those comments are for future maintenance, and thereby a useful application of a developer's time. If you use a consistent formatting style for two projects, you can get a fair grasp of their complexity from the line count, though that will gloss over details about how the code actually works.
The most interesting pattern I've notice in line counts over the years is that the use of templates and other code abstraction facilities really hasn't decreased the size of code much at all, though it's improved readability, maintainability, and programmer API usability substantially. So line counts only give you an approximation of complexity with a language like Java, but do nothing to measure the quality of the code.
One other thing I've found is that complex code looks fat and heavy from it's sheer size, but often compiles to very reasonable executable size and runs rings around supposedly "tight" code that makes heavy use of dynamic techniques like introspection. As only one image of an executable is loaded by a reasonably competent OS, a fat binary does not mean a fat application at runtime.
Big code is only scary if it's not following recognizable patterns and is instead a mishmash of different developer's pet syntax, algorithms, style conventions, naming conventions, and even preferred APIs. If you manufacture it predictably, fat source code becomes a joy to maintain, enhance, and use.
But back to the core topic: help desk performance.
The only help desk stat I care about is a low number on customer complaint reports about the quality of information and assistance provided by the tech team. If it's my company and my budget, I'd rather hire more technicians to handle the load and produce happy customers in the end than I would saving money by overworking and burning them out by even thinking about useless numbers like "calls handled per week."
In the end, if you care about your business, the only thing that truly matters are happy customers who want more services or products in the future, and who will gladly tell others about their good experiences in dealing with you.
There is no substitute for a good word-of-mouth reputation and repeat business. No one ever got fired for buying IBM not because they're perfect, but because their people will go the extra mile to make things work.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.