I was reading an interesting article the other day in the MIT Sloan Management Review (Winter 2008 issue), titled The Six Key Dimensions of Understanding Media.  In this article, the authors discusses the use of The Genre Model to describe and evaluate the transition from one type of communication to another.  The general illustrations are historical (e.g. business letter --> memo --> email), but one can quickly see how this model can be used to evaluate new and emerging types of communication or media (e.g. email --> blogging --> micro-blogging). 

Given the host of new technologies and media options available with Web 2.0, I highly recommend this article for an analytical method of evaluating and or considering the adoption of new technologies or new media in your corporate culture.  It includes some great examples (IBM Blog Central and MNI Partners’ adoption of Skype) about how real companies are utilizing these new technologies and truly reaping the benefits.  But, in addition, I’d also like to borrow The Genre Model and suggest that we could apply it to the measurement realm.  

In today’s business, there is a multitude of metrics for every aspect of our existence, and more metrics are developed each day!  How are we supposed to know which ones are important?  Which ones will help us grow or improve our business?  How do we select on which metrics to concentrate?  I propose that we use The Genre Model to help evaluate how a new metric may fit in, complement, or supplement our existing metrics. 

Let’s face it, not all metrics are universal.  Every company has a bevy of metrics to guide the business and help explain performance.  Many of these metrics are relevant to different parts of the business.  In other words, not all metrics are of the same value to everyone in the company, because they may not be applicable, or actionable.  In fact, not all metrics in a company are even appropriate for general consumption.  So, how do we decide to create and adopt new metrics?

Let’s take a look at how the six dimensions of The Genre Model could be employed in the area of metrics. When considering the adoption of a new metric, one should probably ask the following questions:

• Why? Why would we use this new metric?  What purpose does it serve?  What expectations do we have from the use of this metric?  Does it show us something different than our current metrics do?  Does it provide more or different information than we already have?

• What?  What is its definition?  What will this metric communicate? 

• Who?  Who will be involved in this metric?  And what are their roles?  Who will define it?  Who will create the actual measurement system?  Who will publish it?  Who will interpret it?  Who will use it?  Who will have access to it? With any metric, it is important to consider the intended audience.  It is also important to be aware of the unintended audience.  In other words, when creating a metric and considering its audience, you may want to try to ensure that people "can't hurt themselves" with it.

• Where?  Where will this metric be published?  Will it be an internal metric?  Or an external metric?  Is it company-wide?  Or is it only pertinent on a regional or divisional basis? Will it be published in paper reports or electronic reports?  Will it be available on a dashboard? 
  One key consideration might be security and portability.  Are you trying to keep this metric confidential and internal?  By publishing it in an email report, is it at risk for external exposure?  Would it be better off on a secure internal dashboard or intranet?

• When?  When is the metric published?  I think one of the key issues here is frequency.  These days, a lot of processes can be measured and reported on daily, hourly, or even real-time basis.  But, is it needed that frequently?  Can the information be processed and acted on that quickly?  If not, we may just be wasting resources.  A weekly reading may be sufficient and more appropriate.  In fact, more frequent reporting may inaccurately imply that the frequency of reaction or response is much higher than it realistically can be.

• How?  How will this metric be reported?  What format?  Will it be sent out as a table of numbers in a spreadsheet?  Will it be shown in a graph of a PowerPoint report?  Will it be reported dynamically in a dashboard, as a graph, or a dial?  Will it be reported as a standalone number/level?  Will it be an index or the percentage change from the last time it was reported?  Will it be compared to a benchmark?  If so, how is the benchmark defined?  Is it an external industry-specific benchmark?  Or an internal company-specific benchmark?  Will it be compared to a particular goal?

These days it is so easy to add more and more metrics to our daily existence.  Every time a new one crosses our desks, it is tempting to latch on to it, add it to a spreadsheet, and forward it on to someone else in our group (particularly if it makes us look good!).  But, at the rate of change and growth of these new technologies and new metrics, I think we need to be more discriminating about the metrics we utilize.  If we consider the questions above, before adopting new metrics, I believe that we will adopt fewer metrics, but concentrate on the most actionable and important ones.  As a result, we will be able to control the flow of information, so that we can learn from it, without getting overwhelmed by all of the data that is available.