Numbers two teams can argue from, not about
A metric is only useful if everyone means the same thing by it. Attergo holds each metric as a definition with one owner, computes it from the archived events, and publishes it with the time it was last computed and the records it came from. Disagreement moves to the decision, where it belongs.
The same question, two answers, both defensible
Two teams count denials and get different totals, because one counts the line and the other counts the claim, and both definitions are reasonable. The meeting is then spent reconciling arithmetic instead of deciding anything. Without one definition and one place it is computed, every number is provisional and every review starts again.
The mechanism behind it.
One definition, with an owner
Each metric is registered once with the meaning it carries and the person accountable for it. A second definition of the same measure is a change to the first, not a new number.
Freshness published with the value
A figure carries when it was last computed. A stale number that looks current is worse than an absent one, because it gets acted on.
Lineage back to the source events
A published figure resolves to the records it was computed from, so a challenge to it is answerable rather than a matter of trust.
Source quality stated rather than assumed
Each contributing feed carries what is known about its completeness and recency, so a metric built on a quiet feed is visibly built on a quiet feed.
The products this reaches.
What an enterprise organization additionally gets.
Governed metric registry
Governed intelligence
Enterprise command center
These are enterprise surfaces. How they are packaged is on the pricing page, and nothing above them requires an enterprise organization to reach.