Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site

My interpretation about metrics is that they always need to relate to the accountabilities of a Role. The Constitution says that the metrics are assigned by the Lead Link to roles, not projects or people/partners:

4.2.1 Tactical Meetings are for:

  • (a) sharing the completion status of recurring actions on checklists owned by the Circle’s Roles;
  • (b) sharing regular metrics assigned to the Circle’s Roles to report

 

With this relationship between Role and Metrics in mind, my conclusion is that the metrics are used to give transparency to the work a role is performing (accountabilities). Self-organization is only possible with quick feedback between the agents of the system. In this scenario, the agents are the roles and the feedback is data about work/accountabilities exchanged in the form of metrics.

I see that in some cases there are roles that are "project-oriented", or the existence of the role is justified by a big project. In this case, metrics by project are justifiable, because the project is closely related to the role's accountabilities.

I fear that when the project is somewhat distanced from the accountabilities of a role, reporting only metrics about the project may not give the required transparency to a role's accountabilities.

What do you think about it?