Don’t measure just because you can

Daniele Catalanotto
Sep 30, 2022


A Service Design Principle to make better use of quantitative data.

Imagine a robot looks at all that you do on your work computer and decides, based on this, how productive you are. Then the company you work for pays you only for the “active work” that the robot sees.

That’s, in some way, the weird story that a lovely human called Karol Kraemer experienced, which was reported in a New York Times article titled (1).

When Karol does work that isn’t on the computer, like making some quick math on a piece of paper or just thinking, the system doesn’t recognize that as “active work”…

As community member Guy Martin (2) says:

“The “productivity monitoring” tech described in this article is demoralizing, dehumanizing. And in the long-term, it’s ironically counter-productive.”

It is like those customer “service” metrics that measure the number of calls per hour someone handles. As neither satisfaction, actual resolution or anything that really matters is measured, there is a real incentive for staff members to get the customer processed as quickly as possible, even if that makes people feel treated like cogs in a machine.

Would you track the number of times your wife smiles at you to know if she still really loves you? Wouldn’t that just lead to her fake smiles every day instead of trying to have real moments of intimacy, which might look different every day?

Guy summarizes this brilliantly: “Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean you should or that it even provides any insight.”

So let me ask you this.

What measures are you taking really useful? Which metrics or data pieces create a culture that makes employees stressed or lowers the quality of service?

Footnotes

(1) The Rise of the Worker Productivity Score written by Jodi Kantor and Arya Sundaram, produced by Aliza Aufrichtig and Rumsey Taylor and published on August 14, 2022.

(2) Thanks to Guy Martin, who made me aware of the story that inspired this Service Design Principle in one of his Linkedin posts.

Daniele's personal notes

  • This is the first draft of this Service Design Principle.
  • Once adapted, even more, this principle could be part of the book "Service Design Principles 201-300"
  • As always feel free to share comments, feedback or personal stories to improve this principle.
Like 1
Daniele Catalanotto
Oct 18, 2022

The second draft of this Service Design Principle


In a New York Times article, I meet Karol Kraemer (1). She works in a company that has a sort of robot that looks at all that she does on her work computer. Based on this, the system decides how productive she is. Then the company she works for pays her only for the “active work” that the robot sees.

The system doesn’t recognise Karol’s work outside her computer as “active work”. So doing some quick math on a piece of paper or thinking doesn’t get paid.

As community member Guy Martin (2) says:

“The “productivity monitoring” tech described in this article is demoralising, dehumanising. And in the long-term, it’s ironically counter-productive.”

It is like those hotlines that measure the number of calls per hour a support staff handles. Such numbers push staff members to get to the next customer as quickly as possible, even if that makes people feel like cogs in a machine.

Guy summarises this brilliantly. “Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean you should or that it even provides any insight.”

So let me ask you this.

What pieces of data that you take are really useful? Which of your metrics create a culture stressing employee? Which ones lower the quality of your service?

Footnotes

(1) The Rise of the Worker Productivity Score written by Jodi Kantor and Arya Sundaram, produced by Aliza Aufrichtig and Rumsey Taylor and published on August 14, 2022.

(2) Thanks to Guy Martin, who made me aware of the story that inspired this Service Design Principle in one of his Linkedin posts.

Daniele's personal notes

  • This is the second draft of this Service Design Principle.
  • I’ve reduced the length of this principle by 11% compared to its first version.
  • I took out the additional “image” of the couple which just said the same thing in a different way.
Daniele Catalanotto
Oct 31, 2022

The third draft of this Service Design Principle

Imagine working in a company where a robot looks at everything you do on your computer. You then get paid only for the “active work” that the robot sees. So doing some quick math on a piece of paper or thinking doesn’t get paid as the robot doesn’t see it.

That kind of stuff already exists (1). And as community member Guy Martin (2) says:

“This “productivity monitoring” tech is demoralising, dehumanising. And in the long-term, it’s ironically counter-productive.”

It is like those hotlines that measure the number of calls per hour a support staff handles. Such numbers push employees to get to the next customer as quickly as possible. And that makes customers feel like cogs in a machine.

Guy summarises this brilliantly. “Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean you should or that it even provides any insight.”

So let me ask you this.

Which of your metrics stress employees or lower the customer experience?

Footnotes

(1) Jodi Kantor and Arya Sundaram (2022). The Rise of the Worker Productivity Score. The New York Times. Available at https://extra.swissinnovation.academy/nTmY accessed 20 October 2022.

(2) Thanks to Guy Martin, who made me aware of the story that inspired this Service Design Principle in one of his Linkedin posts.

Daniele’s notes

  • This is the third draft of this principle.
  • I’ve reduced the length of this principle by 24 % compared to the previous draft.