What are some of the *worst* KPIs to commit to achieving?

I've found two KPIs to be difficult to commit to:

1. Customer Health. If you have a robust algorithm to measure customer health (influenced by a number of inputs ), it can be hard commit to a certain outcome. To frame this another way, I've often observed customer health scores as being a bit of a black box where it's hard to tie the actions you take to specific outcomes when there could be a number of variables outside of your control that influence the ultimate score. I much prefer to commit to lead measures that are directly within the control of the team. KPIs related to customer engagement are a good example of things that are more directly within the team's control.  
2. Upgrade rate. Many CSM teams are measured on Net Revenue Retention. As part of this, your CSMs may be responsible for identifying growth opportunities within the install base of customers. I find it's effective to measure the team on how many growth opportunities the team identifies but not the close rate or upgrade rate, especially if the Sales or Account Management team owns the closing motion. 

Committing to certain KPIs in customer success without considering their broader impact or relevance to overall business objectives can lead to misguided efforts and low outcomes.

The metrics needs to be aligned in every phase of customer lifecycle, reviewed and alter accordingly to the goals of the organisation.

Example:

1. Attain 0 Churns - GRR is important but it doesn't mean that you can over emphasize on 100% GRR, instead take it slow and have a projection considering all aspects, be it macro or any as such.

2. The same with exemplary NPS scores, expansions too. Have it fair in the business.

Do not be in a rush to achieve the impossible. Always have a structured process and a significant increase quarter by quarter instead.

It's essential to prioritize metrics that truly reflect customer value, satisfaction, and loyalty, while also driving sustainable business growth and profitability.

It is important to focus on KPIs that are actionable, aligned with strategic objectives, and within the scope of what the Customer Success team can influence and control.

Here are some of examples of not good KPIs to commit to achieving:

1. Revenue Growth of the Company

   • Why It's Bad: Revenue growth is influenced by many factors outside the control of the Customer Success team, such as market conditions, sales effectiveness, and pricing strategies.

   • Better Focus: Customer retention rates or upsell/cross-sell success rates, which are more directly influenced by Customer Success efforts.

2. Unclear or Vague Metrics (e.g., Improve Customer Happiness)

   • Why It's Bad: Vague goals lack specificity and measurability, making it difficult to track progress or define success.

   • Better Focus: Specific, measurable outcomes like Net Promoter Score (NPS) or Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT) with clear targets and timelines.

3. Feature Usage Metrics Without Context (e.g., Number of Logins)

   • Why It's Bad: High login numbers don't necessarily translate to success; they might indicate issues or difficulty with the product.

   • Better Focus: Metrics related to the outcomes of feature usage, such as increased productivity for the customer or specific feature adoption rates that tie back to customer goals.

4. Quantitative Activity-Based Metrics (e.g., Number of Touchpoints)

   • Why It's Bad: Quantity doesn't ensure quality; frequent touchpoints don’t necessarily translate to effective customer success.

   • Better Focus: Measure the impact of these touchpoints, such as resolution of critical issues or successful achievement of customer milestones.

Here are the most problematic KPIs to commit to, especially as CS leader:

1. Pure Satisfaction Metrics

• Raw NPS/CSAT targets

• "Customer happiness" scores

  
  Why: Too easy to game, often doesn't correlate with business outcomes, and heavily influenced by factors outside CS control

2. Zero-Tolerance Metrics

• "0% churn rate"

• "100% renewal rate"

• "No escalations"
  
  Why: Creates a culture of hiding problems versus addressing them.

3. Activity-Based Metrics Without Outcomes

• "X QBRs per quarter"

• "Y customer touches per month"

• "Z training sessions delivered"
  
  Why: Drives busywork instead of value; teams hit numbers without impact. Without specific outcomes, check-in meetings have zero value

4. Metrics Without Context

• "Increase product adoption"

• "Improve time to value"

• "Reduce support tickets"

  Why: Too vague to be actionable or measurable

5. Metrics You Can't Influence

• Product development timelines

• Sales cycle length

• Engineering bug fix rates
  
  Why: Sets you up for failure when you lack control over outcomes

6. Lagging-Only Indicators

• Annual churn rate without leading indicators

• Lifetime value without progress metrics
  
  Why: By the time you miss these, it's too late to course-correct

Better Approach:

• Choose metrics with clear line of sight to influence

• Include both leading and lagging indicators

• Set realistic ranges rather than absolute targets

• Establish baseline for each metric that you are trying to improve. If you don't know where these metrics stand now, how will you know if you have improved it. It is common sense but you will be surprised at how often this happens.

• Focus on trends over time versus point-in-time goals

I think the single worst KPI is 'customer touchpoints.' Customers don't want to be bothered unless you have information that is valuable to them that commands them to stop what they're doing and spend time with you. It's not enough to go about talking to every customer every month in a 'check-in.' It's much better to hold off for 3 months until you can have a value-driven conversation.

Additionally, I find certain CS SLAs to be sub-optimal KPIs. If CSMs are supposed to be proactive, that means they can't live in their inbox responding to customers. So if they have a KPI that dictates how quickly they should respond to customer outreaches, you're giving the team conflicting information on where they should be spending their time.