Problems it solves

Every one of these is a decision nobody was asked to make

Businesses with 50 to 1,000 people tend to arrive at the same five situations. None of them is a technology problem, which is why buying more technology does not fix them. Here is what each one is really about, and what changes.

Illustration: a noticeboard covered in blank notes, with one red note in the middle.

Problem 1

Two reports, two numbers, and a meeting stops to argue

Revenue in the sales dashboard does not match revenue in the finance pack. Both are "right". They were built by different people, from different extracts, with different rules about returns, intercompany and timing, and none of those rules is written down anywhere but inside the files.

What it is really about: nobody owns the definition. Not the report, the definition. Until one person is accountable for what "revenue" means and where the trusted version lives, every new report adds a tenth definition.

What changes

Every dataset and report in a register, with a named owner who is accountable for what it means
Trust tiers with written criteria, so "the one you report from" is a fact rather than an opinion
A promotion rule: nothing becomes the trusted version without someone approving it
A place analysts go to find the current version before they build another one

See it: the register and trust tiers.

Problem 2

One person's annual leave delays reporting

There is one analyst, or one finance manager, or one IT lead, who knows which source is current, why that report exists, which depot figures are estimates, and where the spreadsheet that corrects the dashboard lives. When they are away, month-end slips. When they resign, the notice period becomes the deadline for writing down everything they know.

What it is really about: succession. What that person knows is an asset the business does not hold. Writing it down is not a nice-to-have; it is the only way the knowledge survives them.

What changes

One record per dataset holding everything the analyst knows: source, owner, steward, sensitivity, retention, who consumes it, which procedures apply
Written procedures for the things that only they knew how to do, with a named role per step
A responsibility matrix so cover is a decision made in advance, not a scramble
Role-based training, so the next person is not learning from a leaver's inbox

See it: the procedures and roles.

Problem 3

Fabric or AWS, and a partner already pushing one

Reporting off live systems is slowing them down at month-end. Someone has proposed a data platform. Three implementation partners will give you a platform opinion for free, and each is confident. What none of them will do is tell you who should own each dataset once it lands, what "trusted enough to report on" means for you, or how long you must keep inspection records.

What it is really about: the order. Those decisions are about your business, not your cloud. Agreed before the build, they make the build smaller and the platform choice easier. Retrofitted after it, you are asking a partner to guess on everything they migrated.

What changes

The platform-independent decisions — ownership, tiers, sensitivity, retention, approvals, definitions — agreed and recorded before a line of pipeline is written
A capability map showing, for Fabric and for AWS, what the platform covers natively and what still needs a human decision
An operating model that survives the decision: switch the tab from Fabric to AWS and the right-hand column is identical
No platform recommendation from us. We do not need to know which to be useful.

See it: Fabric or AWS?

Problem 4

A customer, a lender or an auditor asks you to show how a number was produced

A new owner wants a reporting pack you have to stand behind. A carve-out has a date on which the parent's IT stops. A customer's due-diligence questionnaire asks who approves access to their data. You can probably reconstruct the answer. You cannot show it.

What it is really about: evidence. "We have a process" is a claim. Who changed a classification, from what to what, when, and on whose authority is a record. Only one of them survives a review.

What changes

An append-only audit trail of every decision, field-level and attributed to a person. The application has no edit or delete path; every change writes a new event.
Exports in open formats, so what you hand to a reviewer is yours whether or not you stay a customer
A one-page executive summary for the board pack, generated from current state
On the Enterprise plan, control mapping against a framework catalogue and quarterly evidence snapshots

See it: evidence and reporting.

Problem 5

You built the platform, and it is quietly turning into a swamp

Every source got copied in, because nobody could say no to one. There are three versions of the same table and no rule about which is current. People have stopped trusting it and gone back to their own extracts. You are running spreadsheets again, on top of a platform you pay for.

What it is really about: nobody chooses a swamp. It is what happens when no one is empowered to say no. The fix is not a bigger platform; it is a small number of rules, and someone whose job it is to apply them.

Illustration: on the left, a tangle of unlabelled boxes joined by crossing lines; on the right, the same boxes in tidy columns, each rising through three stages to a ticked box at the top. — Illustration · the same data, two years apart

Everything went in

— Every source gets copied in, because nobody can say no to one
— Three versions of the same table, and no rule about which is current
— People stop trusting it and go back to their own extracts
— You are running spreadsheets again, on top of a platform you pay for

What changes

Nothing lands without a named owner against it
Written criteria for what "trusted enough to report on" means
Promotion between tiers needs somebody to approve it
A health score that drops when something slips, and a review each month that catches it

The ladder everyone climbs

Most businesses your size are on rung one or two

Where you are on this decides which problem above is yours. Rung five is for businesses with an external auditor on their back; most your size never need it.

0Reporting off live systemsReports slow the system at month-endWhat you'd have: a report register

1The analyst estateTwo reports, two numbersWhat you'd have: a named owner per model

2A copy landing zone"Which folder is current?"What you'd have: trust tiers and retention

3An engineered platform"Who said this was ready?"What you'd have: promotion rules and a responsibility matrix

4Run as a processIt slips and nobody noticesWhat you'd have: health checks and training

5Provable to outsiders—What you'd have: evidence and exports

Why this year and not next

What's forcing the timing?

Diagnosis without a date produces agreement, and agreement is not a decision. Nearly every business that does this has one of these on the calendar.

Separation

You are being carved out, and the parent's IT stops on a date.

Replacement

A new ERP or finance system lands, and reporting is "included".

New owners

A buyer, a lender or a board now wants a pack you have to stand behind.

Departure

The person who holds it all resigns, and the notice period is the deadline.

Evidence

A customer or an auditor asks you to show how a number was produced.

Tell us which one is yours Who this is for

The first step costs you nothing

Forty-five minutes with whoever runs your reporting

We tell you honestly whether this is worth doing at all, and roughly what it would take. If the answer is not yet, you will hear that. "Not for us" is a fine outcome, and a better one than a slow maybe.

Request a demo Is it for us?