When should organisations rely on both KRIs and KPIs instead of using only one type of metric?

Why both metric types are needed

Using only KPIs or only KRIs creates a blind spot. KPIs tell you whether the business is delivering planned outcomes, but they do not show whether those outcomes are becoming more fragile over time. KRIs show whether risk exposure is rising or falling, which is critical when leadership needs to understand whether performance is being achieved safely and sustainably.

The practical value of using both is that they answer different management questions. A strong KPI can coexist with deteriorating control conditions, and a rising KRI can warn that today’s performance may be masking tomorrow’s loss. That distinction matters in regulated, high-availability, or security-sensitive environments where good results can still be built on weakening risk posture.

When teams treat one metric as a substitute for the other, they often optimize the wrong thing. KPI-only reporting can drive local efficiency while ignoring exposure, while KRI-only reporting can identify danger without proving whether the organisation is still meeting its operational objectives. The combination is what lets leaders balance delivery, resilience, and control effectiveness.

How KPIs and KRIs work together in decision-making

KPIs are best for showing output, throughput, quality, service levels, cost, or other objective measures of performance. KRIs are best for showing the conditions that make failure, loss, or compromise more likely. Together, they give decision-makers both the result and the early warning signals behind it, which is especially useful when risk controls are meant to protect business performance rather than sit apart from it.

The strongest use case is trend comparison. If a KPI is stable but the related KRI is worsening, the organisation may still be in compliance or still meeting targets, but it is consuming more risk to do so. If a KPI dips while the KRI remains healthy, the immediate issue may be operational inefficiency rather than control failure. That separation helps leaders choose whether to improve process execution or reinforce controls.

Metric pairing also helps with accountability. KPIs usually sit close to business ownership, while KRIs often sit closer to risk, security, compliance, or operational governance. When both are reviewed together, the organisation can connect target achievement with the conditions that support or undermine it, instead of discussing performance and risk in separate forums.

When one metric type is not enough

One metric type is usually enough only when the question is narrow. If the goal is simply to report progress on a contained activity, a KPI may be sufficient. If the purpose is to monitor a defined risk exposure in a highly specific control area, a KRI may be sufficient. But once leadership needs to understand trade-offs, exposure, or whether performance depends on weakening controls, both are usually required.

That is particularly true when the metric must support management decisions, board reporting, or budget prioritisation. A single performance metric can hide the fact that the organisation is succeeding by taking on more operational risk, deferring maintenance, relaxing control thresholds, or accumulating technical debt. In those cases, the question is not just “are we winning?”, but “at what risk price are we winning?”

Good metric design also avoids false comfort. A well-chosen KRI should not be treated as an excuse to ignore outcomes, and a well-chosen KPI should not be treated as proof that the underlying environment is healthy. The value comes from making the relationship between performance and exposure visible enough that leaders can act before the control environment deteriorates into a business problem.

Practitioner Guidance

What to prioritise: Pair each important business objective with the smallest set of KRIs that reveal whether the objective is becoming harder or riskier to sustain. If a KPI cannot be interpreted without asking “what controls or exposures could break this result?”, a companion KRI is probably missing.

What to verify: Confirm that each KRI has a clear causal link to loss exposure or control weakness, not just a cosmetic relationship to the KPI. The best pairs are those where a worsening KRI would reasonably trigger a management review even if the KPI still looks acceptable.

Practitioner takeaway: Use KPIs to show whether the organisation is delivering, and KRIs to show whether it is delivering safely, because performance without exposure context can look healthy right up until it stops being sustainable.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• What breaks when organisations rely on one-time AI red teaming instead of continuous retesting?
• What breaks when organisations rely on fragmented tools for AI security instead of one posture management approach?
• What happens when organisations rely on a one-time vulnerability scan instead of continuous scanning?
• When should organisations rely on specialist identity controls instead of one platform?