Berro

Quote: Big Dave T "My point probably not very well explained is that the metric itself and the methodology are defined at input stage. The interpretation of the findings from a metric perspective are at output once theyve seen what the measure is saying including commentary for context and rationale etc. You dont always know youre measuring the right thing until the output stage.

They'll know that its sales data yes, and what it sales of, both are outputs. They wont care about where it was collected and they wont care about when it was collected. It will roll up into a monthly or quarterly report that they receive from a trusted source. They aren't naive at all, they simply pay some of the most respected people in the business to take care of the input stuff for them. One of the key strengths a senior manager can have is to not need to know the detail to allow them to focus on what matters. Thats why most senior managers try to surround themselves with people that complement their weaknesses or they ensure the organisational hierarchy is designed to ensure the right quality data is created at the right time.

I guess the 2nd part of this about reliable and trustworthy is satisfied in the example above for the company i work for. The exec dont personally know the people but i guess the 6 figure salaries been paid to the people pulling the MI and reports together means they come with a certain amount of respect and credibility.

I don't distrust it based on not trusting the gatherers. I can't entirely trust it either, but I'm sure whoever is responsible is reliable at collecting what they are attempting to collect. My issue is with what they are attempting to collect, because, unlike sales data, they aren't collecting something that has an absolute, unequivocal definition. As I mentioned earlier with the Fitzgibbon/Tickle/tackling hypothetical, consistency of collation isn't always enough when there are as many variables present as there are in a game of RL. It's not that the data is inaccurate, it's that it has to inflexible to attempt to remain consistent and that just doesn't work, as far as I'm concerned, when there are so many variable, unmeasurable, inconsistent factors involved every minute.

Again, a quick example, assuming the statistics collected are entirely consistent yet remain fair to all. Say tomorrow Berrigan was attempting to scoot against a Leeds pack consisting of Leuluai, Diskin, Peacock, JJB, Ablett and Sinfield. And he's working of plays from Dowes and O'Meley. 20 minutes later, Houghton comes on and is working against a Leeds pack of Bailey, Buderus, Burgess, JJB, Lauiti'iti, Sinfield off plays from Cusack and Moa. Houghton probably gets a quick play against a poorer defence. Or maybe the starting Leeds front row was having a torrid time of it and the replacements are doing a much better job. Who knows? Those collecting the statistics certainly don't. And it's that type of factor (of which there are an innumerable amount every game) that isn't taken into account.

There are just too many uncontrollable variables that can't be factored in for me to be able to regard the statistics provided with anything more than disdain.