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

Reviewing metrics on a per project basis in tactical meeting

Hi!

Today we've tried to hold a tactical meeting for the trainings development circle. In that circle we have a bunch of projects, that are about conducting a specific training on a particular date. And within that circle all of the metrics are interesting to us on a per training basis. Like "Number of participants", "Conversion", "Participant rating" and so on.

It is convenient for us to do metrics review on a per project basis, as we go through all of these projects. But I believe this is not how tactical meeting is designed to be held. I assume that we do something wrong here. How is it supposed to be handled within a tactical meeting as it is defined by constitution?

What are your thoughts on that?

6 Replies
Margaux
02/10/2016

Hi Alexey,

At iGi, we have the same metrics about training so in my Business Manager role, I have a metric called “Number of participants”, with a link to a google spreadsheet with each event and the number of participants per event.

Same for the profit per event.

Thus, we have a document I can use in my day-to-day work and there is a clear table for each event. For the profit, it is very convenient as I directly have the total.

Does that answer your question? I'm not sure...

Alexey Ilyichev
02/10/2016

Margaux,

it helps, because it at least improves on our current understanding. This is partly question about the tooling, because GlassFrog doesn't support per project metrics in any way. And the way you do it seems good enough. Thanks for that!

Another part of the question is about the order in which we review metrics and projects. It could be that reviewing them also per project would be better, as there might be interconnections between metrics on one project. I don't know yet. The problem is I don't see how we can do such a per-project review without violating constitution. We cannot change the process of tactical meeting, can we?

Margaux
02/11/2016

You can by defining a policy in the circle saying you are amending that process in a specific way.

Alexey Ilyichev
02/11/2016

Margaux,

thanks for clarification! That fully covers my question.

Margaux
02/11/2016

Cool

Davi Gabriel da Silva
02/12/2016

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?