Notes are just that: Short, informal messages, or brief records of points or ideas written down. The views and opinions expressed in my notes do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of my employer or clients.
The German scientist and world traveler Alexander von Humboldt once said: "A hill whose height is not known offends reason."1 This exclamation symbolizes like no other the quest for knowledge of the Enlightenment, which in the 19th century led to the flourishing of the natural sciences and to a veritable boom in measurement.
What gets measured gets managed
A 20th century variation on the quote by von Humboldt is ‘What gets measured gets managed.’ The essence of the phrase is that you can not manage or improve something unless you are tracking its performance. This idea has become a foundational principle in business management and in the public sector, emphasizing the importance of metrics and data analysis in achieving organizational goals. It suggests that the act of measuring something inherently implies a degree of attention and control, leading to better management of the measured entity.
The evolution of monitoring in the public sector reflects broader changes in governance, the role of the state, and advances in administrative practices and technologies. From rudimentary checks in ancient times to the sophisticated, technology-driven approaches of today, the practice of monitoring has become integral to ensuring that governments are effective, accountable, and responsive to the needs of their citizens. And there is nothing wrong with that - in principle. In practice, there are some challenges.
In one of my my current assignments, I am leading a team to develop a methodology for monitoring circularity. We have pinpointed numerous potential indicators and data: some derive from existing data while others draw inspiration from literature and practices of similar governmental bodies. Despite our progress, there’s substantial work ahead in establishing processes and standards. Our goal is to transition from fragmented datasets to a cohesive dashboard, alongside key reporting indicators. This is a lot of work but it is primarily technical and organizational.
One to rule them all
However, one significant challenge remains: selecting (a few) effective indicators that accurately track progress towards circularity. The obstacle stems from the absence of a clear definition of circularity, an issue I have previously written about. Ambitions necessitate definitions, which in turn, determine indicators. Without a clear definition of 'circularity', pinpointing appropriate indicators is daunting.
For the climate neutrality ambition, there are good definitions, and there is one indicator that represents the full spectrum: Emission of greenhouse gases expressed in CO2-equivalent (tons) per year. But which indicator, or small set of indicators, can do this for circularity? Should we measure annual waste (recover - at the bottom of the R-ladder), the percentage of strictly circular procurements (reuse - at the middle of the R-ladder), the mass of resources not purchased or used (refuse - at the top of the R-ladder), or perhaps adopt a complex composite like the Environmental Cost Indicator?
Wild goose chase
This project I am working on, like many others aimed at monitoring sustainability, faces a common risk: the principle that 'what gets measured gets managed' often results in 'we only manage what we can measure'. What we measure can influence our actions or even determine our strategy, while leading us astray from achieving our goals.
An example from one of my previous assignments in a municipality with an ambitious climate adaptation goal illustrates this point. Not surprisingly, they had no clear-cut definition of climate adaptation. Initially, they could not come up with good indicators, and later, they could not agree on them. In addition, they struggled with data availability—or more precisely, a perceived lack of data. In the end, their reporting included, as the sole indicator for climate adaptation, tree canopy cover as a percentage of the municipal urban territory. This led to an obsession with trees and to the neglect of water storage, improved drainage, resilient buildings, etc.—all important aspects of climate adaptation.
The maxim 'what gets measured gets managed' not only can lead us astray from goal orientation but also overlooks critical, unquantifiable aspects of success. A metrics-driven public sector can stifle innovation and risk-taking by prioritizing short-term measurable outcomes over long-term growth and experimentation. Ultimately, while measurement is vital, its overemphasis can compromise the complexity and effectiveness of policies.
A good example of this is academia. From impact factors, number and volume of grants, number of students supervised, citation indexes, altmetrics, and university rankings, academia seems obsessed with such measurements; career trajectories and research agendas are determined by them. This way of measurement has changed academia; quantitative production of papers has replaced the qualitative production of knowledge. It is simultaneously hilarious and deeply worrying how the sector that is about knowledge is bogged down in a straitjacket of measuring.
Knowledge is power
Alexander von Humboldt once said: "A hill whose height is not known offends reason." While it's beneficial to have a general understanding of the height we need to reach for sustainability and our current progress on this steep climb, it's far more critical to possess knowledge on navigating through boulder fields, circumventing crevasses in glaciers, understanding our physical condition, ensuring the availability of food, and managing sudden snowstorms or injuries.
In the context of the circularity assignment I am working on, a few basic measurements of progress may suffice at this early stage of the transition. However, the creation of actionable knowledge is far more crucial, especially considering the often underestimated complexities of bureaucratic and political processes. At this juncture, knowledge significantly outweighs the value of mere measurements, which can mislead or result in inaction, whereas knowledge has the potential to generate momentum and power.
The adage 'knowledge is power' is frequently attributed to the scientific pioneer Sir Francis Bacon, who lived about two centuries before von Humboldt. Bacon posited that knowledge gained through observation, experimentation, and inductive reasoning would catalyze scientific advancements and societal improvements. I maintain that in our pursuit of a more circular society, prioritizing the acquisition and application of knowledge—and the empowerment it brings—should take precedence over the mere metrics of measuring and managing, even if von Humboldt might deem such a stance as offending reason.
For German speaking readers: Listen to this radio-essay on measuring and digitalization from which I stole the Humboldt statement above: Die Logik des Digitalen: Es zählt, was sich zählen lässt! (deutschlandfunk.de).