"Key", in what sense "key"? There needs to be a good reason. Just applying the label is not good progress.<p>(1) To go to the trouble to measure something and publicize it to employees, investors, etc., first need a good reason for measuring that something. E.g., why do we measure MPG, MPH, engine temperature, time since last oil change, ..., unemployment rate, labor participation rate, economic growth rate, inflation rate, prime rate, money supply, balance of payments, mortgage default rate, federal budget deficit/surplus? For each of these, and jointly for several of them, we have good reasons, from owning a car to macroeconomics.<p>(2) When we seek to measure something, we should be clear on what in principle we are trying to measure and, then, pay due attention to the accuracy of our measurements, e.g., reliability and validity.<p>The OP ignored (1) and (2).<p>My wife, Ph.D. in mathematical sociology, understood reliability and validity and much more. Similarly for my brother, Ph.D. in political science. The social sciences are such <i>indefinite</i> fields that they have to be careful about what they are measuring, why, what the measurements mean, and the accuracy.<p>As a graduate student, Ph.D. in applied math, I understood reliability and validity, and at least several, likely nearly all, my fellow graduate students and faculty did also.<p>The OP is by a VC who wants "warm introductions". Well, likely the people he knows don't know about reliability or validity, and the people I know do. So, we won't have colleagues in common with no possibility of a "warm introduction" in either direction. E.g., one of my dissertation advisors was later President at CMU. I'm sure he knew about reliability and validity, but it sounds like we couldn't get a "warm introduction" via him in either direction. The Chair of my Ph.D. orals committee was a Member, US National Academy of Engineering, and I'm sure he knew about reliability and validity; same problem, not much chance of an introduction!<p>Uh, the author of the OP is interested in "huge ideas". Hmm .... From people who don't know about reliability and validity? How about measure preserving in ergodic theory and applications to machine learning and computer security?<p>My startup is supposed to be of high interest to nearly everyone on the Internet -- "huge" enough? But to evaluate the work, need to dig into and evaluate the crucial, core, original applied math <i>secret sauce</i> based on some advanced pure math prerequisites -- the OP author is qualified to evaluate such work?<p>In what sense is he really interested in and able to evaluate or work with "huge ideas"?<p>Or, if he invests and we have our first BoD meeting and his big contribution is to insist that we allocate time, money, and effort to lining the walls with big video screens with "key performance indicators" changing in real time, uh, to "motivate" the employees? Uh, might we have a study of the effect on the employees, motivate them, distract them, or irritate them? My <i>a priori</i> guess -- at best another case of the Hawthorne effect<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect</a>