Key performance indicator: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:
“I can see the future of inhouse legal” [[thought leader]] types will feel an adrenaline rush at the very mention. They stand in awe at the magic money tree that is modern [[Magic circle law firm|commercial law practice]], wonder why that doesn’t translate to [[inhouse legal]], put two and two together, arrive at thirty seven and before you know it they will be drawing up plans to recast the legal department as a profit centre, with its own P&L.  
“I can see the future of inhouse legal” [[thought leader]] types will feel an adrenaline rush at the very mention. They stand in awe at the magic money tree that is modern [[Magic circle law firm|commercial law practice]], wonder why that doesn’t translate to [[inhouse legal]], put two and two together, arrive at thirty seven and before you know it they will be drawing up plans to recast the legal department as a profit centre, with its own P&L.  


Such individuals may need to be dashed in the face with water or slapped to bring themselves to their senses, but even if you do this, the germ of the idea will have  germinated. Before you know it there will be a cross-functional working group, a project, 9n a “sprint”, tracking red.  
Such individuals may need to be dashed in the face with water or slapped to bring themselves to their senses, but even if you do this, the germ of the idea will have  germinated. Before you know it there will be a cross-functional working group, a project, on a “sprint”, tracking red.  


Meanwhile, the legal eagles will flail. They will flounder. “But,” they will protest, too much, “we are not part of the operational stack. We don’t make widgets. We are special. We handle exceptions, crises, novelties and conundrums exactly the sorts of things that one can’t awfully well count. Things that we have not seen before and are unlikely to see again. Our value proposition is therefore hard to articulate, let alone quantify.” Seeing where the management layer are going with this, they quickly append: “''But you know it when you see it.'' Our value is not a function of the things we have done, the time we have spent or the units we have produced. Our value is oblique. It does not always accrue immediately, or obviously, or with an observable consequence. Sometimes our value is in ''avoiding'' consequences.”  
Meanwhile, the legal eagles will flail. They will flounder. “But,” they will protest, too much, “we are not part of the operational stack. We don’t make widgets. We are special. We handle exceptions, crises, novelties and conundrums exactly the sorts of things that one can’t awfully well count. Things that we have not seen before and are unlikely to see again. Our value proposition is therefore hard to articulate, let alone quantify.” Seeing where the management layer are going with this, they quickly append: “''But you know it when you see it.'' Our value is not a function of the things we have done, the time we have spent or the units we have produced. Our value is oblique. It does not always accrue immediately, or obviously, or with an observable consequence. Sometimes our value is in ''avoiding'' consequences.”  
Line 27: Line 27:
It is a meaningless, [[modernist]] bumf. It suits only [[middle management]], whom it gives something to do, someone to chase, someone to [[audit]], an attestation to gather and a [[KPI]] to stick on the dashboard slide on the monthly about to the [[opco]] deck.  
It is a meaningless, [[modernist]] bumf. It suits only [[middle management]], whom it gives something to do, someone to chase, someone to [[audit]], an attestation to gather and a [[KPI]] to stick on the dashboard slide on the monthly about to the [[opco]] deck.  


But all is not lost. With a deft inversion we can set the management layer against itself. For while it may be difficult to articulate the means by we ''do'' add value, it is a total cinch to indicate ways in which we do ''not''. We are beset with boxes to tick, forms to fill, process to follow, policies to comply with and administrative tasks to carrying out solely to satisfy management’s compulsion for formal measurement. These [[key non-performance indicator]]s we can most certainly count. We can aggregate, extrapolate, model and graph them, in the certainty that every hour we spent on these formal attestations produced precisely nil value.
But all is not lost. With a deft inversion we can set the management layer ''against'' itself. For while it may be difficult to explain how an inhouse lawyer ''does'' add value, it is a cinch to show all the things he must do, but in doing which he does ''not''. Lawyers are beset with [[Tick-boxes|boxes to tick]], forms to fill, processes to follow, policies to comply with and administrative tasks to carry out designed exclusively to satisfy management’s compulsion for ''counting formal things''.  


We could take it a step further, and set as our [[key performance indicator]], the number of fatuous [[KPNI]]s we have identified and removed in a given period.
These [[key non-performance indicator]]s we can most certainly count. We can aggregate, extrapolate, model and graph them, in the certainty that every hour we spent on these formal attestations produced precisely nil value. 
 
We could take it a step further, and set as our [[key performance indicator]], the number of fatuous [[KNPI]]s we have identified and removed in a given period. We can set the system, for once, against its usual operation, whereby as time passes we accumulate the scar tissue, silt, rust — barnacles — from near-misses, operational errors, snafus and manual work-arounds contrived to keep the jalopy running because management won’t splash out on up-to-date IT infrastructure, and instead spend our time ''removing'' these layers of crud from the operation.


Well; a fellow can dream can’t he?
Well; a fellow can dream can’t he?
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Key_performance_indicator"