Explain KPI movement before the leadership meeting
A pre-read identifies material KPI changes, source-backed drivers, missing evidence, and the decisions each change may require.
The problem
Leadership sees charts but spends the meeting debating definitions, causes, and whether a movement is even material.
What you get
A working system with the steps, tools, checkpoints, and expected return made explicit.
- Setup
- 60 minutes
- Back each week
- 3 hours
- Difficulty
- assisted
Expected return
The working case
A planning estimate, not a guaranteed result. Measure the first four weeks against your own baseline.
144
hours returned per year
At 3 hours/week across 48 working weeks.
1
week to earn back setup
Compare the setup estimate with the weekly time returned.
Operating contract
Input
The source material, constraints, and examples a human would need to do this work well.
Checkpoint
A person reviews judgment calls, sensitive content, unfamiliar tools, and irreversible actions.
Success signal
Track time returned, corrections required, and exceptions. Keep it only if the measured result compounds.
Before you start
- ·Governed KPI definitions
- ·Named metric owners
The steps
- 01
Lock metric definitions, owners, comparison periods, and materiality thresholds.
- 02
Provide current, prior, target, segment cuts, and owner commentary.
- 03
Generate a narrative that distinguishes observation from explanation.
Copy this prompt
For each materially changed KPI: state the change, source, segment concentration, observed drivers, owner explanation, missing evidence, and possible decision. Do not claim causality without evidence. Data: [metrics + commentary]
- 04
Metric owners validate the narrative before distribution.
What it runs on
- Looker
Governed metric source.
- Google Docs
Leadership pre-read.
Where this goes wrong
- Never let changing metric definitions disappear inside prose.
- A plausible narrative is not causal proof.
Definition of done
Run it for four weeks. Then make it earn its place.
- □ Baseline the manual time before launch.
- □ Keep a human approval step for consequential output.
- □ Record corrections and exceptions, not just successes.
- □ Expand, revise, or retire it after the first review.
Build the system around it
Related workflows
If this one stops working, tell us. Three reports in a month and it leaves the library until a person has looked at it again.