I’ve spoken a lot about metrics in the past and I was asked by a client to go through the steps involved in reviewing the efficiency of metrics with examples. Using our checklists is cool, but he also wanted some real-life experiences as guidance.
As part of any KPI review, you must be crystal clear about the scope and purpose. What parts of the business are we reviewing? All, some teams, projects? What types of KPIs/metrics are we reviewing? Financial, performance, productivity, quality?
Selecting ‘everything’ is incredibly difficult and complex. Choosing a subset of teams or projects or types of metrics to start off the process enables us to focus on areas of greatest concern. Why worry about reviewing a team or project that is well controlled?
In the company we used as a case study, they wanted to focus on KPIs and metrics for a CRM project on which they were completing implementation.
The method we used was a combination of
- One on one interviews
- Team sessions
- Project manager/sponsor sessions
- Joint stakeholder sessions
Having these multiple sessions allowed us to
- Get a clear view of staff perspectives and expectations
- Help the project team and other stakeholders gain a common understanding of what was critical, important and optional
The following sections are taken from our metrics review checklist (efficiency) and describe what we found:
A. Have you defined critical KPIs/metrics e.g. productivity, schedule (Delivery On Time), cost, defect rate
In this case they had defined
- % of tasks complete against the schedule
- Cost of staff, expenses and capital purchases (hardware, etc)
- Total number of defects
The data were collected by a project administrator from team members weekly
B. What percentage of time is spent collecting metrics
Only an estimate of the effort required by individual staff members could be made. Approximately 4 hours per week was spent collecting and providing the data to the project administrator.
The project administrator spent about 2 days per week collecting data and chasing missing info from project team members.
Continued in part 2