01Comparison
Keep the reference visible.
Baselines, reporting periods and targets appear beside the measures they explain. The reader can distinguish a historical result from a future objective.
Leadership dashboards · Case study
Put performance
in perspective.
Leadership and departmental sustainability dashboards for a leading financial-services group.
An executive view of performance, with the targets, comparison periods and reporting detail kept close.
- The work
- Dashboard structure and presentation
- The reporting basis
- Defined periods, baselines and targets
- The reporting register
- 54 targets across 12 departments and functions
The leadership view
Bring the measures
and their context together.
The pack gave leadership two distinct views: performance against commitments, and the completeness of the evidence used to assess it. A missing return from a department could therefore be examined separately from a missed target.
The structure of the work
Leadership questions, made visible
- 01
Where are we?
The current result, its unit and reporting period.
- 02
What changed?
A meaningful baseline or comparison.
- 03
What needs attention?
The target, exception and management response.
01 / Selected work
A common view.
Distinct measures.
Board diversity, financial literacy, digital service and data-breach indicators sit within a shared layout. Each retains its own unit, comparison period and reference point.
The reporting register brought 54 targets across 12 departments and functions into one leadership view. It distinguished reported and unreported measures, identified the responsible stakeholders and recorded collection challenges. These figures describe the programme covered by the pack, not targets already achieved.
The reporting basis
Make the basis
as clear as the result.
A leadership pack must support questions about the information behind it. This pack gives comparisons, reporting coverage and responsibility a defined place.
02Coverage
Show the state of reporting.
A separate register records what has been reported, what remains outstanding and the collection challenges. Reporting completeness has its own place in the review.
03Responsibility
Connect the measure to its owner.
The reporting register and target tables identify responsible stakeholders, giving follow-up questions a clear destination within the organisation.
Departmental detail
Turn a reporting gap
into a defined follow-up.
The contribution was a review structure that made both performance and gaps in the evidence visible.
Leadership could move from the summary to the relevant department, see the comparison period and target, and identify who needed to supply or explain a measure. The pack also distinguished manual collection, processes still being established and measures whose reporting basis needed clarification. Follow-up could begin with a specific information problem and an accountable team.
The period matters.
A complete reporting period, an interim update and a future target were labelled separately. That distinction gave the review a clearer basis for questioning progress; it did not turn incomplete data into a performance conclusion.
The structure of the work
The detail behind the overview
- 01
Define
A clear measure, boundary and calculation basis.
- 02
Explain
Operating context and the reason for a movement.
- 03
Assign
A responsible owner and follow-up action.
Start a conversation