« Measuring the unmeasureable.
The return of context and measurement. »

The final word on context and measurement. (For now.)

mini suv The final word on context and measurement. (For now.)

I still have a small itch to scratch on this whole context and measurement thing. Yesterday I wrote:

“…why (are we) continuing to measure what’s not important and why we haven’t started to measure what is important?”

I now realise that’s the wrong question. I think that we can’t recognise what’s important until we start to measure it, and equally, we only see importance in the things that get measured.

This is because measurements create their own context. For example, I’d argue that it’s precisely because we measure horsepower that horsepower is valued. Similarly, I think that the fact we don’t measure center-of-gravity means that we don’t see an importance in it. On their own these two measurements seem quite small and benign, yet I started to wonder this morning what the world would be like if they were reversed. What would happen if we did measure center of gravity and didn’t measure horsepower?

It seems plausible that, in this scenario, we’d value stability more than raw power. If so, this would put a premium upon compact, stable cars over large, inefficient SUVs. It’s plausible that this might affect the kinds of cars that were sold, designed and built. In other words, is it possible that the automobile industry (and others) have been shaped in some part by the things we have chosen to measure?

I think there are some interesting policy questions in all of this which are probably beyond the scope of my brain and this blog. However, I think it’s clear that measurement systems can be a very powerful tool in guiding behaviour and thought. Additionally, while information or facts are static and therefore can be taken out of context, measurements inherently contain a scale and therefore also encapsulate within them some form of context (phew). And finally, to tie this all back together and return to the beginning of this trilogy of posts, I think it’s the fact that measurements contain context that makes them so powerful.

OK, that’s it I think I’m done now. Thanks for you patience.

Technorati Tags:

Possibly related posts

Tags:

This entry was posted on Friday, March 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pm and is filed under measurement. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • It seems to me that your first question wasn't that far off base. We originally measured raw power because that was what was important. That was what we valued. We didn't value horses for their ability to keep from tipping over; we valued them for their speed and power. The measurements came later.

    The concept of horsepower dates from the earliest steam engines, when there were no attributes worth measuring other than how well the engine could turn a mill wheel. That's why we built it. When automobiles came around, I'd imagine that people valued them for the same reasons they valued horses originally. Speed and power. Most adults don't need mechanical help to keep from tipping over, so we don't particularly value that ability. It's hygienic.

    We don't have to measure cars and horses to know that they're faster and more powerful. Or to recognize the value in those enhanced abilities. Once that value is established, it's only necessary to measure it for direct comparisons. Ranking.

    You could probably make the same argument for something like candlepower. We measure lamps and flashlights against their ability to illuminate. But we don't have to measure to recognize inherent value in illumination.

    Measurements can lead us to value things we might not have considered before (efficiency for example), but I'd argue that they aren't a universal requirement for recognizing value.

    Anyway, that's my two cents.
  • Hi Adrian, excellent stuff.
    Personally I feel this really carries the thoughts presented by John Steel at last summers Planning Begins at 40 event one step further.

    Steel said something in the lines of:
    "We are starting to build stuff based on what's easy to measure, not what's really important".

    And also appreciate the comment from Jeff, good thoughts on measurment and value.

    VVI = Very Valuable Ideas.

    best
    Helge
  • Great post Adrian. It's a little like my research brief axiom that we only know what to ask when we've done some asking. Which is why it's just good to think it through a bit first.
  • @Jeff thanks, you've helped clarify the point I was trying to make. When engines were invented, horsepower was the important measurement because engines were looking to replace horses. But today, horses aren't in the consideration set and so the measure has really lost relevance. I think that's true of a lot of the measurements we use - actually have another post coming on that.
  • Adrian, you have to write more big posts, with many parts like this. Your thoughts deserves more than a few lines.

    By the way: Helge, 180360720 is a bless.
blog comments powered by Disqus