Leadership proposes timing stewards only on how fast they clear match suspects. What measurement approach is more sound?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Speed-only KPIs push stewards to mash Merge like a video game. Measure queue time, sure—but sample for accuracy so quality doesn’t tank.
Full Explanation
Timing stewards only on how fast they clear match suspects is unsound; track time-to-resolve with quality safeguards such as sample accuracy reviews—not speed alone. Civic merge quality protects residents from false identity fusion. Rewarding only the highest merge count regardless of false-merge rate incentivizes reckless approvals. Removing all KPIs so stewards have no operational visibility fails management. Scoring stewards solely on how few cases they open encourages neglect of the queue. Exam caveat: steward KPIs must balance speed and accuracy—throughput-only metrics are a trap. Operational check: pair queue aging with precision sampling of approved merges, publish both metrics, and coach outliers. Include quality sampling results in the municipal MDM operations review each month. Keep verification evidence with the municipal runbook so audits can prove the chosen control was applied as designed and that rejected alternatives would have left city services exposed to the failure modes described above. Keep verification evidence with the municipal runbook so audits can prove the chosen control was applied as designed and that rejected alternatives would have left city services exposed to the failure modes described above.