Using Measurement as **levers** rather than for **feedback**, is sin #1. What's the difference? **Levers** are employed to **change someone else's behavior**. **Feedback** is employed to **improve your own performance**. The distinction is subtle but critical.
One of the most basic tenants of Agile is to trust the insight of the people closest to the work. But, here's the dilemma... as Agile scales into the enterprise, organizations are demanding measurement. I have seen many presentations on measurement and they often start with a quote like this one from Lord Kelvin, [When] you know something about [something]; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. A measurement regime based upon this tenant is doomed to drive you to the dark side. Rather, **the introduction of measurement to the Agile domain requires that it complement and even amplify the qualitative insight of those closest to the work, NOT replace or counter it.**
The above is just one example. This talk will walk you through the seven deadly sins to look out for when implementing an agile measurement regime, but it's not all fire and brimstone. We will leave you with a list of heavenly virtues or good practices to follow when implementing your measurement regime and we will present examples of companies that we have worked with and whose metrics regimes exhibit these virtues. This information should give you the means to bend your own execs towards risk evaluation rather than absolutes; toward measurement as an insight amplification and feedback mechanism rather than a club to beat people up; as something that your teams will seek out rather than something that they will dread.
