Analytics and reporting
Reporting is only worth building if it changes what someone does. We start from the decisions your team makes on a regular cadence, and build the smallest thing that makes those decisions better informed.
Forty dashboards, none of them trusted
Every request produced another dashboard, each with a slightly different definition of the same metric. Now nobody is sure which one is right, meetings begin with an argument about whose number is correct, and the important decisions get made on the basis of a spreadsheet someone maintains privately.
You’ll recognise this if
- Meetings start by reconciling two versions of the same figure
- Dashboards exist that nobody has opened in months
- Key decisions rest on a manually maintained spreadsheet
- Every new question requires an analyst and several days
What we actually deliver
Metric definitions agreed and documented
One definition of revenue, of an active customer, of a completed order — written down, agreed across teams, and implemented once so every report inherits it.
Dashboards built around decisions
A small number of views tied to actual recurring decisions, designed so the answer is visible without configuring anything. Fewer, better-used dashboards beat comprehensive coverage.
Self-serve for the routine questions
Structured so common follow-up questions can be answered by the person asking them, which is what stops the analyst queue from becoming the bottleneck.
Trust indicators on every view
When the data last refreshed, whether the underlying tests passed, and what the numbers exclude. A dashboard that hides its own staleness gets abandoned the first time it misleads someone.
The way we approach it
Start from the meeting
We ask what gets decided, how often, and on what basis today. Reporting built from a list of requested charts serves nobody; reporting built from decisions gets used.
Settle definitions before building
Most reporting disputes are definitional rather than technical. Getting the argument over with early, in a room, is faster than discovering it repeatedly in charts.
Retire aggressively
Part of the engagement is turning off what nobody uses. A smaller set of trusted views is worth far more than comprehensive coverage nobody believes.
What changes
- One agreed definition per metric, implemented in one place
- Meetings that begin from the numbers rather than about them
- Routine questions answered without an analyst in the loop
- Visible freshness, so nobody acts on stale figures unknowingly
Asked often enough to answer here
Which BI tool do you work with?
The mainstream ones, and generally whichever you already have. Tool choice matters much less than whether the underlying model and metric definitions are sound — a good model looks fine in any of them.
Can you work with our existing warehouse?
Yes. Most engagements of this kind build on infrastructure that already exists rather than replacing it. If something underneath genuinely blocks the work, we will show you exactly what and why.
Do you train our team to build their own reports?
Yes, and it is usually part of the scope. The goal is that routine reporting stops needing us — we would rather your team extend the model themselves than hold a queue open.
Related
Wherever you’re starting from, let’s figure out the next step.
Tell us what you’re building — we’ll tell you honestly whether we’re the right team for it.