a few thoughts:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Manuel Merz <manuel.merz(a)wikimedia.de>wrote;wrote:
I am a little
disappointed at the focus by WMF staff on quantitative
metrics over everything else, which I think may have the unfortunate
side-effect of encouraging entities to go after easily measurable
activities rather than the most effective and worthwhile activities.
Hopefully this will be taken into account on future assessments.
It is quick to target the easily measurable, but will it actually bring us
forward? Activities and outputs are only a means to an end. So instead of
setting the focus on "easily measurable" means, I would personally prefer a
focus on building up the movement's knowledge about sustainable outcomes
and on how to get there.
I personally believe that there may be some confusion about the goals here.
What is important is to seek quantitative metrics WHEN APPLICABLE. In all
goals and projects where quantitative metrics are impossible to offer, it
is perfectly reasonable to state so and justify, why. The thing is that
many organizations have the problem of not thinking about measuring results
as well as about making impact at all - it is just very easy to assume that
what we do (and enjoy doing) makes sense by default and avoid reflecting
The process of thinking about measuring outcomes is important in itself,
even if it leads to the conclusion that in some cases the results will not
be easily quantifiable. As long as entities realize that and reflect on the
reasons of the impossibility to measure results, I myself would not see any
problems with accepting such an approach.
Typically, all good ideas have some outcomes that can be quantified, as
well as some that can't (or shouldn't).
Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit" (expressing my own view, and not in the
capacity of the FDC chair).