The problem this solves
Most companies do not lack metrics; they lack agreement. Marketing and sales report different MQL counts from the same portal, CRM revenue never matches finance, targets exist without owners, and reviews devolve into debating whose number is right instead of deciding what to do. When metric definitions live in people's heads, every dashboard is technically wrong for someone.
How we work
We build the metric tree top-down: company goals decomposed into the leading and lagging indicators each team can actually influence. Every metric earns its place by connecting to a decision someone makes; a number nobody would act on does not survive the cut.
Each KPI then gets pinned down: precise definition with formula, filters, and exclusions, data source, owner, target logic, and review frequency. Vanity metrics get retired explicitly and in writing, which prevents them from creeping back into next quarter's deck.
The framework closes with the review rhythm, which metrics get reviewed where and by whom, and a data requirements list that feeds directly into reporting implementation, so the dashboards built afterward show numbers everyone has already agreed on.
Deliverables
- Metric tree linking company goals to team KPIs
- KPI dictionary: definition, formula, source, owner
- Explicit list of retired vanity metrics
- Target-setting logic
- Review cadence design
- Data requirements for reporting implementation
What buyers ask before scoping.
How does this relate to Dashboard & Reporting Architecture Design?
This module defines what to measure and why; the dashboard module designs how it surfaces: which reports, for whom, built on which data. Framework first is the right order, because dashboards built on undefined metrics just automate the existing confusion at a higher refresh rate.
What if our data cannot support a metric we genuinely need?
The framework flags it as a data gap with a route to close it, and we choose an honest proxy in the meantime rather than reporting a number nobody should trust. Knowing exactly which metrics are solid and which are provisional is itself a large upgrade over the usual state.
How many KPIs should a team actually have?
Few enough that each one gets looked at and acted on. The test we apply to every candidate: would anyone change behavior if this number moved? If not, it is reporting theater and gets cut. Most teams end up with a short list per team and more clarity than they had with fifty.
Related modules
Dashboard & Reporting Architecture Design
Dashboard & Reporting Architecture Design is a solution design engagement that specifies your reporting layer ...
CRM Architecture & Data Model Implementation
CRM Architecture & Data Model Implementation is a foundational HubSpot engagement that builds your object ...
Customer Lifecycle & Handoff Design
Customer Lifecycle & Handoff Design is a solution design engagement that defines how a customer moves through ...
Sounds like your situation?
30 minutes, your calendar, no slide deck. We tell you honestly whether this module fits.
Book discovery call