Impact measurement has always promised truth — an evidence-backed way to show the difference between what we believe we’re achieving and what’s actually changing for people and communities. But somewhere along the way, that promise got tangled in translation. Standard frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and IRIS+ were designed to unify global understanding of impact. Yet for thousands of mission-driven organizations, those same frameworks often feel like the wrong fit — too broad to reflect their reality, too rigid to guide day-to-day improvement.
At the other end of the spectrum, custom metrics offer flexibility and local relevance. They allow each organization to define its own version of success. But when every actor measures differently, comparability vanishes. Funders can’t see patterns across portfolios, and policy teams struggle to aggregate learnings at scale.
This is the central tension in modern impact measurement:
How do we balance comparability with learning?
How do we create metrics that are both defensible and useful?
The stakes are no longer theoretical. According to the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN), over 75% of investors now report using the SDGs to frame impact reporting, yet only 29% express confidence in the quality and consistency of the data they receive. Meanwhile, the United Nations’ own SDG Progress Report shows that fewer than one in five SDG targets are currently on track worldwide. In short: the world is measuring more than ever, but learning less.
That’s why the question isn’t just which framework to adopt, but how to make measurement meaningful again.
Sopact’s CTO Madhukar Prabhakara, writing in Pioneers Post earlier this year, described the problem succinctly:
“Your programmes are personal — shaped by context, culture, and constraint — and yet, we keep thinking impact measurement should be standardised. The question is not ‘Which framework?’ but ‘What problem are we trying to solve?’”
It’s a quiet revolution in thinking — one that turns the old hierarchy of “standard = good, custom = weak” on its head.
This article explores that shift: why standard metrics matter, where they fall short, and how custom metrics can restore clarity and purpose without abandoning comparability. Using workforce development as a concrete example, it will show how organizations can build measurement systems that speak both languages — the shared syntax of standards and the nuanced storytelling of context.
By the end, you’ll have a practical understanding of how to integrate the two in your own reporting — not as competing philosophies, but as complementary forces in a single evidence ecosystem.
Standard metrics are like global currencies. They exist so that impact can be compared, aggregated, and benchmarked. A standard metric — such as “jobs created,” “students completing secondary education,” or “tons of CO₂ avoided” — allows investors, policymakers, and researchers to speak a common language.
The logic is straightforward: if every organization measures impact differently, the ecosystem can’t tell whether progress is being made overall. Standardization promises consistency. It creates what economists call “information efficiency” — less noise, more signal.
But that efficiency often comes at a cost. Standard metrics flatten complexity. They erase context.
Custom metrics, on the other hand, are the opposite. They reflect local definitions of success. A youth program in rural Uganda might define “employability” differently from a coding bootcamp in California. Both operate under the umbrella of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), but the mechanisms that drive change — confidence, access to tools, language proficiency, social capital — differ radically.
This is the dilemma that has shaped two decades of impact measurement practice. We crave the comfort of standardization, but the richness of change lies in specificity.
The rise of standard metrics came from good intentions — and clear need. Funders and policymakers wanted a way to make sense of fragmented reports. Investors wanted to compare portfolio performance. Academic researchers wanted to build evidence bases.
Systems like IRIS+, developed by the Global Impact Investing Network, and the SDG Indicator Framework were milestones in this evolution. They created structured taxonomies and global reference points.
The benefits are real:
Without these shared systems, the impact ecosystem risks becoming an incoherent patchwork of self-defined success stories.
But the cracks in this logic appear when standards become too detached from real-world learning.
Standard metrics measure what happened, not why. They tell us outcomes, but rarely capture the mechanisms behind them.
A nonprofit might report that 1,000 people completed job training (IRIS+ PI2387), but not whether those jobs matched participants’ aspirations, paid livable wages, or contributed to long-term career growth.
This lack of granularity leads to what Sopact’s CTO calls “compliance theatre” — when organizations optimize for checkbox reporting rather than genuine understanding.
There’s also the equity problem. Standard metrics assume all participants start from roughly the same baseline. In reality, access, privilege, and systemic barriers vary enormously. Two people achieving the same “employment” outcome might have taken completely different journeys — one overcoming severe discrimination or economic hardship, another transitioning smoothly through existing networks.
Without contextual fields or custom rubrics, those distinctions vanish.
Finally, standardization often stifles innovation. When reporting frameworks lock in definitions too tightly, organizations fear experimentation — because novel outcomes don’t fit cleanly into existing boxes.
Custom metrics reintroduce humanity into measurement. They are designed around usefulness rather than universality.
A well-crafted custom metric captures something you can act on. It could be a qualitative signal (“I feel confident applying to jobs”) or a process measure (“average time from training completion to first job offer”).
Custom metrics are particularly powerful for:
The risk, of course, is fragmentation. If every organization uses its own metrics, how do we compare progress or aggregate across portfolios?
That’s where the real innovation lies — not in choosing between standard and custom metrics, but in building structured bridges between them.
At Sopact, we’ve learned that the solution isn’t to abandon standards, but to make them smarter.
The bridge between standard and custom metrics begins with clean-at-source data — that is, data that’s collected correctly the first time, linked to a unique participant ID, and updated continuously rather than annually.
When each record is traceable, every qualitative and quantitative piece of evidence can be triangulated.
Consider this structure:
Together, these fields turn a metric from a number into a story.
When you collect data this way — continuously, consistently, and linked by ID — custom metrics can roll up to standards automatically. That’s the essence of Sopact’s clean-at-source approach. You get both learning and comparability, without duplicating effort.
Let’s see how this plays out in the real world.
Imagine two workforce development organizations: one based in rural India, the other in Chicago. Both train underemployed youth for entry-level tech jobs.
Each reports to funders under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and IRIS+ Employment Quality metrics. On paper, their results are identical:
That sounds like success. But the local context tells a different story.
In India, many graduates are first-generation tech workers. For them, the real breakthrough isn’t just job placement — it’s confidence to apply, family support, and access to remote work infrastructure. These aren’t measured by standard KPIs.
In Chicago, most participants already had basic digital literacy but lacked professional networks. There, the meaningful shift was in mentorship engagement and job retention beyond six months.
If both organizations stick strictly to standard metrics, those nuances disappear. If they rely only on custom metrics, the data can’t be aggregated or benchmarked.
The solution: hybridization.
Each organization defines 2–3 custom learning metrics that explain the why behind their outcomes, and maps those to relevant standard shells for external reporting.
For example:
This blend creates what we call an evidence-linked outcome story — a narrative that can be trusted by both the funder and the field practitioner.
In theory, standardization was meant to solve trust. In practice, it often just moved the problem upstream.
Recent research from KPMG found that 64% of institutional investors now view sustainability reporting as inconsistent or unreliable. Another study by PwC showed that nearly 90% of executives worry about “impact inflation” — inflated claims unsupported by primary data.
In other words, the more standardized the field became, the less trusted the numbers were.
That’s because checklists can’t replace evidence. A “job created” means nothing unless it’s tied to real people, real changes, and real proof.
Clean, custom data — linked back to standardized shells — restores that trust. It doesn’t require abandoning global frameworks. It just means using them as containers for verified, context-aware information.
The best organizations use metrics not as compliance tools but as learning engines.
In the workforce example above, the combination of standard and custom fields allows for something powerful: pattern recognition.
If confidence scores rise before placement rates do, the program knows it’s improving the right early-stage mechanism. If wage growth stagnates despite higher completion rates, the issue may lie in market linkage, not training quality.
These insights come only when you merge standard outcomes with custom drivers, and when your data flows cleanly enough to see the connections.
That’s why Sopact’s system links each story — each quote, file, or number — back to its source evidence in real time. The result isn’t a static report but a living feedback loop.
A useful metaphor is the human body. Standard metrics are like vital signs — heart rate, blood pressure, temperature. They tell us whether the system is functioning. Custom metrics are like lifestyle and history — what the patient eats, where they live, how they sleep.
You need both for a complete diagnosis.
When funders ask for standard metrics, they’re seeking comparability and accountability. When practitioners design custom metrics, they’re seeking understanding and improvement.
The mature measurement ecosystem no longer treats those needs as conflicting. It treats them as sequential. You start with learning, then aggregate for accountability.
To implement this balance, organizations should focus less on the frameworks themselves and more on data design principles:
[ID/date/source] so qualitative data remains auditable.With these foundations, custom data naturally aggregates into standard frameworks without losing meaning.
A 2023 report by the UN Statistics Division noted that “standardized indicators are necessary for coherence but insufficient for behavioral insight.” In other words, metrics can describe what’s happening, but not how to fix it.
This is particularly evident in sectors like workforce development. Global employment metrics have improved modestly since 2015, but job quality and stability haven’t kept pace. Standard frameworks capture headcounts; they miss precarity.
A youth may be “employed” but earning below living wage, or working in unsafe conditions. Unless custom metrics track confidence, safety, hours worked, or satisfaction, the true picture remains hidden.
That’s why Sopact’s methodology — integrating qualitative intelligence with quantitative indicators — is becoming the default for organizations that care about real learning.
There’s a misconception that custom metrics equal chaos — a free-for-all of anecdotes and unverified quotes. In reality, custom metrics can be rigorously designed.
They follow the same discipline as quantitative measures: consistency, sample size, validity, and auditability. The difference is that their design starts from purpose, not template.
A custom metric might ask:
Each response can be coded into themes, scored on scales, and tracked longitudinally. Over time, these signals reveal mechanisms of change that standard metrics never capture.
AI-driven platforms like Sopact Sense make this integration practical. By tagging each data point — survey, document, or quote — with a unique identifier and time stamp, the platform allows metrics to be aggregated, compared, and analyzed in real time.
An evaluator can see:
This isn’t just storytelling — it’s structured, verifiable knowledge. And it collapses what once took months of manual reconciliation into minutes.
For years, the sector equated credibility with external validation — third-party audits, certifications, or adherence to global lists. Today, credibility comes from transparency and traceability.
When organizations can show where each number or quote came from, they no longer need to rely solely on outside authorities for legitimacy.
That’s why combining standard metrics (for comparability) with custom evidence (for transparency) represents the next evolution in impact measurement. It allows every stakeholder — from funders to participants — to verify the same story from their own lens.
As data systems mature, the distinction between standard and custom metrics will blur. Standards will become more adaptive, and customs will become more structured.
We’ll see AI-assisted frameworks that suggest best-fit mappings between local metrics and global indicators, while preserving narrative context. Organizations will spend less time translating and more time interpreting.
But no algorithm can replace the human decision of what matters.
That’s why the future isn’t about choosing between SDGs and local rubrics. It’s about building measurement cultures that stay curious — continuously refining what they measure based on who they serve.
In that sense, customization isn’t a rebellion against standardization; it’s its natural evolution.
Impact work has always been about more than numbers. The goal isn’t to fill dashboards, but to understand how change happens and how to make it equitable and sustainable.
Standard metrics keep the field coherent. Custom metrics keep it honest.
Used together — connected by clean data, continuous feedback, and evidence-linked storytelling — they turn impact measurement from an administrative burden into a strategic asset.
And that’s how real learning happens: when numbers meet narratives, and both are trusted.
.webp)
