Yes, we should still be concerned with how much a service costs though but not how much it “makes”.
There should be a different measure to monitor services over time because you still want it to be as efficient as possible and not wasteful.
One year the service might cost $1 billion and the next year it might cost $1.3 billion, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it lost $300 million either. It may have just been used 30% more than the first year.
But, in an example of a postal service, perhaps it made 30% more deliveries or covered 30% more distance.
We should still monitor the services though to make sure an extra $300 million in spending was actually because it performed more and not because it suddenly got super inefficient, spending 30% but only delivering 10% more packages for example.
(all numbers made up, I have no idea how much is spent on postal services or the best metrics to measure their efficiency)
Yes, we should still be concerned with how much a service costs though but not how much it “makes”.
There should be a different measure to monitor services over time because you still want it to be as efficient as possible and not wasteful.
One year the service might cost $1 billion and the next year it might cost $1.3 billion, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it lost $300 million either. It may have just been used 30% more than the first year.
But, in an example of a postal service, perhaps it made 30% more deliveries or covered 30% more distance.
We should still monitor the services though to make sure an extra $300 million in spending was actually because it performed more and not because it suddenly got super inefficient, spending 30% but only delivering 10% more packages for example.
(all numbers made up, I have no idea how much is spent on postal services or the best metrics to measure their efficiency)
I agree with the general message but, being efficient and trying to profit are two different things.