National-scale systems · Donor-funded programs · Regulated environments
Hands-on BI and analytics architecture for environments where trust, funding, and policy depend on data.
Dashboards can look convincing — and still mislead. Metrics drift from reality. Methodologies break silently. When leadership or donors stop trusting analytics, systems stall.
Most organizations do not lack data. They lack analytics that reflects reality under pressure. When decisions carry political, financial, or reputational risk, weak analytics quietly collapses.
Indicators appear stable while drifting away from operational reality and policy intent.
Definitions and calculations change quietly, breaking comparability without visible alarms.
Parallel spreadsheets and manual reconciliations emerge when BI stops being defensible.
Duplicates, overrides, and uncontrolled transformations distort analytics invisibly.
No clear trace from KPI to source. Under scrutiny, numbers cannot be proven.
Data gets adjusted to “look right”. Dashboards survive — integrity does not.
Donors and leadership demand traceability, not just polished charts.
In critical moments, leaders bypass BI and rely on intuition or informal narratives.
This is not “more dashboards.” This is restoring trust in analytics so decisions remain legitimate under scrutiny.
Identify where your analytics stops reflecting reality.
Review KPI logic, aggregation rules, and indicator definitions. Trace metrics back to sources and assumptions. Detect silent data quality decay that distorts analytics.
Outcome: leadership sees which decisions are currently based on unreliable signals — and why.
Rebuild analytics so decisions are grounded in reality, not visuals.
Redesign data models with embedded quality controls. Remove silent fixes, manual overrides, and uncontrolled transformations. Align BI metrics with operational and policy definitions.
Outcome: analytics becomes a defensible decision interface, not a reporting layer.
Make analytics withstand scrutiny — internal and external.
Embed data quality rules directly into indicators. Ensure traceability from metric to source. Replace “presentation-ready” KPIs with auditable logic.
Outcome: donors and leadership trust not just the numbers, but the methodology behind them.
Hands-on intervention where analytics blocks progress.
Step in when analytics undermines transformation programs. Translate BI and data quality issues into architectural actions. Stabilize decision-making during high-pressure phases.
Outcome: transformation regains momentum because decisions regain credibility.
Quality is not cleanup. It is the diagnostic signal of where the system no longer reflects reality. Controls belong inside the analytics layer—otherwise BI drifts again.
Outcome: analytics stops drifting; trust becomes measurable.
When analytics is contested, the problem is often organizational: definitions, ownership, and accountability. I align stakeholders around auditable logic—before decisions get politicized.
Outcome: one shared reality for decision-making.
Executive-grade assessment that pinpoints KPI drift, root causes, and the first fixes that restore trust.
Rebuild metric definitions, calculation logic, and governance so reporting survives audit and pressure.
I do not publish client names in sensitive environments. The cases below describe the sphere, the failure mode, the intervention, and the outcome.
Context: fragmented registries, politically sensitive indicators.
Problem: dashboards were used — and systematically misleading. Trust eroded.
Intervention: rebuilt KPI logic, aligned indicators with definitions, removed manual “presentation fixes”.
Result: analytics became usable for policy decisions and accountability.
Context: national network under reform pressure; coverage metrics tied to decisions.
Problem: dashboards looked correct but masked structural access gaps.
Intervention: integrated GIS with BI, revalidated assumptions, rebuilt accessibility metrics.
Result: decision-makers saw where the system actually failed — not where reports suggested stability.
Context: multi-stakeholder program with donor oversight and regional reporting.
Problem: indicators existed, but methodology drift made comparisons unreliable.
Intervention: standardized logic, embedded quality controls, removed shadow reporting.
Result: analytics became defensible to donors and usable for steering the reform.
Not more reporting. A decision system that holds under pressure.
Analytics becomes defensible: leadership can explain metrics without hand-waving.
Decision levelIndicators become auditable: oversight sees traceability from metric to source.
Accountability levelShadow reporting collapses: teams stop maintaining parallel spreadsheets to “make numbers work”.
Operational levelIf decisions, funding, or policy depend on your dashboards, it is worth knowing where they might be wrong.
Request an analytics diagnostic