Performance and rankings
Two figures that share a name and are not the same, each in its place.
In a pharmaceutical operation the word «ranking» names two different things, and conflating them produces arguments that go nowhere.
The first one Kipken computes: the performance index derived from field assessments. It serves to compare members of a team against the same yardstick, to see how each one evolves, and to spot which competency or which stage of the call holds the gap. It is a development number, not a sales one.
The second is computed by nobody here: it is the monthly scorecard the corporation publishes, with its score, its quota coverage and its effectiveness indices. Kipken archives it and shows it under territorial scope, across its three periods — month, quarter and year to date — so that whoever needs it stops asking for it by email.
That archive has a particularity worth knowing: its unit is the territory, not the person. A vacant territory publishes its metrics all the same, and territories change hands mid-year. Storing it by person would lose exactly the part of the history that explains the jumps.
The two figures coexist, each under its own name.
Available today
4- Performance indices computed from the assessments, with historical evolution and team ranking
- Archive of the monthly scorecard published by the corporation, across its three periods: month, quarter and year to date
- The scorecard is archived per route rather than per person, so vacant routes keep their metrics
- Scorecard import from the corporate workbook, one sheet per month
Interested in this module?
We will show it running, with data close to your own operation.