> So, using sports as a proxy is not the same as management decisions where there are no well-defined criteria or expected value.
Exactly. The biggest problem with quantifying efficiency in particular is that you have to define the inputs and outputs. Your biases are embedded in that definition rather than in the calculation per se. You can make some pretty awful processes "efficient" if you assign zero value to some of the inputs, and conversely some pretty great processes "inefficient" if you assign zero value to some of the outputs.
> You can make some pretty awful processes "efficient" if you assign zero value to some of the inputs, and conversely some pretty great processes "inefficient" if you assign zero value to some of the outputs.
I'm halfway convinced that time-motion studies are some kind of demonic invention for exactly this reason. We can get 3% more productivity out of an assembly line, just by doubling the accident rate and giving every worker RSI!
Goodhart's Law is dangerous even when we're making management and business decisions in good faith, but when ideas like "long term injuries are irrelevant" are implicitly added it becomes monstrous.
Exactly. The biggest problem with quantifying efficiency in particular is that you have to define the inputs and outputs. Your biases are embedded in that definition rather than in the calculation per se. You can make some pretty awful processes "efficient" if you assign zero value to some of the inputs, and conversely some pretty great processes "inefficient" if you assign zero value to some of the outputs.