Séverin Legras
Transcript (Translated)
Hello everyone, let me introduce myself, my name is Séverin Legras, I am an agile coach, I work with clients on supporting the implementation of agility, as well as managerial coaching.
Within my company called Astrakhan, I am the Director of Digital Products and Agility, and I also handle what we call the Chief Happiness Officer. I take care of the happiness of my employees, for some who are returning from Alexandre Gérard's presentation.
We are implementing some of the elements he presented in our company.
Astrakhan is a consulting firm, I’ll keep it brief, about thirty people. We work on three main offerings: liberating management and innovation, digital and agility, and then IT strategy and dynamic architecture.
That’s it for the introductions. So you’re thinking, agile coach, the guy puts a photo with a tie, that’s a bit odd, most people who spoke here are all wearing t-shirts. Well, let me reassure you, I’m not wearing a tie right now. Even when I was there for the photoshoot, I was still goofing around a bit. So, I do have the agile coach mindset, that’s important. This talk on the Metrics Manifesto originated from a mission we did for one of our clients who asked us to help them redesign their dashboard of indicators.
The first question we asked them when we arrived in the room was: what is the last decision you made based on the indicators you’ve been using so far?
And then we find ourselves in, you know, that moment, the awkward silence that lasts a minute, where no one really knows what to say. I don’t understand. I say, there must be something. You must have used these indicators over the last six months. You must have made a decision. Actually, no. So then we thought, okay, we really have work to do here, we’ll need to come with a slightly different approach.
I really like this quote, actually, if we translate it into French, it roughly means that managers who don’t know how to measure what they want end up wanting what they know how to measure.
I would even add something: they should first know what they want. That’s already a first step.
So, I thought about it with my colleague Loïc Léofold, with whom I built this presentation and who accompanied me on this mission. And we said to ourselves, well, we’re coaches, we’ve read a lot, we’ve tried to implement a number of things with teams. And we were inspired by Jürgen Appello’s book Workout. I don’t know if people are familiar with this book. So, Jürgen Appello, I won’t introduce him, he’s the one who wrote the book Management 3.0. And in this book Workout, there’s an entire chapter on what he calls metrics. In this chapter, he describes 12 principles. Now, I’m an agile coach, an agilist, 12 principles, we’ll make a manifesto out of them, that’s quite normal, it’s as if I were a writer and someone presented me with a glass of 12 syllables, it’s an alexandrine. So what I decided to do is present these 12 principles to you.
And then, in a second step, I’ll show you an approach that we tried to implement, which allows us to build... indicators. Okay?
The first thing we see when we go into a company is that often, there are a large number of indicators. We tend to really want to fill the dashboard with a large number of indicators. And in fact, it means looking at all the things we do, looking at how busy we are. These indicators mainly serve to show that. The question I asked earlier is, okay, you have a lot of information, but what is it for? What decisions do you make based on these indicators? However, what we know is that building indicators takes time, it’s time-consuming, it has a cost.
So what we think is that instead of building a large number of indicators without really knowing what we’re going to do with them, we’ll focus on the indicators that relate to a goal.
A goal or an objective has one characteristic: it must be SMART. Does everyone know the SMART acronym for objectives? Yes. So, I’ll give you an example. If my personal goal is to lose weight. Losing weight isn’t really a SMART goal. However, if I decide that I’m going to lose 500 grams per week, then we’re dealing with a SMART objective.
Is it specific because it’s focused on my weight?
M for measurable, because my unit of measurement is the grams or kilograms I’m going to lose.
A for achievable, because presumably, if I start doing some sport, if I pay attention to my diet, I’ll manage to reach this goal.
Achievable or ambitious, but also realistic. Because I know that, once again, by making the necessary efforts, it’s possible. It’s not unrealistic. And then the T for time-bound, since it’s set in time. So it’s the ‘per week’ that counts.
So the first principle is to measure in relation to a goal.
When you’re at the doctor’s office, in principle, they don’t just take your temperature. They need several elements, several factors, several measurements to get an idea of the situation and propose a diagnosis. A diagnosis and even medication.
It’s the same in an organization. If we focus on a single indicator, typically revenue, we might be missing elements that would lead us to make the most useful decisions. So, having a measurement system based on a single indicator leads to something quite imperfect that doesn’t necessarily reflect reality. The second principle will therefore be to cross-reference information with several indicators that allow us to reduce the unknown. So we’ll try to identify a number of indicators that allow us to reduce this unknown. The idea is to find the best possible combination that leads us to make the right decisions.
An example of using this principle is at Google. I’ll tell you more about Google’s OKR system later, but just as an introduction, for the individual objectives of Google employees, Google has established a panel of indicators from which employees pick and choose the indicator that will be tracked. So we’re in this principle, we don’t focus on a single indicator, we’ll try to pick a few that we deem satisfactory to reduce our unknown.
A company that hasn’t clearly defined its goal or objective, as we saw in the first principle, will often settle for following the same indicator as its neighbors. So, looking at the competition and comparing itself to the competition. Eric Ries, in his book The Lean Startup, talks about vanity metrics. That’s why I’m talking about vanity here. Companies have the impression of being efficient, but it’s just an impression because in fact, they’re not measuring what really matters to them.
So, in fact, building an indicator only has value if, behind it, we’re seeking to improve.
Improving fits into the principles of agility, Lean, Kanban, Scrum, all the methods we can mention. We’re always in continuous improvement. It’s the same for indicators.
The fact of seeking to improve at the company level will also engage the employee to seek to improve themselves. So it creates a commitment to fulfilling the objective.
In most companies, when we look a little at the indicators that are used, many of them are focused on the customer and customer satisfaction. Alexandre Gérard said earlier, we don’t care about having satisfied customers. I found that very interesting. Here, what I’m going to say is a little different. What’s important is to consider that the company is an ecosystem. It lives within a whole. And we can’t just focus on... one single stakeholder in this ecosystem. So we’ll try to work on identifying all the stakeholders and measuring the satisfaction of all these stakeholders. So we’ll also work on the relationships between the stakeholders and try to see how we can measure that each of them—whether it’s customers, suppliers, partners, employees, of course, a whole bunch of... And all of this is specific each time, to each context.
And so, the role of the leader who will build their dashboard is to build an organization that aims to satisfy each of its stakeholders. So we’ll identify several goals in this sense.
There’s something that is commonly accepted or observed: we often associate measurement with a scientific approach, a scientific research approach. It’s true that observation, the act of observing, is fundamentally used in most scientific experiments. Now, can we really consider that measurement is an intrinsically neutral activity? Can we consider that the measurement has no impact on what we observe? Quantum physics tells us that merely observing will influence the final result. So here, we will take the same principle into account. If I take an example, if you are on an automotive parts production line, at Favi for instance, adding a quality control at the end of the chain, we will have the impression that it will improve the quality of the chain. Behind the operator, who is upstream of this quality control, they will have a sense of security. What will be thought is, in any case, if I make a mistake, it will be rejected, it won't reach the final customer. And this can consequently induce deviant behaviors that lead to a decrease in quality at the time of manufacturing.
So the observer will influence the system and the... The system will also influence the observer.
And here, we are in an area where we lack a bit of objectivity. So, what we will do is say, let's use common sense. Let's be wary of numbers. Let's try to cross-check the data, to cross-reference it, and also relate the numbers to external events. Sometimes, we have graphs that we may not necessarily be able to explain. However, if we look at external events that occur, they can explain them.
What is important when talking about indicators is that we can categorize indicators into three types. The first category is performance indicators. Everyone knows this, it's the famous KPI.
This one allows us to measure an action that has already been completed, on which we observe the result of that action. For example, I measure the annual revenue of my company. At the end of the year.
The second category of indicators will be the steering indicator. With this one, the action is still ongoing. I still have the possibility to intervene in this action. For example, we can talk about the number of invoices that are currently unpaid by my clients. I can still act on this factor, and if I do, it will influence my performance indicator afterward.
So, performance indicator, steering indicator. And then the third type of indicator is what we call the insight indicator. It is an indicator that provides a... vision of the ecosystem external to the organization. For example, if I am in a large retail store, I have a whole set of indicators covering my scope, and then I will also have access to stock indicators from one of the stores in the same chain that employs me, but nearby, in the region, or even across France. And if I detect something that catches my attention in my indicators, I will be able to cross-reference it with information that is external to my own ecosystem to see if it is a fundamental trend. And if, as a result, I need to make decisions, or even if the... colleague next to me has already made decisions in that direction.
So, based on this principle of being wary of numbers, cross-referencing, and checking data, what we are saying is why I introduced these three types of categories. Ideally, we should try to build a system of indicators with at least one indicator in each of these categories. Okay? Yes.
It's an insight indicator.
So it provides a vision of the global ecosystem.
Of the external ecosystem, sorry.
Now, we are getting into some considerations about management. Originally, Peter Drucker's management by objectives aims to help managers define the purpose of their organization, set goals for their own work, and measure the progress made in relation to their own work. of these categories. Okay? Yes.
It's a lighting indicator. So it provides a vision of the overall ecosystem.
On the external ecosystem, sorry.
Now, we're getting a little into considerations around management. Originally, Peter Drucker's management by objectives aims to help managers define the purpose of their organization, to set goals for their own work and to measure progress made in relation to their own work. Except that in practice, it was rather misunderstood or misinterpreted and therefore poorly applied afterward. And what happens is that we realize today that we have a large number of managers who define the objectives of their employees themselves, who put pressure on these people to succeed in their work.
And we will measure this work using poorly constructed indicators.
If I take an example related to this, imagine that I am an operator in a call center that provides telephone support for a telephone operator, for example. My manager comes to me and says, from now on, you will be... your performance will be judged on the fact that your calls last less than 10 minutes. Okay? So the operator will receive the message, will try to apply it, but what will happen is that his role as an operator is to respond to the client's problem. Okay?
He will therefore find himself facing the client and, as he will want to go fast, he will not respond to the problem. The client will not be happy. So he will take all the client's pressure. So the question we can ask ourselves at this point is: what is the indicator that should be followed? Is it really the duration of the call or is it the number of problems solved?
Except that... From a company strategy perspective, perhaps the company's strategy is to say that customer support and satisfaction actually don't matter. It's a cost center that we want to reduce. So, we will reduce costs and to do that, we will decrease the call time to 10 minutes. But the operator is not aware of this. He doesn't have the vision. The vision and the purpose of the company behind it were not communicated to him.
So he cannot adhere to this objective because he is not aware of the vision.
The conclusion, ultimately, is that the operator will be demotivated. He will not find motivation to meet these objectives. Especially since these objectives are built to challenge him. So what we recommend to counter this effect of challenging objectives, is to talk about imprecise targets or value ranges, tolerance limits on targets. If you attended Emmanuel Sierra's talk yesterday on How to Measure Anything, he talked about value ranges. We are on the same concept here. So, if we are in a production line and we measure on-time delivery, instead of measuring only what arrives on day D, we might measure everything that arrived between D-3 and D-2, because we consider that this is our real objective, that this value range corresponds to something that was delivered on time.
A quick slide to take a break and show you where we are. So we've covered the first six principles. Measure in relation to a goal while reducing the unknown. Measure in relation to a goal but to seek improvement.
Ensure all stakeholders are satisfied, use common sense, be wary of numbers, and work on imprecise targets rather than precise ones that are too challenging.
I was talking earlier about management by objectives. When indicators and objectives are defined by the hierarchy, the natural feeling received by the employee is one of control. So there is a notion of power, politics, and control. And even if the manager does not necessarily have this intention, it will have the negative effect of altering individual performance and the overall performance of the company. There is a quote I like from Urgan Apello that says before trying to measure the performance of others, start by measuring your own performance. That is actually the principle here, and it is also common sense.
The indicator should not be... Something that will be used to judge someone's performance. It should rather be made available to help people improve. We find here the principle of continuous improvement that I mentioned earlier.
And now, I will describe the example of Google's OKRs. So, Google has implemented a performance tracking indicator system called Objective Key Results. And in this system, in fact, it is each employee who sets their own objectives. And this is also based on... The values of transparency within the group, which means that all these objectives identified and set by employees are published and therefore available to all employees. And in fact, they have developed a system—though we can criticize it, it is not necessarily perfect, we agree—but it is an example. They have ultimately broken down the company's overall strategy across all levels. They have a fairly pyramidal organization at Google. They have broken this down across all levels, and ultimately, everyone is able to commit to their small part, their contribution to the overall strategy. At Astrakhan, we tried to implement a system. We based it on what we read about what is done at Google. And we did it a bit differently. We call it commitments, not objectives. And then, we do a quarterly review when we all meet together. Each person explains what their commitments were for the month, what they were able to do, and then what they want to do in the following quarter. But we are on a model where each person personally sets their own commitments.
Now, we are addressing the bonus, or what we call the reward. The reward is motivating. It is motivating in some cases and for some people. But very often, it has a negative effect, or rather the opposite effect, which is that it will demotivate a greater number of people.
The one who receives the bonus, or for example, if we talk about an employee of the month, when an employee of the month is named, he is very happy.
It is very positive for him. But all the others are the losers of the month. They have lost. So, we are on a... Overall, if we consider the company scale, it is more demotivating than motivating.
There is another harmful effect of the bonus: the danger is that we will motivate people to win rewards. We will not motivate people to improve or to meet the company's objectives.
So the principle we try to convey is that we will rather work on intrinsic motivation factors instead of extrinsic motivation factors.
Try rather to... I don't know if you know this card game. It's Moving Motivators by Jürgen Appello.
So, in fact, he has listed what he identifies as the 10 intrinsic motivation factors.
And therefore, he ultimately proposes creating an environment that is favorable to the development of each of these factors.
I will read them to you very quickly, I won't go into detail, but among these factors, there is the level of competence, the feeling of being accepted in a group, curiosity, pride, a kind of excellence in one's work, freedom of choice, stability, influence, the social and friendly environment, and then status.
This game is used to define what our intrinsic values are. We put it on the table and then we rank them. Afterward, there are other steps, but I won't go into detail about that.
At Astrakhan, what we decided last year was to completely eliminate the... individual variable pay. We have a company goal, a growth objective, and in fact, we replaced the individual variable pay with a partial reintegration into the fixed salary, and then a common variable bonus, which depends on the seniority level of each person, and which will be automatically paid as soon as we meet the conditions tracked in our performance indicators.
So, what we just saw is that if we build a measurement system that aims to manipulate people's behavior, because we are on a parallel reward system, and therefore it will at least have a negative impact on people's behavior, it will be an invitation to use the system to one's own advantage.
The collaborators will implement all the actions they deem necessary to ensure that the indicators are met to earn the reward that follows. This is what we call the watermelon indicator. I don’t know if you’re familiar with this. So, a watermelon is green on the outside but red on the inside, or even black if you look closely.
As a result, this means that if we use indicators like this and have implemented this system, we’ve built our strategy on foundations that aren’t solid at all, since the indicators we report don’t align with our strategy at all.
To counter this, I’ll reiterate what Alexandre Gérard just said earlier: it’s values and transparency. This is what can help us thwart this desire to manipulate the system.
Alexandre Gérard cited Jean-François Zobris earlier. Jean-François Zobris says, 'Everything is good in man.'
Except the liver.
Thank you, Patrick.
The idea is to say... Transparency means that everyone within the organization has access to all the information that is relevant to them, including figures, margins, targets, and objectives. And as a result, we can create an environment that ultimately fosters commitment to the company project and the success of the company’s objectives.
Most of the time, when you work in a company and see a dashboard of indicators, you notice that these indicators are built using Excel or other roughly equivalent software.
Reducing indicators to numbers in Excel cells is very dehumanizing.
This means that the difficulty of the work or the satisfaction of having completed a project on time, etc., is simply transformed into a number in a cell. We no longer have this sense of involvement and this awareness of the work done, that feeling of accomplishment. We are truly disconnected from the field.
There is another mistake made with this type of indicator: thinking that all the displayed indicators are understood by people. There are indicators that are quite complicated to understand, and we don’t take the time to explain them. So, one response to this is one of the principles of agility: visual management. So, implementing tools that allow for better understanding of results with graphs, colors, and drawings. And above all, ensuring that this information is communicated as close as possible to the collaborators. It was Pablo Pernaut who said yesterday afternoon that the most important machine in your company, is the coffee machine. So, place your dashboards next to the coffee machine so that this information is available to everyone.
And we can also use images instead of numbers. Let me take an example: let’s revisit the example of the amount of unpaid invoices by our clients. Imagine that the amount of unpaid client invoices at Astrakhan today is 35,000 euros. Instead of writing 35,000 euros, I’ll write an Audi A4.
This will allow people to perhaps think, 'Oh yeah, so in fact, we’ve just lost the equivalent of a car.' A small Audi A4, that’s the idea. Basically.
This helps humanize the numbers a bit more, especially when they’re large. Because the larger the numbers, the more our relationship with them leads us to not really realize what they truly mean.
So, KPIs are something we encounter all the time. Most companies swear by KPIs.
As I said earlier, it’s an indicator that measures a completed action.
So, if we use it to steer our company, we’re in a reactive mode of management. We’re not being proactive.
And that can be dangerous, especially since very often, KPIs are not measured very frequently. Because often, it has a cost, or at least we think it does. What we say, based on agile principles, is always this: We will measure very early and very frequently.
We follow the same principle as in a startup: we take hypotheses, these hypotheses lead us to take actions, we measure these actions through the indicators we build, and based on this measurement, we are able to make decisions. We shorten the cycle to make it more effective.
So, if I take an example, because there’s another categorization we can make with indicators: if I’m a chef in a restaurant and I want to taste my dishes. And that can be dangerous, especially since very often, KPIs are not measured very frequently. Because often, it has a cost, and we think it has a cost at least. What we say is always based on agility principles. We will measure very early and very frequently.
We follow the same principle as in a startup: we make hypotheses, these hypotheses lead us to take actions, we measure these actions through the indicators we build, and based on this measurement, we are able to make decisions. We will shorten the cycle to make it more effective.
So, if I take an example, because there is still a categorization we can make with indicators: if I am a chef in a restaurant and I want to taste my dishes. I won’t necessarily taste it before sending it to the dining room. I won’t taste my dish every second. Because it will bring me little value; it will be too frequent. Tasting every second would be what we call a leading indicator. That means it is very frequent. However, I will still taste it before serving it to the customer, before it is plated and before it leaves the kitchen. That is what we call a lagging indicator. The leading indicator allows us to define a trend. It is close to the illuminating indicator I mentioned earlier. Whereas the lagging indicator provides a final data point, real data, to cite. So, it is more of a performance indicator. So, the idea once again is to combine these two types of indicators to have the most comprehensive view possible. And to measure early and often, the simplest way is to automate the measurement. There you go, it has an initial cost, but afterward, we are able to have something more frequent and less costly.
What we observe in today’s world is that we live in perpetual change. A company’s strategy—I no longer remember what was said earlier this morning in this room—in three years, it will not be the same as today because in three years, everything will have changed. So, for that, today, companies adapt quite well. We move a lot; we are quite reactive in our organization. However, in terms of indicators, there is little variation. So, we see that ultimately, we are in an area where there is little change, while everything else changes. So, the principle, which is a common-sense principle, is that as soon as your indicator no longer brings you value, change it. Do the work to update your indicator as soon as your strategy changes, since we said earlier that it is the first principle we will measure in relation to a goal. So, if your goal evolves, your indicator will evolve.
And then, having new indicators that arrive frequently can... also allow for different perspectives, different angles, which may potentially bring you differentiating information.
So, here, I have restated the 12 principles that I just mentioned to you.
What is important to say is that these are principles to apply. There is still a transformation to be made at the cultural level. In these conferences, today and yesterday, people insist a lot on cultural transformation. It is what ultimately brings strength to the transformation.
So, for that, we must also change the way we build indicators. So, what we tried to do is build a sort of process or protocol that leads to better constructing indicators, or at least asking the right questions when building them.
So, there is this step that I will present to you now.
The first step will be to define the measurement scope. What is the measurement scope? It is actually the framework, the limits we set for ourselves, within which we will seek the measurements we want to take.
This framework will be either in relation to an action we have decided to take and on which we want to measure a result, or it can be about a specific area we want to monitor.
All of this is a choice made at the company level, so it will be extremely specific, can vary greatly, and will differ from one topic to another. What is important, however, is to choose a measurement scope on which we have the ability to act. For this, it is necessary to ensure that, if we are not the leader, we have the agreement of our hierarchy to work on this measurement scope, that we have the motivation of the people who will be able to carry out the actions, and that we obtain the necessary means in a timely manner.
So, to describe these seven steps, I will try to follow a fictional example. Let’s say I am the boss of my company, and the measurement scope I want to use is the development of my company. Then, I will break down each of the steps on this same slide that we will have together.
Once I have defined my measurement scope, I will work on my strategy and my objectives. So, here we come back to the SMART objectives I mentioned earlier. At this stage of reflection, these objectives do not need to be quantified. So, we are really on something that is not necessarily measurable as is.
It is also important to know that these objectives depend on the current situation of your company. This means they will not be the same if you are in a crisis situation or if you are in a development situation.
If I take my example again, I have identified two objectives. I want to work on my brand image, and I want to generate margin because I want to make money.
I am a bit greedy.
Once I have defined my strategy and identified my objectives, I will work on the variables. What are variables? In fact, they are all the elements we will break down. We will break down all the actions, all the elements that will allow us to achieve our objectives.
What we can really act on.
While still, once again, not focusing on quantifiable or measurable data. What is important is that the notion of a variable can include a very large number. So, we will have to limit the scope of the variables to be effective. And this choice will be made based on their relevance but also on the accessibility of the information about the variable.
So, for me, the variables I can act on are customer satisfaction with the aim of building a brand image, and the performance of the business to generate margin.
Once I have identified my variables, I will work on my measurable parameters. The two are very closely linked, in fact. A variable is a combination of several measurable parameters.
In the same way as before, we will filter based on importance and the accessibility of the information, since there can still be many.
Still in my example, the parameters that can allow me to influence the customer satisfaction variable are the quality of the welcome, repurchase intentions, complaints, or meeting deadlines.
The parameters that will influence the performance of the business handled are the selling price or costs.
Okay?
Now that I have done all this, I have built a system with objectives, variables, and parameters that allow me to build indicators. Understood? And only now.
So, what is an indicator? In fact, it is a combination of quantifiable data that we will use to compare or obtain ratios in relation to the area we want to measure.
In the same way as before, one of the dangers is having too many indicators. So, we must really focus on a small number of indicators that will bring us the information we deem relevant. Potentially, if this information is not relevant, we can modify it later.
So, on a company dashboard, if we have more than 10 indicators, it starts to become difficult to read.
What is also important is that the monitoring of each indicator will be done over a period. We will identify whether the indicator will be tracked daily, monthly, or weekly.
And we will be able to compare all the data collected over these periods to identify trends and be able to take the necessary actions.
If I take my example again, the four indicators I identified: for the customer satisfaction part, I identified two. The favorable opinion rate and the repurchase intention rate.
For the performance of the business handled with the aim of generating margin, I identified net profitability and activity efficiency.
Now, I will detail each of these indicators to see how they are constructed.
First indicator: the favorable opinion rate. It is the number of favorable opinions over the total number of reviews. Okay, so presumably, it can be represented like this.
The repurchase intention rate is the number of repurchase intentions over the total number of purchases. It answers the question: how many customers want to come back and buy from me? If I am at 10%, it means that 1 out of 10 will come back to buy from me.
Net profitability is the difference between revenue and expenses, all over the expense. That gives us a rate. A rate of 5% leads me to say, if my revenue is a big car, what I truly earn will potentially be just one wheel. Okay?
And the last indicator is the efficiency of the activity. It's the number of planned days over the number of actual days. And here, I ask myself a question. I think, okay, how am I going to represent this indicator? What will it really be useful for?
So, in your opinion, what do we do now?
We run tests.
We will validate the system.
Am I able, by reading my indicators, to assess the field of action I have set for myself and to position myself in relation to the goal I have set? So let's run tests together. What questions can we ask ourselves?
The questions we need to ask ourselves are, regarding the indicators we have identified, are we able to act? To analyze them and then act. And then, are these indicators consistent with the strategy we have undertaken?
Regarding the first one, favorable opinion rates, I can ask myself two questions. Regarding opinions, can I do something to improve people's opinions? Presumably, yes. I can improve my quality, I can implement some actions. Will the total number of reviews be sufficiently representative? That will depend on the volume of data I have. At this stage, I can't know.
Regarding the repurchase intention rate, likewise, will the total number of purchases be sufficient to be reactive? Can I influence the number of purchases? Careful, well yes, I can take commercial action, I can offer promotions, etc.
Regarding net profitability, can I act on my revenue? I can already ask myself, is my selling price the right one? Am I well positioned in relation to the market? Are my expenses also justified?
And then regarding the last one, I realize that in fact, the number of planned days over the number of actual days, in relation to my goal of improving my profitability, is not really relevant. In fact, the first one is self-sufficient. So I will remove this one from my system.
So I played a test game on my system to ensure it is relevant and it conforms to what I want to measure, that is, the achievement of my goals.
The last step is to design the dashboard, so ultimately collect all this data and present it in the form of a set of relevant indicators. So as I said earlier, use visual management, use graphs, colors, make sure this dashboard is lively.
And make sure, if possible, to connect it to your information system to automate its feeding.
So I list here the 7 steps that I will go over again. Define the measurement field, then clarify the strategy and define the associated objectives. Identify the variables and then the measurable parameters in relation to these variables. Once we have that, determine what the key indicators and values are. And then run tests to validate our measurement system. And finally, design our dashboard.