University administrators wishing to arrive at rapid decisions in evaluating staff performance may ignore metrics that seem too sophisticated (Nature 510, 444; 2014, and see J. Adams Nature 510, 470–471; 2014). At King's College London, for example, appallingly blunt metrics are being wielded to determine who should be made redundant.
Some faculty members there are being appraised on grant income or hours of contact teaching, but not both, and without regard to indicators such as publication record, teaching quality or editorial-board membership (see go.nature.com/bhbyjs). These metrics are having a disproportionate effect on staff with both research and teaching commitments — ironically, the university's stated ideal.
Total grant income is in any case a questionable proxy for research quality, and cannot be used to compare the performance of researchers who have different outgoings and funding sources. Examples include basic and medical researchers, or those who work on model organisms that vary markedly in expense. Their grant sizes are unrelated to the quality of their research.
Such misleading measures cannot inform the shrewd decision-making that is essential for tightly funded higher-education management.