# C2: KPI Mapping Guide ## Universal Review Taxonomy (URT) v5.1 - Analytics Track **Document**: C2 - KPI Mapping Guide **Version**: 1.0 **Status**: Production Ready **Date**: 2026-01-23 **Depends On**: URT Specification v5.1, C1-Issue-Lifecycle-Framework --- ## Purpose This guide translates URT classifications into actionable business metrics. It provides: - Domain and category-level KPIs with calculation formulas - Composite indices for executive-level monitoring - Intensity-weighted scoring methodologies - Trend detection and anomaly identification rules - Dashboard specifications and alert configurations - Integration with the Issue Lifecycle Framework (C1) --- ## 1. Domain-Level KPIs ### 1.1 Overview Matrix | Domain | Primary KPI | Unit | Target (Green) | Warning (Yellow) | Critical (Red) | |--------|------------|------|----------------|------------------|----------------| | **O** (Offering) | Product Quality Score | 0-100 | >= 80 | 60-79 | < 60 | | **P** (People) | Personnel Excellence Index | 0-100 | >= 85 | 70-84 | < 70 | | **J** (Journey) | Process Efficiency Score | 0-100 | >= 75 | 55-74 | < 55 | | **E** (Environment) | Environment Satisfaction Index | 0-100 | >= 80 | 65-79 | < 65 | | **A** (Access) | Accessibility Score | 0-100 | >= 85 | 70-84 | < 70 | | **V** (Value) | Value Perception Index | 0-100 | >= 70 | 50-69 | < 50 | | **R** (Relationship) | Trust & Loyalty Score | 0-100 | >= 80 | 60-79 | < 60 | --- ### 1.2 O - Offering Domain **Primary KPI**: Product Quality Score (PQS) **Definition**: Measures customer perception of core product/service quality. **Formula**: ``` PQS = 100 * (V+ spans - V- spans * Intensity_Weight) / Total_O_spans Where: Intensity_Weight = {I1: 1.0, I2: 2.0, I3: 4.0} ``` **Secondary KPIs**: | KPI | Formula | Target | |-----|---------|--------| | **Function Reliability Rate** | V+ spans in O1 / Total O1 spans | >= 90% | | **Quality Consistency Index** | 1 - (StdDev of weekly O2 scores / Mean) | >= 0.85 | | **Completeness Score** | V+ spans in O3 / Total O3 spans | >= 95% | **Benchmark References**: - Industry Average: 72 - Top Quartile: 85+ - Best-in-Class: 92+ --- ### 1.3 P - People Domain **Primary KPI**: Personnel Excellence Index (PEI) **Definition**: Measures customer perception of staff behavior, competence, and communication. **Formula**: ``` PEI = 100 * weighted_sum(category_scores) / 4 Where: P1_score (Attitude) = weight 0.30 P2_score (Competence) = weight 0.25 P3_score (Responsiveness) = weight 0.25 P4_score (Communication) = weight 0.20 ``` **Secondary KPIs**: | KPI | Formula | Target | |-----|---------|--------| | **Staff Attitude Score** | Sentiment ratio of P1 spans | >= 85% positive | | **Competence Rating** | Weighted average of P2 spans by intensity | >= 80 | | **Response Quality Index** | (P3 positive + P4 positive) / Total P3+P4 | >= 80% | **Benchmark References**: - Industry Average: 78 - Top Quartile: 88+ - Best-in-Class: 94+ --- ### 1.4 J - Journey Domain **Primary KPI**: Process Efficiency Score (PES) **Definition**: Measures smoothness, timeliness, and reliability of customer journey. **Formula**: ``` PES = 100 * (1 - friction_index) friction_index = ( 0.35 * timing_friction + # J1 negative ratio 0.30 * ease_friction + # J2 negative ratio 0.20 * reliability_friction + # J3 negative ratio 0.15 * resolution_friction # J4 negative ratio ) ``` **Secondary KPIs**: | KPI | Formula | Target | |-----|---------|--------| | **Wait Time Satisfaction** | V+ spans in J1.01 / Total J1.01 spans | >= 75% | | **Process Simplicity Score** | Inverse of J2 negative intensity-weighted count | >= 70 | | **Reliability Index** | V+ in J3 / Total J3 | >= 85% | **Benchmark References**: - Industry Average: 68 - Top Quartile: 80+ - Best-in-Class: 88+ --- ### 1.5 E - Environment Domain **Primary KPI**: Environment Satisfaction Index (ESI) **Definition**: Measures perception of physical, digital, and ambient environments. **Formula**: ``` ESI = 100 * weighted_sum(category_scores) / 4 Where: E1_score (Physical) = weight 0.30 E2_score (Digital) = weight 0.30 E3_score (Ambiance) = weight 0.20 E4_score (Safety) = weight 0.20 ``` **Secondary KPIs**: | KPI | Formula | Target | |-----|---------|--------| | **Cleanliness Score** | V+ in E1.01 / Total E1.01 spans | >= 90% | | **Digital Experience Score** | Average sentiment of E2 spans | >= 75 | | **Safety Perception Index** | V+ in E4 / Total E4 (I3 weighted 3x) | >= 95% | **Benchmark References**: - Industry Average: 74 - Top Quartile: 84+ - Best-in-Class: 91+ --- ### 1.6 A - Access Domain **Primary KPI**: Accessibility Score (AS) **Definition**: Measures ease of access, inclusivity, and convenience. **Formula**: ``` AS = 100 * (1 - barrier_index) barrier_index = ( 0.25 * availability_barriers + # A1 negative ratio 0.35 * accessibility_barriers + # A2 negative ratio (weighted higher) 0.25 * inclusivity_barriers + # A3 negative ratio 0.15 * convenience_barriers # A4 negative ratio ) ``` **Secondary KPIs**: | KPI | Formula | Target | |-----|---------|--------| | **Availability Rate** | V+ in A1 / Total A1 spans | >= 85% | | **ADA Compliance Indicator** | 100 - (A2 negative spans * 10) | >= 90 | | **Inclusivity Score** | V+ in A3 / Total A3 spans | >= 90% | **Benchmark References**: - Industry Average: 76 - Top Quartile: 87+ - Best-in-Class: 94+ --- ### 1.7 V - Value Domain **Primary KPI**: Value Perception Index (VPI) **Definition**: Measures customer assessment of fairness, transparency, and overall worth. **Formula**: ``` VPI = 100 * ( 0.25 * price_sentiment + # V1 normalized score 0.30 * transparency_score + # V2 normalized score 0.15 * effort_perception + # V3 normalized score 0.30 * worth_assessment # V4 normalized score ) ``` **Secondary KPIs**: | KPI | Formula | Target | |-----|---------|--------| | **Price Satisfaction** | V+ in V1 / Total V1 spans | >= 60% | | **Transparency Score** | V+ in V2 / Total V2 spans | >= 80% | | **Worth Ratio** | V4.01 positive mentions / Total V4.01 | >= 65% | **Benchmark References**: - Industry Average: 62 - Top Quartile: 75+ - Best-in-Class: 85+ --- ### 1.8 R - Relationship Domain **Primary KPI**: Trust & Loyalty Score (TLS) **Definition**: Measures trust, dependability, recovery, and loyalty perceptions. **Formula**: ``` TLS = 100 * weighted_sum(category_scores) / 4 Where: R1_score (Integrity) = weight 0.35 R2_score (Dependability) = weight 0.25 R3_score (Recovery) = weight 0.20 R4_score (Loyalty) = weight 0.20 ``` **Secondary KPIs**: | KPI | Formula | Target | |-----|---------|--------| | **Trust Index** | V+ in R1 / Total R1 (I3 negative weighted 3x) | >= 80% | | **Recovery Effectiveness** | V+ in R3 / Total R3 spans | >= 75% | | **Loyalty Indicator** | V+ in R4 / Total R4 spans | >= 70% | **Benchmark References**: - Industry Average: 70 - Top Quartile: 82+ - Best-in-Class: 90+ --- ## 2. Category-Level Metrics ### 2.1 Offering Categories (O1-O4) | Category | Metric Name | Data Sources | Aggregation | Comparison Periods | |----------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------------------| | **O1 Function** | Functional Success Rate | O1.01-O1.05 | Positive ratio | WoW, MoM | | **O2 Quality** | Quality Perception Score | O2.01-O2.05 | Intensity-weighted avg | WoW, MoM, YoY | | **O3 Completeness** | Completeness Index | O3.01-O3.04 | Binary success rate | MoM | | **O4 Fit** | Customer Fit Score | O4.01-O4.04 | Weighted average | MoM, QoQ | **Calculation Details**: ``` Functional_Success_Rate = (Count(V+, O1.*) + 0.5 * Count(V0, O1.*)) / Total(O1.*) Quality_Perception_Score = SUM(sentiment * intensity_weight) / SUM(intensity_weight) Where: V+ = +1, V- = -1, V0 = 0, V± = sentiment_ratio ``` --- ### 2.2 People Categories (P1-P4) | Category | Metric Name | Data Sources | Aggregation | Comparison Periods | |----------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------------------| | **P1 Attitude** | Attitude Score | P1.01-P1.05 | Sentiment ratio | WoW, MoM | | **P2 Competence** | Competence Rating | P2.01-P2.05 | Intensity-weighted avg | MoM, QoQ | | **P3 Responsiveness** | Responsiveness Index | P3.01-P3.05 | Weighted average | WoW, MoM | | **P4 Communication** | Communication Quality | P4.01-P4.05 | Sentiment ratio | WoW, MoM | --- ### 2.3 Journey Categories (J1-J4) | Category | Metric Name | Data Sources | Aggregation | Comparison Periods | |----------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------------------| | **J1 Timing** | Timing Satisfaction | J1.01-J1.05 | Inverse negative ratio | Daily, WoW | | **J2 Ease** | Effort Score | J2.01-J2.05 | Friction index | WoW, MoM | | **J3 Reliability** | Process Reliability | J3.01-J3.05 | Consistency measure | MoM, QoQ | | **J4 Resolution** | Resolution Effectiveness | J4.01-J4.05 | Success rate | WoW, MoM | --- ### 2.4 Environment Categories (E1-E4) | Category | Metric Name | Data Sources | Aggregation | Comparison Periods | |----------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------------------| | **E1 Physical** | Physical Space Score | E1.01-E1.05 | Weighted average | WoW, MoM | | **E2 Digital** | Digital Experience | E2.01-E2.05 | UX score formula | WoW, MoM | | **E3 Ambiance** | Ambiance Rating | E3.01-E3.05 | Sentiment ratio | MoM, Seasonal | | **E4 Safety** | Safety Index | E4.01-E4.05 | Critical-weighted avg | Daily, WoW | --- ### 2.5 Access Categories (A1-A4) | Category | Metric Name | Data Sources | Aggregation | Comparison Periods | |----------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------------------| | **A1 Availability** | Service Availability | A1.01-A1.05 | Availability ratio | Daily, WoW | | **A2 Accessibility** | ADA Compliance Score | A2.01-A2.05 | Barrier-weighted | MoM, QoQ | | **A3 Inclusivity** | Inclusivity Index | A3.01-A3.05 | Sensitivity-weighted | MoM, QoQ | | **A4 Convenience** | Convenience Score | A4.01-A4.05 | Friction measure | WoW, MoM | --- ### 2.6 Value Categories (V1-V4) | Category | Metric Name | Data Sources | Aggregation | Comparison Periods | |----------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------------------| | **V1 Price** | Price Perception | V1.01-V1.05 | Sentiment ratio | MoM, YoY | | **V2 Transparency** | Transparency Score | V2.01-V2.05 | Trust-weighted avg | MoM, QoQ | | **V3 Effort** | Effort Perception | V3.01-V3.05 | Inverse effort index | WoW, MoM | | **V4 Worth** | Worth Assessment | V4.01-V4.05 | Value ratio | MoM, QoQ, YoY | --- ### 2.7 Relationship Categories (R1-R4) | Category | Metric Name | Data Sources | Aggregation | Comparison Periods | |----------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------------------| | **R1 Integrity** | Integrity Score | R1.01-R1.05 | Trust-weighted avg | MoM, QoQ | | **R2 Dependability** | Dependability Index | R2.01-R2.05 | Consistency measure | MoM, QoQ, YoY | | **R3 Recovery** | Recovery Score | R3.01-R3.05 | Success rate | WoW, MoM | | **R4 Loyalty** | Loyalty Index | R4.01-R4.05 | Retention signals | MoM, QoQ, YoY | --- ## 3. Composite Indices ### 3.1 Overall Experience Index (OEI) **Definition**: Master index combining all domains into a single experience score. **Formula**: ``` OEI = SUM(Domain_Score * Weight) / SUM(Weights) Domain Weights: O (Offering): 0.20 P (People): 0.18 J (Journey): 0.15 E (Environment): 0.12 A (Access): 0.10 V (Value): 0.12 R (Relationship): 0.13 ------ 1.00 ``` **Example Calculation**: ``` Given: O = 82, P = 88, J = 75, E = 80, A = 85, V = 68, R = 78 OEI = (82*0.20 + 88*0.18 + 75*0.15 + 80*0.12 + 85*0.10 + 68*0.12 + 78*0.13) = (16.4 + 15.84 + 11.25 + 9.6 + 8.5 + 8.16 + 10.14) = 79.89 OEI = 79.9 (rounded) ``` **Thresholds**: | Level | Score | Interpretation | |-------|-------|----------------| | Excellent | >= 85 | Top-tier experience | | Good | 75-84 | Above average | | Acceptable | 65-74 | Room for improvement | | Poor | 50-64 | Significant issues | | Critical | < 50 | Immediate intervention required | --- ### 3.2 Service Excellence Index (SEI) **Definition**: Combined measure of people and process quality. **Formula**: ``` SEI = (P_domain * 0.55) + (J_domain * 0.45) Where: P_domain = Personnel Excellence Index J_domain = Process Efficiency Score ``` **Use Case**: Service-oriented businesses (hospitality, healthcare, support). **Example Calculation**: ``` Given: P = 88, J = 75 SEI = (88 * 0.55) + (75 * 0.45) = 48.4 + 33.75 = 82.15 SEI = 82.2 (rounded) ``` --- ### 3.3 Value Perception Index (VPI-C) **Definition**: Value perception weighted by product quality reality. **Formula**: ``` VPI-C = V_domain * quality_modifier quality_modifier = 0.5 + (O_domain / 200) Range: [0.5 * V, 1.0 * V] based on O score ``` **Use Case**: Prevents value scores from being inflated when quality is low. **Example Calculation**: ``` Given: V = 68, O = 82 quality_modifier = 0.5 + (82 / 200) = 0.5 + 0.41 = 0.91 VPI-C = 68 * 0.91 = 61.88 VPI-C = 61.9 (rounded) ``` --- ### 3.4 Trust & Loyalty Index (TLI) **Definition**: Relationship quality with historical weighting for repeat customers. **Formula**: ``` TLI = R_domain * historical_weight historical_weight = 1.0 + (0.1 * log2(1 + repeat_reviews)) Where: repeat_reviews = count of reviews from returning customers ``` **Example Calculation**: ``` Given: R = 78, repeat_reviews = 15 historical_weight = 1.0 + (0.1 * log2(16)) = 1.0 + 0.4 = 1.4 TLI = min(100, 78 * 1.4) = min(100, 109.2) = 100 TLI = 100 (capped) ``` **Note**: TLI caps at 100 but the historical weight can push borderline scores into higher brackets. --- ## 4. Intensity-Weighted Scoring ### 4.1 Intensity Weights | Intensity | Weight | Impact Multiplier | Rationale | |-----------|--------|-------------------|-----------| | **I1** (Mild) | 1.0 | 1x | Baseline feedback | | **I2** (Moderate) | 2.0 | 2x | Clear signal requiring attention | | **I3** (Strong) | 4.0 | 4x | Critical feedback requiring immediate response | ### 4.2 Weighted Score Calculation **Formula**: ``` Weighted_Score = SUM(sentiment_value * intensity_weight) / SUM(intensity_weight) Where: sentiment_value: V+ = +1, V- = -1, V0 = 0, V± = 0 intensity_weight: I1 = 1.0, I2 = 2.0, I3 = 4.0 ``` ### 4.3 Worked Examples **Example 1: Balanced Feedback** ``` Spans: - V+, I2 (sentiment: +1, weight: 2.0) - V-, I1 (sentiment: -1, weight: 1.0) - V+, I1 (sentiment: +1, weight: 1.0) - V-, I2 (sentiment: -1, weight: 2.0) Weighted_Score = ((+1*2) + (-1*1) + (+1*1) + (-1*2)) / (2+1+1+2) = (2 - 1 + 1 - 2) / 6 = 0 / 6 = 0.00 (neutral) ``` **Example 2: Severe Negative Impact** ``` Spans: - V+, I1 (sentiment: +1, weight: 1.0) - V+, I1 (sentiment: +1, weight: 1.0) - V+, I2 (sentiment: +1, weight: 2.0) - V-, I3 (sentiment: -1, weight: 4.0) <- Critical negative Weighted_Score = ((+1*1) + (+1*1) + (+1*2) + (-1*4)) / (1+1+2+4) = (1 + 1 + 2 - 4) / 8 = 0 / 8 = 0.00 (one I3 negative cancels three positives) ``` **Example 3: Strong Positive Momentum** ``` Spans: - V+, I3 (sentiment: +1, weight: 4.0) - V+, I2 (sentiment: +1, weight: 2.0) - V-, I1 (sentiment: -1, weight: 1.0) Weighted_Score = ((+1*4) + (+1*2) + (-1*1)) / (4+2+1) = (4 + 2 - 1) / 7 = 5 / 7 = 0.71 (strong positive) ``` ### 4.4 Converting to 0-100 Scale ``` Normalized_Score = 50 + (Weighted_Score * 50) Where: Weighted_Score ranges from -1.0 to +1.0 Normalized_Score ranges from 0 to 100 ``` --- ## 5. Trend Detection Rules ### 5.1 Statistical Significance Thresholds | Metric Change | Minimum Sample | Significance Level | Detection Method | |---------------|----------------|-------------------|------------------| | Domain Score | 30 spans | 95% CI | Z-test | | Category Score | 20 spans | 90% CI | T-test | | Subcode Count | 10 spans | 85% CI | Poisson test | | CR-B/W Shifts | 15 instances | 90% CI | Chi-square | ### 5.2 Minimum Sample Sizes | Analysis Level | Minimum Sample | Confidence Window | |----------------|----------------|-------------------| | Daily trending | 50 reviews | +/- 10% | | Weekly trending | 150 reviews | +/- 5% | | Monthly trending | 400 reviews | +/- 2.5% | | Quarterly trending | 1000 reviews | +/- 1.5% | **Reliability Formula**: ``` margin_of_error = z * sqrt(p*(1-p) / n) Where: z = 1.96 for 95% confidence p = proportion (e.g., positive ratio) n = sample size ``` ### 5.3 Seasonality Adjustment **Method**: Multiplicative seasonal decomposition ``` Adjusted_Score = Observed_Score / Seasonal_Index Seasonal_Index = Historical_Period_Average / Annual_Average ``` **Common Seasonal Patterns**: | Industry | High Seasons | Low Seasons | Adjustment Range | |----------|--------------|-------------|------------------| | Retail | Nov-Dec, Mar-Apr | Jan-Feb | 0.85 - 1.20 | | Hospitality | Jun-Aug, Dec | Jan, Sep | 0.80 - 1.25 | | Healthcare | Jan-Mar (flu), Oct | Jun-Jul | 0.90 - 1.15 | | B2B Services | Q4, Q1 | Summer | 0.88 - 1.12 | ### 5.4 Anomaly Detection Parameters **Z-Score Method**: ``` anomaly IF |z_score| > threshold z_score = (observed - mean) / std_dev Thresholds: Warning: |z| > 2.0 Alert: |z| > 2.5 Critical: |z| > 3.0 ``` **Moving Average Deviation**: ``` anomaly IF |deviation| > threshold * MA_std deviation = current_value - moving_average threshold = 2.5 (default) MA_window = 7 days (daily), 4 weeks (weekly) ``` --- ## 6. Comparative Reference (CR) Analytics ### 6.1 CR-B (Better) - Improvement Tracking **Definition**: Signals explicit customer recognition of improvement. **Metrics**: | Metric | Formula | Interpretation | |--------|---------|----------------| | **Improvement Rate** | CR-B spans / Total CR spans | % of comparisons showing improvement | | **Improvement Velocity** | CR-B count this period / CR-B count last period | Acceleration of improvement | | **Domain Improvement Map** | CR-B distribution by domain | Where improvements are noticed | **Impact on Issue Resolution**: ``` CR-B on resolved issue subcode → VERIFIED state (per C1 framework) CR-B count >= 2 on open issue → Consider issue improving ``` ### 6.2 CR-W (Worse) - Regression Indicator **Definition**: Signals explicit customer recognition of decline. **Metrics**: | Metric | Formula | Interpretation | |--------|---------|----------------| | **Regression Rate** | CR-W spans / Total CR spans | % of comparisons showing decline | | **Regression Severity** | Avg intensity of CR-W spans | How severe the decline is | | **Regression Hotspots** | Top subcodes with CR-W | Where quality is declining | **Alert Triggers**: ``` IF CR-W_count > threshold OR CR-W_rate > 15%: ALERT("Quality Regression Detected") IF CR-W on RESOLVED issue: REOPEN(issue) ESCALATE(reason="regression") ``` ### 6.3 CR-S (Same) - Stagnation Detection **Definition**: Signals persistent issues that haven't improved. **Metrics**: | Metric | Formula | Interpretation | |--------|---------|----------------| | **Stagnation Rate** | CR-S spans / Total CR spans | % of comparisons showing no change | | **Persistent Issue Index** | CR-S count by subcode | Issues that won't go away | | **Resolution Failure Rate** | CR-S on RESOLVED issues / Total RESOLVED | % of false resolutions | **Stagnation Alerts**: ``` IF CR-S_count >= 3 on same subcode in 30 days: FLAG("Persistent Issue - Investigation Required") IF CR-S on RESOLVED issue: REOPEN(issue) INCREMENT(false_resolution_count) ``` ### 6.4 Customer Perception Change Tracking **Composite CR Score**: ``` Perception_Trend = (CR-B_weight * CR-B_count - CR-W_weight * CR-W_count) / Total_CR Where: CR-B_weight = +1.0 CR-W_weight = -1.5 (asymmetric - declines weighted more) Total_CR = CR-B + CR-W + CR-S (excludes CR-N) ``` **Interpretation**: | Perception_Trend | Status | Action | |------------------|--------|--------| | > 0.3 | Improving | Continue current initiatives | | 0 to 0.3 | Stable | Maintain and monitor | | -0.3 to 0 | Concerning | Investigate declining areas | | < -0.3 | Critical | Immediate intervention required | --- ## 7. Dashboard Specifications ### 7.1 Executive Summary View (Domain-Level) **Display Elements**: ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE DASHBOARD │ │ Period: 2026-01 | Reviews: 2,847 │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ OVERALL (OEI) │ │ TREND INDICATORS │ │ │ │ 79.9 │ │ ▲ Improving: O, P, E │ │ │ │ ▲ +2.3 MoM │ │ ▼ Declining: V │ │ │ └─────────────────┘ │ → Stable: J, A, R │ │ │ └────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ DOMAIN SCORES │ │ ┌───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┐ │ │ │ O │ P │ J │ E │ A │ V │ R │ │ │ │ 82 │ 88 │ 75 │ 80 │ 85 │ 68 │ 78 │ │ │ │ +3.2 │ +1.8 │ -0.5 │ +2.1 │ +0.3 │ -2.4 │ +0.8 │ │ │ └───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┘ │ │ │ │ COMPOSITE INDICES │ │ ├── Service Excellence (SEI): 82.2 ▲ │ │ ├── Value Perception (VPI-C): 61.9 ▼ │ │ └── Trust & Loyalty (TLI): 84.5 → │ │ │ │ ALERTS (3 Active) │ │ ├── [!] V domain below target (68 < 70) │ │ ├── [!] CR-W spike in J1.01 (Wait Time) │ │ └── [!] 5 open I3 issues > 24h old │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` **Visualizations**: - Gauge charts for each domain score - Trend arrows with MoM delta - Alert badges for threshold breaches - Mini sparklines for 12-week trends --- ### 7.2 Operational View (Category + Issues) **Display Elements**: ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ OPERATIONAL DASHBOARD │ │ Domain: O (Offering) | Categories: O1-O4 │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ CATEGORY BREAKDOWN │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ O1 Function ████████████████████████░░░░░░ 85% ▲ +3.1% │ │ │ │ O2 Quality ██████████████████████░░░░░░░░ 78% ▲ +2.5% │ │ │ │ O3 Completeness████████████████████████████░░ 92% → +0.2% │ │ │ │ O4 Fit █████████████████████░░░░░░░░░ 73% ▼ -1.8% │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ ACTIVE ISSUES (O Domain) │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ ID │ Subcode │ State │ Priority │ Age │ Spans │ Owner │ │ │ ├─────────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┤ │ │ │ ISSUE-0142 │ O2.05 │ INP │ 5.60 │ 3d │ 5 │ Ops │ │ │ │ ISSUE-0156 │ O4.01 │ ACK │ 4.20 │ 1d │ 3 │ Ops │ │ │ │ ISSUE-0161 │ O1.04 │ DET │ 3.85 │ 4h │ 2 │ Prod │ │ │ └─────────────┴─────────┴───────┴──────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┘ │ │ │ │ ISSUE METRICS │ │ ├── Open Issues: 12 │ │ ├── Avg Resolution Time: 2.3 days │ │ ├── Recurrence Rate: 8.2% │ │ └── SLA Compliance: 91.5% │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` **Visualizations**: - Horizontal bar charts for category scores - Issue list with sortable columns - Pie chart for issue state distribution - Timeline for issue age distribution --- ### 7.3 Deep-Dive View (Subcodes + Trends) **Display Elements**: ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ DEEP-DIVE: O2 Quality │ │ Period: 2026-01 | 347 spans │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ SUBCODE DISTRIBUTION │ │ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ O2.01 Materials │████████████░░░░│ 89 spans │ 72% V+ │ +5% │ │ │ │ O2.02 Craftsmanship│█████████░░░░░░░│ 67 spans │ 81% V+ │ +2% │ │ │ │ O2.03 Presentation │████████████████│ 98 spans │ 85% V+ │ +8% │ │ │ │ O2.04 Detail │██████░░░░░░░░░░│ 45 spans │ 68% V+ │ -3% │ │ │ │ O2.05 Condition │████████░░░░░░░░│ 48 spans │ 52% V+ │ -12% │ │ │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ 12-WEEK TREND: O2.05 (Condition at Delivery) │ │ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ 80% ┤ │ │ │ │ 70% ┤ *───* │ │ │ │ 60% ┤ * *───* │ │ │ │ 50% ┤* *───*───* │ │ │ │ 40% ┤ *───*───* │ │ │ │ └──W1──W2──W3──W4──W5──W6──W7──W8──W9─W10─W11─W12────── │ │ │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ COMPARATIVE REFERENCE SIGNALS │ │ ├── CR-B (Better): 3 spans (6%) │ │ ├── CR-W (Worse): 8 spans (17%) ← ALERT: Above 15% threshold │ │ ├── CR-S (Same): 5 spans (10%) │ │ └── CR-N (None): 32 spans (67%) │ │ │ │ INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION │ │ ├── I1 (Mild): 12 spans (25%) │ │ ├── I2 (Moderate): 28 spans (58%) │ │ └── I3 (Strong): 8 spans (17%) ← 4 negative I3 spans │ │ │ │ SAMPLE SPANS (Most Recent) │ │ ├── "Food arrived cold again" - V-, I2, CR-S (Jan 22) │ │ ├── "Temperature was perfect this time!" - V+, I2, CR-B (Jan 21) │ │ └── "Stone cold pizza, unacceptable" - V-, I3, CR-N (Jan 20) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` **Visualizations**: - Stacked bar charts for subcode distribution - Line charts for trend analysis - Heatmaps for intensity by subcode - Word clouds for span text analysis --- ### 7.4 Visualization Recommendations by KPI Type | KPI Type | Primary Viz | Secondary Viz | Interaction | |----------|-------------|---------------|-------------| | Domain Score | Gauge/Dial | Trend sparkline | Drill to categories | | Category Score | Horizontal bar | Comparison to benchmark | Drill to subcodes | | Trend | Line chart | Moving average overlay | Zoom/pan time range | | Distribution | Pie/Donut | Treemap for hierarchy | Filter by segment | | Comparison | Grouped bar | Bullet chart | Toggle comparison periods | | Volume | Area chart | Stacked area for breakdown | Highlight anomalies | | Correlation | Scatter plot | Heatmap matrix | Identify clusters | --- ## 8. Alert Rules ### 8.1 Threshold-Based Alerts | Alert Level | Condition | Response Time | Notification | |-------------|-----------|---------------|--------------| | **Critical** | Any domain < Red threshold | Immediate | SMS + Email + Dashboard | | **Warning** | Any domain < Yellow threshold | 4 hours | Email + Dashboard | | **Info** | Any domain < target but in green | 24 hours | Dashboard only | **Domain-Specific Thresholds**: ```yaml alerts: O_offering: critical: < 60 warning: < 80 target: >= 80 P_people: critical: < 70 warning: < 85 target: >= 85 J_journey: critical: < 55 warning: < 75 target: >= 75 E_environment: critical: < 65 warning: < 80 target: >= 80 A_access: critical: < 70 warning: < 85 target: >= 85 V_value: critical: < 50 warning: < 70 target: >= 70 R_relationship: critical: < 60 warning: < 80 target: >= 80 ``` --- ### 8.2 Trend-Based Alerts | Alert | Condition | Lookback | Action | |-------|-----------|----------|--------| | **Declining Domain** | Score drops > 5 points for 2+ consecutive periods | 3 periods | Investigate root cause | | **Accelerating Decline** | Rate of decline increasing | 4 periods | Escalate to leadership | | **Stalled Recovery** | No improvement after intervention | 6 periods | Re-evaluate strategy | | **Regression After Fix** | Score drops after improvement | 2 periods | Review resolution quality | **Configuration**: ```yaml trend_alerts: declining_domain: threshold: -5 consecutive_periods: 2 severity: warning accelerating_decline: acceleration_threshold: -2 # decline rate increasing by 2+ periods: 4 severity: critical stalled_recovery: improvement_threshold: 3 # expecting +3 after fix periods: 6 severity: warning ``` --- ### 8.3 Volume-Based Alerts | Alert | Condition | Window | Action | |-------|-----------|--------|--------| | **I3 Spike** | I3 negative count > 2x rolling average | 7 days | Immediate triage | | **Review Surge** | Total reviews > 3x typical volume | 24 hours | Check for viral event | | **Complaint Cluster** | Same subcode appears 5+ times in window | 48 hours | Create/prioritize issue | | **Domain Overload** | Single domain > 50% of all feedback | 7 days | Investigate systemic cause | **Configuration**: ```yaml volume_alerts: i3_spike: multiplier: 2.0 window_days: 7 min_count: 3 # at least 3 I3s to trigger severity: critical review_surge: multiplier: 3.0 window_hours: 24 severity: info complaint_cluster: count_threshold: 5 window_hours: 48 severity: warning domain_overload: percentage_threshold: 50 window_days: 7 severity: info ``` --- ### 8.4 Comparative (CR) Alerts | Alert | Condition | Action | |-------|-----------|--------| | **CR-W Surge** | CR-W rate > 15% of all CR spans | Flag potential regression | | **CR-S Persistence** | CR-S count >= 3 on same subcode in 30 days | Flag unresolved issue | | **CR-B Absence** | No CR-B on resolved issue within verification window | Question resolution | | **Perception Decline** | Perception_Trend < -0.3 | Escalate to leadership | **Configuration**: ```yaml cr_alerts: cr_w_surge: threshold_rate: 0.15 window_days: 30 severity: critical cr_s_persistence: count_threshold: 3 window_days: 30 severity: warning cr_b_absence: resolved_issue_window_days: 60 severity: info perception_decline: trend_threshold: -0.3 severity: critical ``` --- ## 9. Integration with Issue Lifecycle (C1) ### 9.1 Linking KPI Movements to Open Issues **Correlation Analysis**: ``` FOR each domain D: IF D_score decreased this period: open_issues = GET_ISSUES(domain=D, state IN [DET, ACK, INP]) FOR issue IN open_issues: IF issue.span_count increased this period: FLAG(issue, "Contributing to domain decline") IF issue.priority_score > threshold: RECOMMEND("Prioritize " + issue.id) ``` **Issue Impact Scoring**: ``` Issue_Impact = (span_count / total_domain_spans) * intensity_weight * age_factor Where: age_factor = 1.0 + (days_open / 30) # older issues have higher impact ``` --- ### 9.2 Resolution Impact on Metrics **Verification Impact Model**: ``` Expected_Improvement = ( resolved_issue_span_count / total_domain_spans ) * resolution_effectiveness resolution_effectiveness = { VERIFIED: 1.0, # Full impact expected RESOLVED: 0.7, # Partial impact (not yet verified) REOPENED: -0.5 # Negative impact (false resolution) } ``` **Tracking Resolution Effectiveness**: | Metric | Formula | Target | |--------|---------|--------| | **Resolution Impact Rate** | Domain improvement post-resolution / Expected improvement | >= 80% | | **Verification Rate** | VERIFIED issues / RESOLVED issues (within window) | >= 70% | | **False Resolution Rate** | REOPENED issues / RESOLVED issues | < 10% | --- ### 9.3 Leading vs Lagging Indicators **Leading Indicators** (Predictive): | Indicator | Predicts | Lead Time | |-----------|----------|-----------| | CR-W spike in subcode | Domain score decline | 2-4 weeks | | I3 negative surge | Issue escalation | 1-2 weeks | | New issue detection rate | Operational challenges | 1-3 weeks | | Repeat customer CR-S | Loyalty decline | 4-8 weeks | **Lagging Indicators** (Confirmatory): | Indicator | Confirms | Lag Time | |-----------|----------|----------| | Domain score change | Impact of initiatives | 4-6 weeks | | CR-B rate increase | Resolution effectiveness | 2-4 weeks | | Issue verification rate | Process quality | 4-8 weeks | | Overall Experience Index | Business health | 6-12 weeks | --- ### 9.4 Predictive Signals from URT Data **Issue Emergence Prediction**: ``` P(new_issue) = f( i1_clustering, # Mild complaints clustering intensity_escalation, # I1 -> I2 -> I3 pattern cr_s_accumulation, # "Still" comments building up specificity_trend # S1 -> S2 -> S3 (getting more specific) ) Trigger early warning when: P(new_issue) > 0.6 AND affected_reviews > 5 ``` **Churn Risk Signal**: ``` Churn_Risk = ( 0.30 * (R4.05 negative rate) + # "Never again" signals 0.25 * (V4.04 negative rate) + # "Would not recommend" 0.20 * (CR-W rate) + # Perceived decline 0.15 * (issue_recurrence_rate) + # Repeated problems 0.10 * (TH temporal_pattern) # "Always been like this" ) Alert when Churn_Risk > 0.5 ``` **Recovery Prediction**: ``` P(successful_recovery) = f( issue_age, # Younger = better resolution_speed, # Faster = better r3_score, # Better recovery actions = better cr_b_early_signals # Early CR-B = better ) Adjust TTR targets based on P(successful_recovery) ``` --- ## Document Control | Field | Value | |-------|-------| | **Document** | C2 - KPI Mapping Guide | | **Version** | 1.0 | | **Status** | Production Ready | | **Date** | 2026-01-23 | | **Author** | URT Working Group | | **Depends On** | URT Specification v5.1, C1-Issue-Lifecycle-Framework | | **Part Of** | Track C: Analytics Layer | --- ## Related Documents | Document | Purpose | Status | |----------|---------|--------| | **URT Specification v5.1** | Core taxonomy and classification rules | Frozen | | **C1 - Issue Lifecycle Framework** | Issue tracking and resolution states | Complete | | **C3 - Benchmark Framework** | Cross-business comparison | Planned | | **C4 - Alert & Escalation Rules** | Automated notification logic | Planned | --- *End of C2: KPI Mapping Guide*