KPI is killing us

Apart from the fact that the KPIs may be driving everybody up the wall, it's probably going to kill the Earth too. We should have a green KPI on the people in charge of KPIs. If your duty or job causes a lot of paper to be generated, you should get demerit points!

But I think the problem is that we count too much - too many things to count, and to show proof that you are entitled to count them. Otherwise you don't get the funding you so need ... or want.

The other day, one of the CGSS "bosses" (yes, many bosses) hailed me and asked "is any of your KPI reported anywhere?". I said "no, I don't report my KPIs". Why did you think he asked? lolz, to claim my KPI of course. The funny thing is, I didn't provide any data or proof.

KPIs as a concept is fine. It's the way we go about it which is crazy. The Schools get audited every year to check on their performance. And their performance determines how much funding they get. Some schools are super achievers (publication, publication, what else) and get lots of bonus. As a matter of principle, I guess that's seems logical. But it is also well known that some disciplines or schools by the nature of their field will suffer. Shouldn't we measure the schools or disciplines based on their strengths? Some are good in research. Some maybe good in teaching (the sceptics say there are none). Some may do very well in "corporate and social engagement".

Should we be more focus on critical measurements? Could there be some "must have" which everyone is expected to achieve. And more importantly is not audited. Just audit really critical stuff ... like the quality of teaching and learning ... which is not in the RU KPI. And do the audit say only every 3 years, on rotation? Or audit the those who didn't perform the previous years. When they perform up to mark, leave them alone for 3 years. Or audit only those areas which they under-perform.

The winds of change is blowing, though. This afternoon, there's a presentation about our HCMS our new online human resource management system which will kick in soon. Theoretically, you fill up your data (publications, etc, etc) every year as part of your annual performance review. So, this will hopefully save all the fuss and multiple requests to lecturers for copies of papers etc every few months. Then when you achieve a certain threshold, the system will trigger the process to take you one step higher - review for promotion. Sounds nice, right? I hope it actually will save paper.