From The Archives: Metric Waste

I’ve been working on a project to create standard processes for the global HR community with my organization for the last two years or so. One of the questions that always comes up is around measurement. How do you measure adoption rate of the processes? How do you know when people aren’t using them? And what are you going to do about it if someone doesn’t want to use them?

We’ve developed a self-assessment to see if a location is aware of the processes and if they are using them, as well as gather their feedback. But we are after more than compliance, we are after the usefulness of the processes and improvement opportunities. We can record adoption rates from there, if we really want to, but it’s all based on self-reporting, which we all know can be spotty at best.

More to the point, though, the question is why would we care? Because we would only want to invest the time and effort into measuring and reporting if it was important. Isn’t it important to know if our process are being used? More and more, I’m convinced the answer is no.

Standard processes are, in most cases, a building block toward something else. In our case, they are pre-work for an HRMS and self-service implementation. We will build upon the basic framework with regional/country adaptations that outline the changes needed for local laws, and then build out the technology and tools on top of that. The use of the standard processes is, to me, secondary. If it were the end goal, then it would certainly warrant reporting. But as an intermediate step, I’m not so sure.

As I’ve said before, new processes/tools/widgets are only going to be successful if they are better than the old version (or at least are perceived by the user to be better). If our long term deliverable, including those systems and tools, aren’t better than the manual way of doing work, we will have failed, and no one will use them. If we do present a new system that is an improvement, people will flock to it. And then the measurement of that interim point isn’t as important.

Trying to measure the success of an intermediate step is, I think, a distraction. Feedback is good, of course, but should be gathered in the context of preparing for the next step. More importantly, trying to measure usage of a manual process would be far more resource intensive than it is worth. And once you know that, why would you spend any more time working on it?

If we are building a system to the needs of the user, it should be their feedback (or lack thereof) that should matter. So keep your communication lines open, listen to them, and give them what they need.


  1. Muy interesante Roberto, en particular la parte del sefl-service implementation parece retador y atractivo, comparto tu conclusión y perspectiva.
    Te recomiendo revisar:, blog en el que eventualmente aparecerán artículos realcionados con inovación y sistemas esbeltos de gestión entre otros.
    Mas enfocado puede ser el contactar a Héctor Rivero de EVOLUCIONE para compartir experiencias sobre metodologías e investigaciones sobre medición del desempeño, un enfoque de procesos, su correo es:

Lean HR is using WP-Gravatar

%d bloggers like this: