Predicts compliance with FDA 21 CFR 211.100 (process control)
FDA 21 CFR 211, ICH Q10, ICH Q9
Lagging
Average Time to Close Change Requests
Validates efficiency of change implementation (EudraLex Annex 15)
EU GMP Annex 15
KRI
Leading
Unresolved CAPAs Linked to Change Requests
Identifies systemic risks before deviations occur (FDA Warning Letters)
21 CFR 211.22, ICH Q7
Lagging
Repeat Deviations Post-Change
Reflects failure to address root causes (FDA 483 Observations)
21 CFR 211.192
KBI
Leading
Cross-Functional Review Participation Rate
Encourages proactive collaboration in change evaluation
ICH Q10 Section 3.2.3
Lagging
Reduction in Documentation Errors Post-Training
Validates effectiveness of staff competency programs
EU 1252/2014 Article 14
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Leading KPI:
Change Requests with Completed Risk Assessments: Measures proactive compliance with FDA requirements for risk-based change evaluation. A rate <90% triggers quality reviews.
Lagging KPI:
Time to Close Changes: Benchmarks against EMA’s 30-day resolution expectation for critical changes. Prolonged closure (>45 days) indicates process bottlenecks.
Key Risk Indicators (KRIs)
Leading KRI:
Unresolved CAPAs: Predicts validation gaps; >5 open CAPAs per change violates FDA’s “state of control” mandate.
Lagging KRI:
Repeat Deviations: >3 repeat deviations quarterly triggers mandatory revalidation per FDA 21 CFR 211.180.
Documentation Errors: Post-training error reduction <30% prompts requalification under EU GMP Chapter 4.
Implementation Guidance
Align with Regulatory Thresholds: Set leading KPI targets using FDA’s 2025 draft guidance: ≥95% risk assessment completion for high-impact changes.
Automate Tracking: Integrate metrics with eQMS software to monitor CAPA aging (leading KRI) and deviation trends (lagging KRI) in real time.
Link to Training: Tie lagging KBIs to annual GMP refresher courses, as required by EU 1252/2014 Article 14.
Why It Matters: Leading metrics enable proactive mitigation of change-related risks (e.g., unresolved CAPAs predicting audit failures), while lagging metrics validate adherence to FDA’s lifecycle approach for process validation. Balancing both ensures compliance with 21 CFR 211’s “state of control” mandate while fostering continuous improvement.
Understanding how to measure success and risk is critical for organizations aiming to achieve strategic objectives. As we develop Quality Plans and Metric Plans it is important to explore the nuances of leading and lagging metrics, define Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Key Behavioral Indicators (KBIs), and Key Risk Indicators (KRIs), and explains how these concepts intersect with Objectives and Key Results (OKRs).
Leading vs. Lagging Metrics: A Foundation
Leading metrics predict future outcomes by measuring activities that drive results. They are proactive, forward-looking, and enable real-time adjustments. For example, tracking employee training completion rates (leading) can predict fewer operational errors.
Lagging metrics reflect historical performance, confirming whether quality objectives were achieved. They are reactive and often tied to outcomes like batch rejection rates or the number of product recalls. For example, in a pharmaceutical quality system, lagging metrics might include the annual number of regulatory observations, the percentage of batches released on time, or the rate of customer complaints related to product quality. These metrics provide a retrospective view of the quality system’s effectiveness, allowing organizations to assess their performance against predetermined quality goals and industry standards. They offer limited opportunities for mid-course corrections
The interplay between leading and lagging metrics ensures organizations balance anticipation of future performance with accountability for past results.
Defining KPIs, KRIs, and KBIs
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
KPIs measure progress toward Quality System goals. They are outcome-focused and often tied to strategic objectives.
Leading KPI Example: Process Capability Index (Cpk) – This measures how well a process can produce output within specification limits. A higher Cpk could indicate fewer products requiring disposition.
Lagging KPI Example: Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) -The total cost associated with products that don’t meet quality standards, including testing and disposition cost.
Key Risk Indicators (KRIs)
KRIs monitor risks that could derail objectives. They act as early warning systems for potential threats. Leading KRIs should trigger risk assessments and/or pre-defined corrections when thresholds are breached.
Leading KRI Example: Unresolved CAPAs (Corrective and Preventive Actions) – Tracks open corrective actions for past deviations. A rising number signals unresolved systemic issues that could lead to recurrence
Lagging KRI Example: Repeat Deviation Frequency – Tracks recurring deviations of the same type. Highlights ineffective CAPAs or systemic weaknesses
Key Behavioral Indicators (KBIs)
KBIs track employee actions and cultural alignment. They link behaviors to Quality System outcomes.
Leading KBI Example: Frequency of safety protocol adherence (predicts fewer workplace accidents).
Lagging KBI Example: Employee turnover rate (reflects past cultural challenges).
Applying Leading and Lagging Metrics to KPIs, KRIs, and KBIs
Each metric type can be mapped to leading or lagging dimensions:
KPIs: Leading KPIs drive action while lagging KPIs validate results
KRIs: Leading KRIs identify emerging risks while lagging KRIs analyze past incidents
KBIs: Leading KBIs encourage desired behaviors while lagging KBIs assess outcomes
Proactively ensures continued process verification aligns with validation master plans
Validation tracking systems
Lagging
Annual audit findings related to validation drift
Confirms adherence to regulator’s “state of control” requirements
Internal/regulatory audit reports
KRI
Leading
Open CAPAs linked to FUSe(P) validation gaps
Identifies unresolved systemic risks affecting process robustness
Quality management systems (QMS)
Lagging
Repeat deviations in validated batches
Reflects failure to address root causes post-validation
Deviation management systems
KBI
Leading
Cross-functional review of process monitoring trends
Encourages proactive behavior to maintain validation state
Meeting minutes, action logs
Lagging
Reduction in human errors during requalification
Validates effectiveness of training/behavioral controls
Training records, deviation reports
This framework operationalizes a focus on data-driven, science-based programs while closing gaps cited in recent Warning Letters.
Goals vs. OKRs: Alignment with Metrics
Goals are broad, aspirational targets (e.g., “Improve product quality”). OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) break goals into actionable, measurable components:
Objective: Reduce manufacturing defects.
Key Results:
Decrease batch rejection rate from 5% to 2% (lagging KPI).
Train 100% of production staff on updated protocols by Q2 (leading KPI).
Reduce repeat deviations by 30% (lagging KRI).
KPIs, KRIs, and KBIs operationalize OKRs by quantifying progress and risks. For instance, a leading KRI like “number of open CAPAs” (Corrective and Preventive Actions) informs whether the OKR to reduce defects is on track.
More Pharmaceutical Quality System Examples
Leading Metrics
KPI: Percentage of staff completing GMP training (predicts adherence to quality standards).
KRI: Number of unresolved deviations in the CAPA system (predicts compliance risks).
KBI: Daily equipment calibration checks (predicts fewer production errors).
Lagging Metrics
KPI: Batch rejection rate due to contamination (confirms quality failures).
KRI: Regulatory audit findings (reflects past non-compliance).
KBI: Employee turnover in quality assurance roles (indicates cultural or procedural issues).
Metric Type
Purpose
Leading Example
Lagging Example
KPI
Measure performance outcomes
Training completion rate
Quarterly profit margin
KRI
Monitor risks
Open CAPAs
Regulatory violations
KBI
Track employee behaviors
Safety protocol adherence frequency
Employee turnover rate
Building Effective Metrics
Align with Strategy: Ensure metrics tie to Quality System goals. For OKRs, select KPIs/KRIs that directly map to key results.
Balance Leading and Lagging: Use leading indicators to drive proactive adjustments and lagging indicators to validate outcomes.
Pharmaceutical Focus: In quality systems, prioritize metrics like right-first-time rate (leading KPI) and repeat deviation rate (lagging KRI) to balance prevention and accountability.
By integrating KPIs, KRIs, and KBIs into OKRs, organizations create a feedback loop that connects daily actions to long-term success while mitigating risks. This approach transforms abstract goals into measurable, actionable pathways—a critical advantage in regulated industries like pharmaceuticals.
Understanding these distinctions empowers teams to not only track performance but also shape it proactively, ensuring alignment with both immediate priorities and strategic vision.