Why a result with nothing beside it cannot be read
A number on its own cannot be read, because reading it means knowing what the same measurement says about doing the job some other way.
This is the least sophisticated-sounding question in the volume and the most effective one. It is also the easiest to ask without friction, because it sounds like curiosity rather than suspicion.
A result is a position, and a position needs a reference point. Told that an agent resolved most of the cases it was given, you know nothing at all until you know what the people currently doing that work resolve, and what the crudest possible approach resolves. Those two numbers turn a figure into a claim.
Three reference points, in order of how often they are missing
| ask for | what it tells you | what it sounds like when it is bad |
|---|---|---|
| the current process, on the same cases | whether this is an improvement at all | “we did not measure the manual process” — then the comparison you are being asked to make has not been made |
| the obvious cheap approach, on the same cases | whether the expensive thing earned its cost | “that would not be a fair comparison” — ask why not, specifically. Sometimes the answer is good |
| doing nothing | whether the problem was worth solving | laughter, usually. Ask anyway: it is the reference point that most often reveals a small problem being solved expensively |
On the same cases. Three words, and they carry most of this page. A result measured on one set and a reference point measured on a different set cannot be subtracted from each other, and the two sets are almost never the same unless somebody deliberately made them so.
The good answer to this question is short and boring: here is the number, here is what the old way scored on the identical cases, here is the gap. If you get that, this question is finished and you can move on. If you get a discussion, the gap does not exist yet.