At a business performance review a range of metrics are discussed, and performance is summarised through red, amber, and green status indicators. Everything appears to be on track, targets are being met, trends are moving in the right direction, and there is a strong sense of control. 

At the same time, you know that a different picture exists. Teams speak about repeat calls and increasing volume. Customer feedback points to friction, delays, or dissatisfaction. There is a sense that something is not quite working as it should. Teams are busy, effort is high, but improvements in customer outcomes remain limited. 

If this sounds familiar, you have probably already found yourself asking a simple but important question: If the metrics suggest we are performing well, why does the experience tell a different story? 

How Measurement Frameworks Actually Work 

It is worth stepping back and examining how measurement frameworks are formed in the first place. 

At the highest level, there is a goal – what the organisation is trying to achieve. That goal is translated into one or more measures, which provide visibility into what is happening. In many cases, a target is then attached to those measures. 

In principle, this structure is sound:  

• Without targets, performance can become ambiguous. 

• Without measures, decisions become subjective. 

• Without goals, activity can lack alignment. 

But the effectiveness depends entirely on how well these elements connect. 

A goal might be to improve customer experience. A measure might track average handling time. A target might set an expectation to reduce that time. 

Individually, each component is rational. Collectively, they raise a critical question: Do the measures and the targets drive the behaviour and outcome we intended? 

What Are We Really Measuring — And Why? 

In most organisations, measurement frameworks evolve over time. New measures are added in response to emerging priorities, stakeholder needs, or reporting requirements. Rarely is there a review of what should be removed. Over time, this can create a measurement landscape shaped less by intent and more by accumulation. 

Organisations tend to build their performance frameworks around: 

• What data is already available? 

• What is easy to capture? 

• What is required for reporting or contractual obligations? 

The outcome is a familiar set of measures: 

• Speed (e.g. handling time, turnaround time) 

• Volume (e.g. tasks completed, cases processed) 

• Productivity and utilisation 

These measures exist for a reason. They enable organisations to plan capacity, manage cost, and maintain operational control. They are often essential to ensure service continuity.  

The challenge is not their existence, but their dominance. When these measures become the primary lens through which performance is judged, they can crowd out other important dimensions of performance, particularly those relating to customer outcomes.

Where the Alignment Starts to Break Down 

Most organisations monitor outcome metrics like customer satisfaction and complaints. But how many have predictive customer metrics? The problem also lies in which measures carry the most weight, and how trade-offs are managed. 

Where efficiency metrics such as handling time, throughput, or utilisation are tied to targets, reporting, and incentives, they become the focal point for decision-making. They are perceived to be the measures that have the greatest operational consequence. 

 As a result, teams respond logically to what is being measured and prioritised: 

• Effort is directed toward improving speed and productivity 

• Work is structured to meet defined targets 

• Performance is optimised against what is visible and prioritised 

Organisations must balance cost, capacity, and service expectations, particularly in large-scale or regulated environments. This is where tensions emerge, because improving efficiency metrics is not always the same as improving the outcome it is intended to deliver. 

A reduction in handling time may improve productivity, but if it results in unresolved demand, it may increase repeat contact and effort. Increasing throughput may reduce backlogs in one part of the system while creating pressure elsewhere. 

Organisations can find themselves achieving internal measures of success, while outcomes experienced by customers remain unchanged or even deteriorate. 

People are responding exactly as the system is designed. They are working towards the measures and targets that have been set. 

The issue is what the organisation has chosen to measure, prioritise, and reward. 

A Better Question to Start With 

So, the question to ask when thinking about your performance measurement framework is: What impact are our measures having on the way the organisation behaves? 

If we accept that what we measure shapes how performance is understood, how decisions are made and how the organisation behaves, then the next question becomes unavoidable: Are we measuring what matters to the customer? 

That is where the conversation moves next. Stay tuned for our second article in this series of three.