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