Introduction Kerzner (2013) publicizes some a coherent case study that focuses on a Research and Development company. Using the case study, the author reveals the loss incurred by the company due to poor implementation and subsequent failure of various projects. Importantly, he points out that the detrimental performance of the project was not reported during the duration of implementation. Essentially, this was partly caused by the lack of considering the correct and enough number of metrics. As such, the Research and Development Company lost about twenty four million US dollars due to the mismanagement of the projects. Whereas this situation prevailed, it is evident that the loss would have been prevented or mitigated if the managers had employed highly accurate systems of tracking performance. In this regard, the author indicated that the biggest challenge was the inclusion of metrics that focused on the financial aspects alone and disregarded the value-based factors. This scenario triggers the author to propose the necessity of coming up with other metrics that would ensure the communication and representation of the true project status. In this light,, therefore a committee comprising of departmental representatives was convened to discuss the concern of misreporting. Based on these findings and the case study, this paper will discuss the risks of using either many or few metrics. It will also contain a filled table of according to the Exhibit III as represented by Kerzner (2013) at the end of the case study. Risks Reporting Many Metrics Essentially, reporting many metrics comes with inherent risks and drawbacks that may affect the effectiveness and status of a project. These risks include organizational, logistical, and collaborative challenges. Firstly, when the managers seek to report on many metrics, they destabilize the employees and make them uncomfortable in doing their work. Essentially, increasing the number of metrics implies that employees will be evaluated in potentially many dimensions and parameters. This means that the personnel might feel over-supervised. This sense of over-supervision leads to lack of self-drive, feeling of intimidation, and low confidence. In addition to this, the employees might misconceive the assessment of the project and interpret it to the effect that the managers are spying on them (Heagney 2012). In turn, this creates conflict and instability between the management and the employees due to employee resistance and reduced trust between the two parties. Secondly, the use of too many metrics leads to the loss of precious time because the team has to assess each of the employees in relation to each of the parameters. As such, the project management team might end up consuming time for implementation of strategies due to prolonged durations of measuring performance (Heldman 2011). Of course, using a reasonable number of metrics would provide a balance between assessment of progress and the actual implementation of the project plan (Collins 2011). In that regard, therefore, it is rational to conclude that the number of metrics and the time used to respond to them must be compromised with the completion of other project undertakings because they are