Rebuilding board-ready pipeline reporting when the numbers on the deck were never the same twice

The problem

The play

1. 1
   Start from the audience, not the data

   The revenue leader circulated the reporting requirement to the full executive distribution list before any build started, explicitly framed as 'we have used a bolt-on forecasting tool, it needs support and custom reports too, tell me what you each actually need'.

2. 2
   Ship a board pack, not a pile of dashboards

   Four dashboards were built as a set: executive pipeline; rep pipeline and productivity; quota attainment and rep scorecard; and partner overview. They were demoed to the executive team together, and the feedback that came back was applied as one consolidated pass across all four rather than as four independent iteration loops.

3. 3
   Fix the metric definition before the visualisation

   Weighted pipeline was being computed from total contract value rather than the contract-value measure the business actually runs on and sets quotas against. The calculated field was rebuilt so every card on every dashboard used the same, correct basis.

4. 4
   Snapshot the pipeline, then backfill the history

   Trended pipeline views require a snapshot process nobody had. We stood one up, then backfilled it from the operations team's archive of month-end spreadsheet pulls going back roughly two years, so period-over-period views had real history the day they launched instead of starting from an empty baseline and becoming useful a year later.

5. 5
   Validate every card against the CRM, and chase the variances

   Each dashboard was reconciled card-by-card against the equivalent native CRM report. Closed-won matched almost exactly. Pipeline-generated showed real variance.

6. 6
   Give partner reporting actual definitions

   The partner dashboard was specified in metric terms, not chart terms: average won deals per active partner over a filterable date range; counts of partner accounts with an agreement in place, broken out by partner type (referral, selling agent, reseller); deal counts shown alongside dollar amounts rather than instead of them.

7. 7
   Reconcile picklist parity between the CRM and the BI layer

   Value labels had been renamed in the CRM at some point while the API names underneath stayed unchanged, so the BI layer and the CRM reported different values for the same field. We worked the API-name change with the internal systems team rather than patching around it in the BI tool, so the fix held rather than needing to be re-applied on every new card.

What it moved

From a LeanScale case studyRead the full case study →