Blog · Board and management reporting
Why the level of a measure, 52 percent concentration, 74 percent OTIF, 88 percent lock-up, is the least informative thing about it and the trend against the measure's own history is the finding, the four exceptions where a level is a hard threshold, the window a trend needs, the consecutive-period rule that separates a bad month from a deterioration, the trend of the reference itself, and the rule that every level on a report carries its trend beside it.
Every report leads with a level and every reader asks whether it is good. It usually cannot be answered, because the level has no context, and the question that can be answered is whether it is moving. This guide sets out level against trend, the four hard thresholds, the window and the consecutive-period rule, and the trend of the reference.
| Level | Trend | |
|---|---|---|
| Says | Where the measure is | Where it is going |
| Context | Industry structure; company history | The measure's own history |
| Safe value | Rarely universal | Direction is the signal |
| Alone | A debate about whether it is high | A finding |
| Measure | Why the level is the finding |
|---|---|
| SLA attainment against the contract | The contract states the number; below it, credits are owed |
| Credit limit | Drawn cannot exceed it without a recorded excess |
| Asset capacity | Sold cannot exceed it; utilisation at 100 is the ceiling |
| Testing window | A control past its window is slipped, whatever the trend |
Everywhere else, the trend.
| Element | Rule |
|---|---|
| Window | Long enough for the measure's cadence: four quarters for concentration, twelve weeks for tickets, three months for OTIF |
| Consecutive periods | Three declines from a stable base is a deterioration; one is noise |
| Magnitude | A single move past a stated size counts, even without three periods |
| Reference | The norm's, baseline's and threshold's own movement shown beside the measure's |
| Measure | Level | Reading by level | Trend | Reading by trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top-ten share | 52% | "Is that high?" | +6 pts in a year, customers flat | Concentrating |
| OTIF, S-0217 at Plant B | 71% | "Below target" | Three consecutive declines from 89 | Deteriorating at one site |
| Lock-up, client 2207 | 185 days | "High" | 120, 150, 185 over three years | Drifting; billing cadence |
| Share of wallet, mid | 27% | "Low" | −4 pts; norm +2 pts at recomputation | Half the move is the reference |
| Line | Customer's share | Norm | Movement attributed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4471 | 31% → 27% | $95,000 → $99,000 per site | 2 pts customer; 2 pts norm |
The movements page says both, and the rep is not called about the half that was the norm.
Level as the finding. A debate about whether 52 is high.
Trend without a window. Last week against this week; noise as movement.
One bad month escalated. The watch list full every month.
Reference movement unread. The customer blamed for the norm.
Covirage shows every level with its trend against the measure's own window, applies the consecutive-period rule to the watch lists, and carries the reference's movement beside the measure's. The concentration reading guide covers the sharpest case, and the threshold guide covers what makes a trend a movement.
Because it has no context on its own. A top-ten share of 52 percent is normal in one industry and alarming in another; a lock-up of 110 days is fine at one firm and a crisis at another. The company's own history is the context, and the trend is the level read against it.
One bad month is noise; three consecutive declines from a stable base is a deterioration. The rule is stated per measure, and the watch lists, suppliers, intermediaries, quiet clients, use it so that a single bad period does not fill them.
The norm, the baseline and the threshold move too, on their own cadence. A share of wallet that fell because the norm rose at quarter end is a trend in the reference, not the customer, and the movements page says which by carrying the norm's version and movement beside the customer's.