by Elisabeth Girgis-McEwen

When BC Housing asked me to speak about change leadership, I faced a familiar challenge: how do you measure progress when the path forward isn’t predictable? Construction professionals know this tension well : balancing immediate needs with the long-term, and working across sectors that don’t always speak the same language.

This week’s conversation at the MBAR roundtable (Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) | BC Housing) ranged widely in approach: structured results pyramid, community consensus and personal sense-making. Each has its value. I chose to speak about why we in the BPiBS project are putting energy into learning KPIs.

Traditional KPIs have long served me well. When I first led a project and program management office, they gave clarity and accountability. Activities led to outputs, outputs to outcomes, outcomes to impact. That chain works for well-bounded projects. But the housing system is not a tidy chain. It is a shifting landscape.

The reality is: change is not easy. It means balancing priorities, stepping outside comfort zones, and moving forward even when the way isn’t clear. In my own work, this has meant championing the environment as a building code objective, drawing attention to under-representation in design, and supporting reconciliation through First Nations’ self-determination in asset decisions. None of these were in a plan, but each became possible by paying attention in the quiet moments, asking what would truly move the work, and trusting the skills and support around me.

BPiBS exists to mobilize best practice knowledge. The project is not a regulatory effort. It does not force actors to collaborate. Instead, it helps knowledge move across domains so the simplest path forward becomes more visible—even when it isn’t the easiest.

Best practices in context

Best practices are not minimum rules or obligations. They spread because they prove useful. A practice may shine in one setting, yet carry impacts that make it unsuitable for broad uptake.

This makes best practices different from standards. Standards provide consistency. Best practices encourage adaptation. Ground-breaking findings are fascinating and inspiring but often were possible because of herculean efforts or a unique gift. Each have their place, but it is the flexible, contextual nature of best practices that BPiBS is designed to support.

Why learning KPIs

The question then becomes: how do we measure progress in such a space? Not by dropping accountability but by tracking whether we are actually learning. Learning KPIs give the team permission to pause, reflect, and redirect. The KPIs highlight when knowledge is being captured and applied in other domains, and when apparent progress hides missed chances. They remind us that some things are within our control, and some are not—but learning always is. That learning we hope will establish a space where, informed by multiple contexts, knowledge becomes wisdom.

Here’s how this looks in practice:

BPiBS has four project objective pillars. Each has several learning KPIs. Below are some examples:

1. Cross-Sector Collaboration – Indigenous and communities’ co-creation. We track how well team members apply Cultural awareness, safety and humility (CASH) principles of humility and cultural awareness in outreach. This shows our growth on reconciliation paths. It keeps engagement resource-aware and practical rather than a paper exercise.
2. Practitioner-driven change – Tacit knowledge capture. Builders and practitioners often hold knowledge that never makes it into policies. With our CIV tool we test whether academic findings can be connected with “field wisdom” from listening sessions. This helps us see if practices are truly transferable and aligned with practitioner realities, constraints and or urgency.
3. System transformation – Digital Innovation Integration Speed. We monitor the options we explore and how quickly we adapt or create protocols when new tools, such as AI elements or data platforms, are worth integrating. This helps the project stay agile and record why each choice was made.
4. Rapid scaling – Contextual adaptation. We track our ability to examine practices through different lenses – and soon will adjust the roadmaps accordingly. A solution proven in one setting may not work elsewhere: urban and rural, social and economic, etc.. This shows whether we’re learning to scale responsibly, not just quickly.

Learning KPIs don’t replace traditional metrics. They sharpen them. They give us space to ask: are we wiser now than at the start? Canada’s housing challenges demand approaches that adapt as we learn, and honest measurement of that learning may be our most practical tool.

If you’re working in housing and finding traditional metrics insufficient, consider exploring learning KPIs in your own context. Connect with BPiBS by leaving a comment or reaching out to a team member to learn more about their work.