Lemme’ guess. Your management asks you to measure your performance. This is a push from management textbooks everywhere. Quality programs, Six Sigma… they’re all about measuring what you do and finding ways to improve efficiency.
With contracts, measurement is both easy and tricky at the same time. It’s easy because there are a lot of numbers to keep track of. The number of contracts, the number of renewals, the sum of all money spent in a given time period, etc. It’s hard because the things that really matter: quality of the deal, risk allocation measures, actual cost savings, etc, are more difficult to put a number on. Or, perhaps you’re trying to measure contract professional performance – how many of a particular term they got included in their contracts, the number of times they’ve started from your template forms (remember, you’re ALWAYS starting from YOUR templates, right?).
But are simple counts of these things a true measure of success, top quality performance, etc? Or are they simply the easy things to measure to placate your management?
I’m not going to tell you what to measure, at least not yet (Symetrisk will do it for you soon). But I want you to think about what you’re measuring and how your going to do the measurement itself. Do the metrics matter? Do you have the ability to make real inferences (not correlations – you won’t have that kind of data) from what you’ve gathered?
If the answer is no, it’s time to re-think your metrics.