---
id: KB-IC-018
url: https://app.codecontract.io/help/reports-and-quality/when-the-metric-rates-people
idioma: en
categoria: informes-y-calidad
subcategoria: informes
audiencia: usuario
nivel: avanzado
actualizado: 2026-08-13
tambienEn: [es]
relacionados: [KB-IC-006, KB-IC-017]
citadoPor: [KB-IC-020]
---

# When the metric rates people

_The moment a number rates someone, it stops measuring what it measured. Not through bad faith: by design._

**Responde a:** metrics to rate the team · the dashboard does not reflect reality · per-person quality targets · how to stop numbers being massaged

A dashboard showing how many files close on time is useful while it serves to see where work gets stuck. The day that same number enters the appraisal of whoever runs those files, it starts to move — and not because the work improved.

## What happens to each metric once it rates people

| Metric | How it is «improved» without improving anything |
| --- | --- |
| Files closed on time | They are closed before they are complete, then reopened |
| Incidents logged | Fewer get logged: recording one penalises whoever records it |
| Average response time | A quick «we are looking into it» that answers nothing |
| Documents verified | The easy ones get verified and the doubtful ones parked |

> [!IMPORTANT]
> The second row is the dangerous one and the least anticipated: **when logging a problem hurts whoever logs it, problems stop being logged**. The dashboard improves, reality does not change, and you lose the very information that fixed things. It is the one case where a metric can leave you worse off than measuring nothing at all, because it also breeds confidence.

## How to measure without breaking the measure

**En corto**

- Process metrics look at the process: bottlenecks, not people.
- What goes upwards, aggregated; the individual part belongs in the conversation, not the dashboard.
- And spotting a problem early is recognised, not penalised: that is what saves you the trouble.

> [!WARNING]
> There is a tell that exposes the problem before results show it: **a metric that improves without anyone having changed anything**. If the percentage climbs one month and nobody can explain what was done differently, what usually changed is how things get recorded, not the work. It is worth ten minutes in the detail: those ten minutes decide whether the dashboard is still good for anything.

## What is worth looking at per person

1. **Load, not performance** — How many files each carries; useful for sharing work out.
2. **Blockers outside their control** — Anything waiting on an outside answer is nobody's fault inside.
3. **And what repeats in one specific place** — If a step always jams with the same person, it is usually the step.

> [!NOTE]
> If the metric will feed an appraisal or pay, there are employment and data protection implications that depend on your country and your collective agreement. **Check that with your adviser before switching it on**, not after.

**So people are not measured?**

They are accompanied. An isolated figure without conversation is always read wrong.

**How do I know this is already happening?**

Look for a metric that improves without anyone knowing why.

**What if management asks for a ranking?**

Give the aggregate and explain the effect. Showing it once usually suffices.

## Ejemplos

**A company adds «incidents logged» to the quality team's monthly appraisal.**

- Takes it out of the appraisal and keeps the metric on the process dashboard only

→ Small incidents get logged again, and those are the ones that warn before the big one.

**Files closed per person starts being measured and the team starts closing things half done.**

- Also measures the quality of what is closed, not just the count
- Checks how many get reopened afterwards
- Shares the criteria before starting to measure

→ The indicator stops rewarding speed and starts describing the real work.

**The indicator compares whoever handles easy suppliers with whoever handles hard ones.**

- Separates by file type before comparing

→ The comparison is honest.

**The number is used in appraisals without ever being explained.**

- Explains what it measures and what it does not before using it

→ Nobody first learns how they are measured at their appraisal.

**One person scores badly and they were the only one covering absences.**

- Checks the detail before drawing conclusions

→ Context is taken into account.

**The indicator improves because incidents stopped being recorded.**

- Checks the record is still complete

→ The improvement is real rather than one of recording.

**People are measured when the problem is the process.**

- Checks whether the bottleneck is one person's or everyone's

→ The process is fixed rather than people pressed.

**The team stops reporting problems to avoid scoring badly.**

- Separates the management indicator from the appraisal one

→ Problems keep surfacing while they can still be fixed.