In many enterprises, metrics are often requested before the decision those metrics are meant to support has been decided. Whether in IT or another area of the organization, practitioners are asked by regulators, auditors, and senior managers to create, enhance, or explain metrics, yet the terms used to describe them are frequently treated as interchangeable. It is also common for practitioners to inherit metrics that are mislabeled or misunderstood. Worse still are metrics that appear to give boards and senior management assurance but, on closer inspection, just show that something has been measured. This can be the result of metrics that are poorly designed, used incorrectly, or based on unreliable data. When decision makers use poor metrics, the risk of wrong decisions increases, and key issues can go unaddressed. This white paper will help practitioners design meaningful and clear metrics that support better enterprise decision making.
Read Time: 29 minutes
White Paper | 29 October 2026
Designing Metrics That Support Better Decisions
Abstract: IT risk practitioners are often asked to produce useful metrics that can support real governance decisions. This can be difficult when metrics are poorly designed, mislabeled, or based on unreliable data, which can mislead stakeholders and result in wasted time and resources. When it comes to metrics, practitioners should understand what kind of indicator is being used, whether a metric successfully supports decisions, and the underlying governance of the data quality. This white paper explains the differences between indicators, including KPIs, KRIs, and KCIs, how to design metrics that are less prone to misinterpretation, and how to ensure metrics are not used as a replacement for professional judgment.