It’s funny that you mentioned manipulating the metrics in your article. At one point, many years ago, we had incentives tied to the performance depicted on those metrics. However, we found people circumventing the system to improve their numbers, and came to the realization that metrics and incentives must be mutually exclusive.

Today, our metrics play a large role in our data gathering and follow-up on PDCAs, and are warning lights that there may be problem occurring and we need to “go see.”

Well, my Acura dealer pulls the same perfect survey stunt with me. Can’t say that I have figured out a proper and pithy response yet – although the service is typically excellent.

As for measurement not quite being king, I agree. There must be balance, a balance that I believe is provided in a mature lean management system. Within that system, leader standard work and the related visual controls facilitate direct observation. The system’s daily accountability process encompasses, among other things, the tracking and review of balanced performance metrics (safety, quality, delivery, cost, etc.) within the context of brief, focused meetings. These same meetings take into account the “findings” from direct observations – those prompted by leader standard work and formal and informal gemba walks. This three legged stool of leader standard work, visual controls and a daily accountability drives both process performance and process adherence.

While metrics may be an abstraction, they do have their place. They do provide stakeholders with a perspective on performance trends and gaps and, if properly done, tell a story and provide some (initial) direction relative to countermeasures. The danger is when metrics are not informed by direct observation. Unfortunately, often the higher one goes in an organization the more the balance is tilted to metrics…until there is no balance, just “really smart” people in a conference room with charts and graphs, unencumbered by reality.