The current grading system teaches people not to ask this. That's a problem.
I would love to see your evidence to back this claim.
> Of course!
Can you tell me a little bit more about the pre and post measures you used? Were they numerical? Were they based on observable facts? Did they give you a sense of how close to (or far from) your goal you landed?
How I measure success (or recognise failure, at least) varies between problems. Sometimes quantitative, sometimes qualitative. Sometimes based on theory and process, sometimes based on observation and outcome.
I rarely, however, find it meaningful to know "how close to the goal I landed" because that generally says more about the goal than the outcome.
So the assertion is that, if grades act as an extrinsic motivator, they replace passion/pride/curiousity as intrinsic motivators? That argument vaguely makes sense to me but personally it feels like more of a “both and”.
As for your approach to measuring success - no offense, but it sounds like the sort of vague, feel-good, don’t-fret-it sort of goal-setting that techniques like SMART goals, KPIs, and OKRs are intended to supercede. Do you do anything like those?
But do you not take any sort of measure both before and after the feature launch to evaluate what effect it had? How much “more right” (or not) you got?
How do you know that all the talk with the customers led to a feature that made a difference?