[alberte]

I think in all these discussions of bean counters, the underlying assumptions non bean counters make is that the bean counters are trying to improve things. That, in my experience, is seldom the case. Mostly the act of bean counting is to create positions for bean counters, and insert themselves into the process. There is no end game in this, they will happily have meetings to discuss processes and improve metrics, because to them, bean counting is all there is. Without bean counting they would be unemployed. Once you let them in, you're screwed, cause they're impossible to get out.

Edit: Why the down vote? Perhaps some argument? (Oh, of course, it was probably a bean counter)

I posted this as a very real comment - once you accept that what you are doing is an item measurable by parties that aren't professionals in your field (bean counters) then any qualitative aspects of the profession are lost. Only the quantifiable is left, and because the bean counter doesn't communicate using the language of the profession - you are forced to learn their language. A language of quantifiables and reduction to line items. The rise of the professional manager who has necessarily no expertise in the field they are managing must of necessity reduce all non quantifiables to a 0 value. Thus you end up in the pickle that educators and physicians find themselves in. In the past administration was performed by members of the profession and so they could communicate using the same language.