Dashboards: From Performance Art to Decision Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interview with Neil Hoyne, Chief Measurement Strategist at Google Dashboards are a common tool for managers to monitor a company’s performance, and since the COVID-19 pandemic they have gained popularity among even broader audiences. But what is the real use of these dashboards? Is it just performance art or is it a tool that provides managers with the information they need? It may be slightly astonishing that Google employee Neil Hoyne is no fan of dashboards, but he believes they can be toxic when taken out of context. In this interview, he explains his skepticism of monitoring the same KPIs quarter after quarter and suggests different ways to make dashboards more strategically useful to companies. In his view, dashboards should inspire questions and curiosity, reflect market context and align toward specific business initiatives. He also suggests a more professional use of data and favors the scientific inquiry of the relationship between marketing measures and business outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".