We do not look into how much funding the candidate has brought to the university in the form of grants. We do not count the number of published papers ; we also do not rank publications according to authorship order. We do not use some elaborate algorithm that weighs publications in journals according to the impact factor of the journal. We seldom discuss h-index metrics, which aim to measure the impact of a researcher's publications. We simply ask outside experts, as well as our tenured faculty members, whether a candidate has significantly changed how we understand chemistry.
I find it very surprising - and encouraging - that the amount of money brought in does not play a major role in determining tenure. If true, this seems to go against disturbing current trends that are geared toward evaluating professors similar to sales managers at Macy's or hedge fund managers on Wall Street.
There is one caveat to what seems to be an otherwise cogent and role model-worthy tenure policy adopted by the Stanford chemistry department. Just as the true impact of research does not become clear until years later, the true value of ideas also does not become clear by asking 10, 15 or even 100 referees. Although this helps, it can mask the fact that most original scientific contributions at least partly challenge conventional wisdom, and keepers of the faith are almost always reluctant in endorsing such contributions. What should really matter is not whether a young scientist's work has led to new truths, but whether it has been interesting enough to spark a flurry of research activity that in turn may lead to minor or major truths. In science, being interesting is more important than being right, and tenure committees should take this fact into account.