What's the Motivation behind this?

I guess this notion of 'chasing' KPI that are not meaningful has been quite distant to me... and no wonder I responded with surprise when something along that line surfaced in a recent discussion. Actually, the discussion did not talk about the KPI, but it's about an 'initiative' that created "KPIs" for many to fulfill, and eventually evolved to become an 'exercise' that lose its meaning to many (because of the way it was driven).

We know that educators are very well supported by the Ministry of Education. Agree or not? One can easily made a comparison with countries in the region. MOE is far-sighted and recognised, way ahead of many, the importance to provide resources, in a large scale, to teachers in Singapore. While 'centrally' it started with its eduMall (long long ago, that evolved into eduMall 2.0, then ICT connection, and now integrated into OPAL), it gives schools in the zone to develop its one resource repository, in the spirit of bottom-up support to teachers as well. Of course, this good intent was supported by many... nevertheless, the coin has 2 sides, while it encourages educators to share their ideas (actually the more the merrier), it also created 'pressure' whereby some institutions set targets in terms of the number of learning materials to be put up. There it goes! We know what happened when numbers just went up and there is no quality control unit to take care of the standard or quality of materials put up too! I'm not saying that the materials put up are of low quality, but the point is, the quality of materials spans across a wide range! We have many good materials (I believe their are exemplars), but we also have materials that have much more room for improvement.

In fact, one way to find out if the material is of certain quality is through the number of downloads. I believe there were materials that sat in such repositories and no one had ever even open and view the file! So, that speaks volume.

Back to the discussion, one of the members spoke about encouraging colleagues to refer and download the resources in those repositories. I was surprised! Because as I draw a parallel to what was prepared by the MOE, why this repositories (when it was not QC-ed at all) as compared to one where the quality was assured?! Is it because of ignorance? or was it because the institution has already contributed a significant number of resources that are awaiting for 'visitors' to patronise (and download)? OK, I'm just making ungrounded second guess... I did not bother to clarify the intent, because in the first place, I did not see it being meaningful to direct others' attention to resources that are  not QC-ed, compared to one that has been 'rubber-stamped' as 'quality resources' that we are proud of...