The “Activity Metrics” figure shows some of the activity-based metrics later developed by the same group, segmented by who was affected (consequence) and what was measured (an item internal or external to the R&D organization). This advance in measurements aided new stakeholders with quality or service interests. With these metrics they could better understand the R&D organization’s performance. However, embodied in this viewpoint was the belief that everything had to be measured, and that it was all of equal importance all of the time. R&D leadership instinctively understood that any benefits of improved communication and rapport with the Quality and Marketing VPs that resulted from these measures were offset by the slower rate of learning that such metrics imposed on their organizations. All things are not equally important all the time! These metrics do provide good examples of what to measure when the Quality and Service questions become paramount to executives.
By pgermeraad|2020-10-25T05:04:19-07:00October 25, 2020|Analysis, Backgroung, Chapter 25, Chapter 25: Measurement of R&D and for Executive and Shareholder Use, measurement, Measurement of R&D for Executive Use, Measurement of R&D for Shareholder Use, Metrics, Post 6.25.3|0 Comments