Are we measuring what truly drives performance in supply chain management?
Last September, we asked members of our Indago supply chain research community — all supply chain and logistics executives from manufacturing, retail, and distribution companies — to weigh in on which metrics matter most, how frequently they review them, and where the biggest blind spots remain.
“On-Time In-Full (OTIF)” remains the clear leader among supply chain performance metrics, cited by 54% of respondents, followed closely by “On-Time Delivery” (46%) and “Days of Inventory on Hand” (46%). Together, these results reinforce the long-standing focus on execution reliability, customer service, and inventory efficiency.
Metrics tied to cost and planning accuracy — such as “Freight Cost per Order or Unit” (42%), “Forecast Accuracy” (38%), and “Total Transportation Spend” (38%) — also remain widely tracked. Yet among this group of respondents, sustainability-related measures such as “CO₂ emissions per shipment” (8%) and even “Warehouse Throughput” (8%) appear to remain peripheral to decision-making.
As one respondent observed, “The biggest gap is that supply chain metrics tend to focus on the controllable elements within the supply chain — on what happened. They’re rear-view mirror focused.” Another echoed that sentiment: “I believe that the main opportunity for supply chain metrics is to focus on forward-looking versus rear-view mirror metrics.”
In other words, most companies are still measuring past performance more than predictive indicators, which limits their ability to anticipate and respond to volatility.
Several respondents also pointed to the need for tighter financial alignment. “I think more metrics should show a direct connection to numbers on financial statements,” noted one executive. Others highlighted the growing importance of cost-to-serve analysis and landed-cost visibility. As one respondent put it, “Cost-to-serve by customer is a great metric, as many customers require more handholding and exceptions become the norm. Total landed cost now requires agility to make adjustments, as tariffs are increasingly affecting bottom lines.”
In short, supply chains continue to rely on the traditional trinity of cost, service, and efficiency. But there’s a growing recognition that the next generation of metrics must be more forward-looking, financially grounded, and better aligned with agility, resilience, and value creation.
We also asked our Indago members, “How often do you review and update the set of metrics/KPIs your team tracks?”
More than half of respondents (54%) review and update their KPIs monthly or more frequently — underscoring how quickly the metrics that matter can shift in today’s volatile environment. However, a notable segment — roughly one in three — revisit their metrics only quarterly or annually, and a few admit they have not revisited them “in years.”
Those who update metrics frequently described the practice as essential to staying agile amid disruption. In contrast, less proactive respondents pointed to structural barriers that limit their ability to evolve. “In general, we have disparate systems that make harmonized metrics very difficult to calculate,” one respondent admitted.
Others warned that a reactive mindset still dominates supply chain performance management. “The biggest blind spot is the reactive nature of supply chain management,” one wrote, “driven by the nearly infinite number of sources of disruption to the plan.”
The contrast highlights an emerging divide: organizations that treat metrics as living, adaptive tools — continuously aligned to new realities — and those still anchored to static, outdated scorecards. For the latter, modernization isn’t just an analytics challenge; it’s a matter of culture, leadership, and system readiness.
If you could add one new metric to better reflect supply chain success today and in the future, which metrics would you prioritize? Indago members shared their perspective on this question too. Members can download the report for all the results.
In short, most supply chain teams are still measuring what they’ve always measured — service, cost, and efficiency. But in today’s volatile environment, that’s not enough. The leaders who outperform will align metrics to financial outcomes, incorporate forward-looking indicators, and treat their scorecards as dynamic decision-making tools, not static reports of the past.
