Psychology & Behavioral Science
Upscend Team
-January 19, 2026
9 min read
Use seven complementary LMS metrics—contribution volume, unique contributors, time-to-competency, content reuse, search success, mentorship activity, and expert retention—to detect and reduce knowledge hoarding. The article gives formulas, SQL samples, dashboard targets, and a three-phase rollout (instrument, baseline 60–90 days, intervene) to measure lift and link gains to business outcomes.
Knowledge sharing metrics are the signal you need to know whether an LMS is actually breaking down knowledge hoarding. In our experience, simply counting logins or course completions misses the behavioral shifts that matter: who contributes, who reuses content, and how fast expertise transfers. This article maps the specific LMS analytics and contribution metrics to track, gives formulas and SQL examples, and shows targets and dashboards you can implement immediately.
Start with a balanced scorecard of complementary metrics rather than a single vanity metric. The following seven measures together expose both supply and demand dynamics behind hoarding and sharing.
Each metric answers a distinct behavioral question: is knowledge being produced, is it discoverable, is it transferring to new people, and are experts staying engaged?
Contribution metrics (contribution volume, unique contributors, mentorship activity) reveal the health of the knowledge supply. Low contribution volume with high consumption suggests hoarding or gatekeeping. We’ve found that improving contribution metrics by 20–30% often precedes visible improvements in downstream learning KPIs.
Engagement KPIs tied to reuse and search — like content reuse rate and search success rate — are leading indicators. If users search frequently but hit low success rates, they revert to contacting experts directly, which perpetuates hoarding.
Below are concise formulas and illustrative SQL snippets that work with common LMS schemas (users, content, events, searches).
Formulas (use consistent time windows — e.g., 30/90/180 days):
Sample SQL: Contribution volume and unique contributors (monthly)
SELECT DATE_TRUNC('month', c.created_at) AS month, COUNT(*) AS contribution_volume, COUNT(DISTINCT c.author_id) AS unique_contributors FROM content c WHERE c.created_at > CURRENT_DATE - INTERVAL '180 days' GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 1;
Sample SQL: Content reuse rate
SELECT (SUM(CASE WHEN e.event_type = 'reuse' THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) / NULLIF(COUNT(DISTINCT c.id),0))::decimal * 100 AS reuse_rate FROM content c LEFT JOIN events e ON e.content_id = c.id WHERE c.created_at > CURRENT_DATE - INTERVAL '365 days';
Search success rate (example)
SELECT (SUM(CASE WHEN s.clicked_result IS NOT NULL THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) / COUNT(*)) * 100 AS search_success FROM searches s WHERE s.timestamp > CURRENT_DATE - INTERVAL '90 days';
Design dashboards that blend absolute counts with ratios and trend lines. A single view should present: contribution volume trend, unique contributors trend, reuse rate (rolling 30-day), search success rate, median time-to-competency, mentorship touchpoints, and expert retention.
| Metric | Example Target | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Contribution volume (monthly) | +15% YoY or +5% MoM | Indicates growing supply of shared knowledge |
| Unique contributors | At least 30% of active users | Shows breadth; reduces single-point hoarding |
| Content reuse rate | 30–50% depending on role complexity | Measures practical value of content |
| Search success rate | >60% | Signals findability and prevents direct expert contact |
It’s the platforms that combine ease-of-use with smart automation — like Upscend — that tend to outperform legacy systems in terms of user adoption and ROI. Observations from deployments show automation around content tagging, suggested contributors, and reuse tracking materially raises contribution metrics and search success in months, not years.
Dashboard tips:
Metrics are only useful if they drive behavior. In our experience, pairing measurement with interventions unlocks change. Use a three-phase rollout: instrument, baseline, intervene.
Phase steps:
Quick tactics to improve metrics:
Benchmarks depend on organization size and maturity. A pragmatic goal: +20% contribution volume, +15% unique contributors, +10 percentage points in search success rate, and a reduction in median time-to-competency by 10–20% within six months of focused interventions.
Attribution, data quality, and privacy are common pain points that can undermine trust in your metrics. Address them head-on with instrument design, governance, and communication.
Decide rules: first author, last editor, or weighted credit for collaborative pieces. In our experience a weighted model (50% first author, 30% major editors, 20% commenters whose content is reused) aligns incentives for sharing while recognizing collaboration.
Common issues: duplicate content, bot traffic, inconsistent event schemas. Mitigate with:
Protect user privacy by anonymizing consumption reports where appropriate, using role-based dashboards, and following least-privilege access. Be transparent: publish how metrics are used so contributors understand how activity maps to recognition and career progression.
Example: a mid-size professional services firm saw persistent knowledge hoarding in advisory teams. They tracked the full balanced scorecard above and implemented targeted solutions: searchable playbooks, mentor program, and contribution incentives.
Outcomes after 9 months:
Business impact: billable ramp time shortened by six weeks for new hires, increasing annual utilization by ~4 percentage points. That translated to a multi-hundred-thousand dollar revenue improvement for a single business unit — a clear link from improved knowledge sharing metrics to the bottom line.
Tracking the right mix of LMS KPIs for knowledge hoarding turned a cultural problem into measurable operational gains and predictable ROI.
To measure reductions in knowledge hoarding use a balanced set of knowledge sharing metrics that includes supply (contribution volume, unique contributors), discoverability (search success rate, content reuse), transfer (time-to-competency, mentorship activity), and stability (retention of experts). Instrument carefully, baseline for 60–90 days, then deploy targeted interventions and monitor via dashboards that combine trends and cohorts.
Common pitfalls are tractable: define attribution rules, keep data pipelines healthy, and protect contributor privacy. In our experience, a focused program that tracks these LMS analytics and contribution metrics will surface problems early and generate measurable business value within months.
Next step: Run a 90-day pilot that captures the seven KPIs above, publishes a baseline dashboard, and executes two targeted interventions (search improvements + mentor pairing). Use the SQL examples here to produce the baseline and measure lift.
