Two teams, one number, two answers, and a monthly meeting where everyone argues about whose report is right instead of what to do.
Date basis: one report uses created date, the other uses close date, so the same deal lands in different months. Filters: one excludes a record type or a pipeline the other includes. Definitions: both say qualified and mean different things. Grain: one counts contacts, the other counts companies.
The instinct when two reports disagree is to build a neutral one. Now three numbers exist and the argument has more surface area. The only thing that resolves it is agreeing what the metric means and then deleting whatever contradicts it.
One page, one definition per metric, naming the field, the filter, the date basis and the owner. It sounds bureaucratic until the first month where nobody argues.
Dashboards are downstream. Rebuild them from the agreed definitions rather than patching the existing ones, because a patched report carries its old assumptions invisibly.
Usually different date bases, different filters, different definitions of the same stage, or one counting contacts while the other counts accounts.
Revenue operations, with written sign off from every team that reports on them.
Only after the definitions are agreed. A new dashboard on top of an unresolved disagreement becomes a third opinion.
A written definition per metric, an owner, and a review when the sales motion changes. Most recurrences trace back to a change nobody propagated.
Leave an email and I will reply myself, usually the same day. No sequence, no newsletter, and no calendar link unless you ask for one.
Would rather just book time? Here is the calendar.
We use cookies to run the site and to understand how it is used. You can accept all or necessary only. See our privacy notice.Privacy notice