Success Metrics

LMU/COICP Example

Success Metrics Example

Define how LMU/COICP will recognize business value, operational improvement, engineering readiness, trustworthiness, adoption, governance discipline, educational usefulness, and failure signals.

ES-101 Success Metrics Evidence Targets

Example AreaLMU/COICP

Current PageSuccess Metrics

FocusSuccess evidence

UseDefine measurable outcomes and trust indicators

Repository Areadocs/examples/lmu-coicp/vision/

← Previous Assumptions

Current Success Metrics

Next → Vision Readiness Summary

Example purpose

This artifact defines what success should mean before requirements are written.

Success is not a demo. Success requires evidence that the business problem is being addressed, trust boundaries are preserved, and downstream engineering decisions have enough evidence to proceed responsibly.

Project

LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform

Document control

Field	Value
Artifact owner	COICP Product Owner
Primary reviewers	Campus Operations, Facilities, Campus Safety, Residence Life, IT, Compliance, AI reviewer, Architecture Review Board chair
Status	Accepted for ES-101 vision baseline
Last updated	2026-07-06
Related Engineering Stage	ES-101 — Vision and Problem Definition
Project workspace target	docs/project-workspace/vision/success_metrics.md

Vision context

Field	Value
Vision baseline produced	LMU-COICP-VISION-001
Requirements baseline expected next	LMU-COICP-REQ-001
Planning baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-PLAN-001
Architecture baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-ARCH-001
Design baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-DES-001
Implementation baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-IMPL-001
Integrated baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-INT-001
Release candidate expected later	LMU-COICP-RC-001
Downstream release posture	Internal engineering review only
Planned downstream review environment	LMU-COICP Internal Engineering Review Environment
Planned downstream dataset	Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset
Planned downstream synthetic records	421
Planned downstream reviewer accounts	24
Planned downstream review window	March 18–22, 2026
AI Incident Summary	Deferred / disabled
Operational pilot	Not approved

Success summary

LMU/COICP succeeds if internal engineering review shows that a bounded, evidence-preserving coordination workspace can improve clarity, ownership, handoff accountability, reviewability, and scope control for selected university operations scenarios without creating operational, privacy, safety, AI, or governance risk.

Business success metrics

ID	Metric	Scenario Driver	Target or Direction	Evidence Source
BSM-001	Intake clarity	COICP-SYN-001	reviewer can identify owner, status, and creation evidence	scenario review
BSM-002	Handoff accountability	COICP-SYN-118	handoff from Campus Operations to Facilities is reconstructable	evidence timeline
BSM-003	Role-appropriate visibility	COICP-SYN-204	Residence Life sees assigned scenario and is denied unrelated/export access	access review
BSM-004	Closure accountability	COICP-SYN-219	closure rationale is present and reviewable	closure evidence
BSM-005	Safety boundary	COICP-SYN-322	normal incident is not created for emergency-related input	boundary test
BSM-006	Scope discipline	COICP-SYN-407	optional IT scenario does not expand into ITSM	scope review

Operational success metrics

ID	Metric	Target	Evidence Source	Owner
OSM-001	24 reviewer accounts provisioned correctly	100% approved accounts only	deployment/access records	IT security reviewer
OSM-002	Spring dataset loaded correctly	421 synthetic records only	deployment/release evidence	Product Engineer / Compliance reviewer
OSM-003	March 18–22 review support path documented	support procedure exists	operations readiness evidence	IT operations representative
OSM-004	AI Incident Summary unavailable	no active UI/action path	AI verification record	AI reviewer
OSM-005	Emergency-boundary workflow clear	Campus Safety accepts warning path	review note	Campus Safety liaison

Engineering success metrics

ID	Metric	Target	Later Stage Use
ESM-001	Scenario lineage preserved	each scenario traces from Vision to Testing	traceability matrix
ESM-002	Evidence points identified	creation, owner change, status change, handoff, closure, scope warning	Architecture / Design
ESM-003	Risk lineage preserved	DEF-001 through DEF-005 trace to scenarios	Testing / Release
ESM-004	Navigation and repository structure consistent	all artifacts reference correct workspace paths	site quality
ESM-005	Internal-review boundary preserved	no stage implies operational pilot	Release / Governance

Trustworthiness metrics

ID	Metric	Scenario Driver	Target
TM-001	Evidence preservation	COICP-SYN-118 / 219	key actions are timestamped and attributable
TM-002	Access control	COICP-SYN-204	allow and deny cases are testable
TM-003	Human oversight	COICP-SYN-118 / 219	humans own status, owner, handoff, closure
TM-004	AI accountability	all	AI disabled through RC-001
TM-005	Scope safety	COICP-SYN-322	emergency-related entry blocked or redirected
TM-006	Data minimization	all	synthetic-only records and no prohibited data

Negative success criteria

ID	False Success Signal	Why It Fails
NS-001	A polished demo without evidence timeline.	Does not prove coordination trustworthiness.
NS-002	Faster updates that lose ownership accountability.	Speed without evidence is not success.
NS-003	AI summaries that look useful but were not reviewed.	Violates AI boundary and trust.
NS-004	More visibility by weakening role-based access.	Violates privacy/security expectations.
NS-005	Emergency-related input accepted as normal incident.	Violates safety boundary.
NS-006	Internal review treated as operational pilot.	Violates release/governance posture.
NS-007	Synthetic data replaced by real incident records.	Violates compliance boundary.

Continue to Vision Readiness Summary

Summarize the ES-101 package and decide whether Requirements work can begin.

Open Vision Readiness Summary →