Project management: when a metric distracts from the objective
Dashboards make progress visible, but they do not always tell us whether a project is producing what is needed. The management question is specific: how can we set a target that guides execution without sidelining the requirements it does not measure?
What the literature establishes
Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham (2002, American Psychologist) synthesise research showing that specific, challenging goals can improve performance compared with a general instruction to do one's best. This effect depends in particular on commitment, ability and feedback; task complexity also changes the conditions under which it occurs. Applied to a project, this finding supports clarifying expectations, not assuming that every numerical target adequately represents success.
The mechanism: directing attention also narrows it
Lisa D. Ordóñez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky and Max H. Bazerman (2009, Academy of Management Perspectives) examine the potential adverse effects of overprescribing goals. Their critical review highlights, among other risks, the concentration of attention on targeted dimensions at the expense of others. In a project, tracking the number of features delivered may therefore leave their usability out of view: this illustrates the mechanism rather than reporting a finding measured in Lausanne organisations.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that metrics should be abandoned; these publications do not warrant that conclusion. An explicit target remains useful for coordinating action, provided it does not become the sole definition of the expected result. The important distinction is between the production target and the acceptance criteria: delivering something does not necessarily mean it is usable. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence and dashboards cannot settle
These publications do not directly evaluate project dashboards in Lausanne, and the second does not provide a single estimate of the effect of goals. They therefore cannot prescribe an optimal number of metrics or automatically attribute a failure to a poorly chosen target. In practice, adding a quality measure is also insufficient if trade-off decisions continue to reward only the volume delivered.
A practical check in Lausanne
In Lausanne, whether for a medtech project, a higher education collaboration, an initiative serving international sport or a rollout by a Lake Geneva region scale-up, record a production target and an acceptance criterion that the recipient can verify before the next review. Over a period defined in advance, count the deliverables that meet their target but fail that criterion, then divide this count by all deliverables assessed, retaining the evidence of acceptance or rejection. This discrepancy rate flags a gap between production and acceptability without, on its own, establishing the cause. Within SHR's « Gestion de projet » programme, this check can support a trade-off exercise: should the target, the resources or the definition of the deliverable be revised? To go further: explore the Project Management training in Lausanne, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Project Management in Lausanne
- project management
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne