The problem this solves
Reporting grows by accretion: every question spawns a report, dashboards get cloned and drift apart, the same metric shows three different values in three places, and executives export everything to spreadsheets because they trust nothing in the portal. The root cause is usually structural: reports built on properties and processes that never reliably captured the data the report pretends to show.
How we work
We start from audiences and questions: what each group, from executives to team leads to individual contributors, needs to answer and at what rhythm. The views differ by the decisions being made, not just by level of detail.
Each dashboard and report then gets specified: the metric, ideally from your KPI framework, the visualization, filters, and drill paths, and critically the data source mapping: which properties, objects, and process steps must exist and be reliably filled for the number to be true. Where the data does not support the report, that becomes an explicit data requirement instead of a silent inaccuracy.
The design closes with cleanup and governance: which existing reports get retired, naming conventions, ownership, and change rules, so the architecture survives its first quarter of real use.
Deliverables
- Audience and question map
- Dashboard inventory with per-report specifications
- Data source and property mapping per metric
- Data gap list with remediation requirements
- Report retirement list
- Naming, ownership, and change governance rules