Key Performance Indicators
Tangible, measurable outputs that reflect what a project delivers. KPIs track the immediate results of an AI initiative: tools implemented, actions taken, services improved.
A rubric decides whether an initiative should proceed. Success metrics decide whether it worked. The Compass uses three kinds: KPIs for what a project delivers, OKRs for what the institution gains, and efficacy measures for whether the AI itself works and caused the gain.
Tangible, measurable outputs that reflect what a project delivers. KPIs track the immediate results of an AI initiative: tools implemented, actions taken, services improved.
Mission-aligned outcomes: what changes for students, faculty, or the institution. OKRs connect AI implementation to strategic goals like student success, equity, research excellence, or operational transformation.
Evidence that the AI does what it claims, accurately and fairly across groups, and that it, rather than other factors, produced the change. Efficacy is what makes KPIs and OKRs trustworthy.
Decide in advance what would make you pause or stop, and what would send an approved initiative back for re-scoring. Retiring a tool should be a planned outcome, not an afterthought.
Record both in the scorer's Plan step. A re-review starts again at Score with the current evidence.
Every initiative answers the same six questions (three about the mission, three about the project) plus an efficacy check that ties them together. Draft them at intake; finalize them after selection.
| Mission outcomes: what the institution gains | Project outputs: what the project delivers |
|---|---|
| What problem or opportunity? | How will the project contribute? |
| What will be the outcome(s)? | What will the project produce or enable? |
| How will you know the outcomes have been realized? → OKRs | How will you know the outputs have been achieved? → KPIs |
Efficacy check. How will you know the AI is working as intended? Name how you'll measure accuracy and error rates, whether performance holds across groups, and how you'll attribute outcomes to the AI (for example, a comparison group or a staged rollout) rather than to other changes made at the same time.
An AI system that analyzes student data (e.g., grades, attendance) to identify at-risk students and recommend interventions, aiming to improve retention and academic success.
| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|---|
Total 17: High Strong alignment and clear operational potential, with notable risks around data governance, financial sustainability, and stakeholder trust. Recommended only with clear ethical oversight, a well-defined budget and support infrastructure, transparent communication with stakeholders, and ongoing monitoring.
After the pilot, compare actuals to targets and record what the institution learned. Illustrative results:
| Measure | Target | Actual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| KPI | Identifies 90% of at-risk students within four weeks | 85% | Close, but advisor workload slowed response. |
| OKR | Reduce dropout rates by 10% | 7% | Improved, but needs a longer pilot. |
| Efficacy | 80% of flagged students confirmed at risk | 68% | False positives confused advisors; threshold needs tuning. |
The tool accurately flagged at-risk students; advisors liked the interface.
Efficacy fell short: 68% precision meant false positives that confused advisors; student trust was low due to lack of communication.
Add opt-in consent and retrain advisors on interpreting flags; pilot again in the fall.
Open the scorer pre-filled with the early warning system, then adjust the scores and see how the band changes.
Representative targets. The percentages and thresholds on this page are examples, not benchmarks. Set targets from your own baselines and goals.