The MI nobody acts on
The metric that has been reported for two years
Most MI packs contain metrics that have been reported for years and never produced a single operational decision. They’re in the pack because somebody wanted them there once, or because the analyst feels uncomfortable removing them, or because the template has carried them across multiple producers without anyone questioning it. The cumulative effect is a bloated pack the audience skims rather than reads, where the few action-producing metrics are diluted by the many that aren’t.
The fix isn’t to add more metrics. It’s to remove the ones that aren’t earning their place.
The “so what?” test
The single most useful audit a planning function can run on its own MI pack is the “so what?” test. For each metric in the pack: in the last twelve months, what decision changed because of this metric? Not what might have changed, not what could have changed — what actually changed. The answer is one of three.
A named action. The metric flagged something, a decision was made, the action landed. The metric earned its place; it stays.
Context for other decisions. The metric wasn’t the trigger for an action but it provided supporting evidence in a conversation that produced one. Less clear-cut but still useful; it stays, but moves to a supporting section rather than the headline.
Nothing. The metric was reported but never produced a decision or supported one. This is the metric the audit is designed to catch. It should come out of the pack.
The political work of removing a metric
The hardest part isn’t the audit. It’s removing the metric somebody still cares about. Three patterns recur.
The historical artefact. The metric was added six years ago when something specific was happening; the situation has long since resolved but the metric persists. The original requester has usually left the organisation. The current audience can’t remember why it’s there. Remove it; nobody will miss it.
The vanity metric. The metric somebody quotes occasionally in conversation but never acts on. CSAT YTD trend is a common example — cited frequently, almost never used to drive a decision. The conversation to have: “we’re removing this from the headline because it’s not producing decisions; if you want it, we’ll keep it in the appendix.” Most audiences accept this; a few don’t, and then it’s a conversation worth having.
The sacred cow. The metric a senior leader is known to care about, even if they don’t act on it. The pack contains it as defensive armour. The honest move is to have the conversation directly: “you ask about this metric every quarter. Can I keep it in the appendix and bring it to you when something interesting happens, rather than in the headline pack?” The conversation is uncomfortable; the outcome is almost always agreement.
The discipline of saying no to additions
The other side of the audit is the discipline of not adding metrics simply because somebody asked. The MI function that adds a metric every time someone asks accumulates exactly the bloat the audit was designed to remove. The right response to a request: “what decision will this metric drive? Tell me the action you’d take if it moved.” If the requester can’t answer, the metric doesn’t go in the pack — though it can usually be answered as a one-off question rather than a standing report.
This is one of the most difficult disciplines for a planning function to maintain because saying no to a senior request feels organisationally risky. The reframe: every metric the function adds to the standing pack costs producer time forever. Some requests are worth that cost; many aren’t. The MI lead who can articulate the trade-off earns the right to say no consistently.
How often to run the audit
Once a year, structured. Plus an informal check whenever the pack is being reviewed (which should be quarterly — see the next piece on aging out).
The annual audit takes about half a day. The informal checks take fifteen minutes per pack review. The cumulative effect over a year is a pack that stays lean rather than slowly bloating, and an MI function that’s seen as editorially disciplined rather than process-driven.
The credibility payoff
The single biggest reason to maintain MI discipline is the compounding credibility effect. The MI pack that’s small, focused, and reliably action-producing gets read. The audience develops a habit of acting on what it shows. The function’s influence on operational decisions grows in step with its precision.
The MI pack that’s bloated and full of unused metrics gets skimmed. The audience learns to skip it. The function loses influence. Over a year, the difference between a disciplined pack and a bloated one isn’t a small style preference — it’s the difference between a function that drives decisions and a function that produces reports nobody acts on.
Conclusion
The MI nobody acts on is the most common form of MI in contact centres and the most consistently overlooked. The fix is the “so what?” audit, run annually, with the courage to remove metrics that haven’t earned their place. The political work is real and the payoff is substantial: a smaller, sharper pack that the audience actually reads, an MI function that’s seen as editorial rather than mechanical, and a credibility position that compounds over time. Operations that hold this discipline find their MI gets cited in decisions; operations that don’t produce reports that nobody reads and everybody politely receives.
Next in the series: The MI pack that aged out.
Pair this with composite metrics hide truth, the one-page MI pack, and planning function credibility.