LEXSHIFT BLOG SERIES: THE GOVERNANCE INVESTMENT: PLANNING AND FUNDING FOR THE YEAR AHEAD
Week 8 of 12
Once governance investments are in place, leadership needs to understand what they are delivering. Measures tied to the business case help the program assess progress, identify gaps, and support future funding requests. Define those measures when the investment is approved and review them throughout the year.
The previous article addressed the resources needed to implement and sustain a governance program. Measurement connects those resources to results. It also helps the team see where processes need attention and whether the assumptions behind the funding request still hold.
The aim is to give the program a manageable set of measures that inform decisions. Before adding a metric, ask what the team or leadership would do differently if the result improved, deteriorated, or stayed the same. If the answer is unclear, the measure may need a better definition or may not belong in the core reporting package.
Start With the Business Case
The business case developed earlier in this series identified expected outcomes, such as faster responses to data requests, fewer manual exceptions, and improved audit readiness. Use those outcomes to select the measures. If the business case called for faster implementation of legal holds, define the interval being measured, such as the time from an approved hold instruction to confirmed preservation in the systems within scope. Track notice acknowledgments separately so they are not mistaken for confirmation that preservation is complete.
For each metric, document the baseline, target, scope, data source, accountable owner, and reporting frequency. Explain changes in workload or coverage that affect comparisons over time. These definitions make results easier to interpret and give the team a consistent basis for evaluating progress.
If a reliable baseline does not exist, make establishing one part of the implementation plan. Identify the period and population it covers and explain any limitations in the available data. A baseline drawn from one business unit should not be presented as representative of the entire organization without checking whether the work is comparable.
For example, a program seeking to reduce overdue exceptions could track the percentage of open exceptions past their agreed resolution date, alongside the age and risk of those exceptions. A count of closures alone could hide a growing backlog or encourage the team to prioritize easy cases. The combined measures help show whether the investment is addressing the problem identified in the business case.
Balance Leading and Lagging Indicators
Lagging indicators describe results already observed, such as repeat audit findings, time to resolve exceptions, or documented incident frequency and severity. They help show whether expected outcomes are developing, although some results take time to become visible. Changes in these measures also need context. An increase in reported incidents, for example, may reflect better detection or reporting.
Leading indicators can provide earlier signals of progress toward an intended outcome. Their value depends on how closely they relate to that outcome. Activity measures, such as training completion, show whether planned work is being completed but do not establish that employees apply what they learned. Pair completion rates with checks of whether employees correctly apply the relevant requirements. Similarly, the percentage of policies reviewed by their scheduled review date shows that maintenance is occurring; checks of how those policies are applied provide evidence of effectiveness.
Treat a proposed leading indicator as something to test over time. If policy reviews are completed on schedule but the same implementation failures continue, review quality or follow-through may need attention. The relationship between the measure and the intended outcome matters more than the label. Retain measures that help explain performance and adjust those that repeatedly fail to provide useful insight.
Review Results Regularly
Establish a regular review, such as a quarterly discussion of core metrics, to assess progress and address problems throughout the year. Use the review to identify corrective actions, assign responsibility, and determine whether leadership needs to make a decision or provide additional resources.
Keep definitions and reporting intervals consistent so changes over time are meaningful. If the scope, data source, or calculation changes, explain the change and its effect on comparability. Report results against the baseline and target, with enough context to distinguish sustained improvement from changes in workload or measurement.
Assign responsibility for validating the data before each review. The metric owner should be able to explain where the figures came from, how they were calculated, and what is missing. For percentages, report the underlying counts so a small sample or a change in scope is visible. Retain enough supporting evidence to reproduce the result without creating an unnecessary reporting burden.
Keep the leadership discussion focused on material changes and decisions. The operational team may need detailed exception lists or system-level results to investigate a problem. Leadership usually needs the trend, its significance, and the action being taken. Using the same underlying data for both views helps keep reporting consistent while giving each audience the detail it needs.
Report Progress and Gaps
Report where results fall short of targets, explain the reasons, and identify the corrective action. Include any resource needs or decisions that require leadership’s attention. At the next review, report whether the action was completed and what changed. This makes the metrics useful for managing the program as well as evaluating its funding needs.
Connect a funding request to the cause of the gap. A backlog caused by unclear approval authority may require a process change before additional technology would help. A sustained increase in workload may support a request for more staff time. Where the cause is uncertain, identify what the team will investigate and when it will return with a recommendation. This gives leadership a more useful basis for a decision than a request tied only to a missed target.
Choose a small set of measures tied to the business case, define them consistently, and review results throughout the year. Report progress, explain gaps, and identify the decisions needed to address them. This gives leadership useful evidence for the next planning cycle.
Next in the series: Reporting That Resonates: Turning a Year of Evidence Into the Case for Next Year’s Investment.
The information you obtain at this site, or this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal or consulting advice. You should consult with a professional regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us through the website, email, phone, or through LinkedIn.