I actually did this for one of my consulting clients. It was a special situations though. I was the VP of Eng for a defunct company who's assets were bought by another. The purchaser needed to ramp up a team so I was helping with the interview process.
Parts that worked out well:
1. I knew the product/service, so I understand what type of skill sets are needed.
2. I know how to build a team, and the type of individuals you need for a good team.
3. I am local, whereas everyone from the purchasing company was in another city.
Parts that didn't work out very well:
1. I didn't know the direction the company was taking with the product, at least not clearly.
2. I can't comment on the type of relationship or org structure to expect with the parent company. Mind you, no one would really know anyhow, cause nothing was established.
Overall, it worked out well in the end.
However, looking at your resume, I wouldn't hire you for this service as a hiring manager. You don't really have the management expertise to identify the right individuals, because often, personality is more important than technical skills, and it takes management experience to identify the right individuals.
Moreover, in my case, I was putting a team together from scratch, so I can put people together based on strengths and weaknesses. With an existing team, you don't have that option. So the value prop is even lower.
Most performance indicators are imprecise. P/E ratio is one of the stupidest measure of value, but it is widely use in finance. No one(at least no value investor) would invest based on P/E ratio alone though, there is a lot more due diligence that's done before investors put their money into a stock. (At least that's what you hope happens.)
The problem with productivity measures, is not how they are measured but what they are used for. Most managers want to use productivity measures to evaluate individual or team performance, however, performance is tied to incentives, so you always end up with a lot of push back from the team or someone gaming the system. (IMO, this is because of lazy managers wanting to "manage by numbers", without really understanding how to manage by numbers.)
Rather than using it as a performance management tool, productivity measures, however imprecise, can be used alongside other yardsticks as signals of potential issues. For example, if productivity measure is dropping with a particular module/subsystem, and defect rate is increasing, then one might want to find out if the code needs to be rearchitected or refactored. In these cases, it is okay to be imprecise, because the data are pointers not the end goal. When used correctly, even imprecise data can be very useful.
Parts that worked out well: 1. I knew the product/service, so I understand what type of skill sets are needed. 2. I know how to build a team, and the type of individuals you need for a good team. 3. I am local, whereas everyone from the purchasing company was in another city.
Parts that didn't work out very well: 1. I didn't know the direction the company was taking with the product, at least not clearly. 2. I can't comment on the type of relationship or org structure to expect with the parent company. Mind you, no one would really know anyhow, cause nothing was established.
Overall, it worked out well in the end.
However, looking at your resume, I wouldn't hire you for this service as a hiring manager. You don't really have the management expertise to identify the right individuals, because often, personality is more important than technical skills, and it takes management experience to identify the right individuals.
Moreover, in my case, I was putting a team together from scratch, so I can put people together based on strengths and weaknesses. With an existing team, you don't have that option. So the value prop is even lower.