Reporting hierarchy
I often experience, that people are charged to deliver a report or dashboard for their superior – say manager. They then need assistance acquiring and transforming data in an automated way, which brings me in the picture.
The task they’re charged with, requires of them, to -in a way- take the place of their superior, to come up with the right requirements. This is not easy, especially when it comes to abstract subjects as KPI’s and administrative processes that are in place to collect data.
When a new requirement is raised like that, it’s very easy to take a wrong turn, which will costs dearly in wasted time and effort. This happens when the right question is not being asked, which is:
- Who asks, for who to provide insights to whom?
The intent is to get clarity of the reporting hierarchy, or the route that the supplied information is supposed to follow through the organization. I call it “the information journey”.
When this is not quite clear, there is a good chance that the information is supplied in an unusable way, or that opportunities for automation and innovation are left unused.
The “first Who”
Is usually answered with “For me. I need to bring this information to my manager on a regular basis, so we can take action based on it”.
The answer is right, but also a contradiction in terms. It reveals that it is actually for the manager. This way, the second “For who?” has been answered. This is a lucky strike.
The “second Who”
However, in many cases, the answer is for the second “For who?” is not found out easily. This is usually the case when information supply is a significant part of the job of the requestor.
It makes him or her a primary stakeholder, but this does not mean that the requestor is the ultimate consumer of the information.
The stake for the requestor is: staying relevant, while his or her work is (partially) being automated. The task for the consultant turns into supporting the requestor, providing opportunity for this automation, while -at the same time- making sure that the responsibility of the information supply stays with the requester, assuring continued relevance for him or her.
In this case, in order to get an answer on the second “For who?”, the consultant must not neglect to interview the requester about the way the information is supplied, focusing on the role of the requester in it.
In that way, the description of the information-supply-process will reveal the recipient of the information: the second “For who?”. But we’re not there yet.
The “third who” is a charme
Typically, the information does not stay with the second “For who”. It goes further.
The manager usually has a superior him,- or herself, and if not, there is a management team, in which most business information is shared in aggregated for in one way or another.
In order to develop a complete, effective solution, it is important to understand how and where the information is consumed and shared, so the right tools can be put in place to deliver it in the right way, on the right time.
Note that it can be, that the information journey does not stop at the third “for who”. It depends on the organizational structure. However, three is usually the minimum.
Why does it matter?
Understanding the flow of the information in the organization is critical in understanding along what dimensions the information must be aggregated, or filtered.
For example: shipping information for a plant might be aggregated on country level, and then on business unit level and further on enterprise-level.
Failing to understand that, exposes you to the risk of leaving out one of the required dimensions in the data. Similarly, requirements for restricting data to product- or customer groupings, or internal eliminations might be overlooked if the complete information journey is not understood.
When these hidden requirements surface when the result is eventually presented to the full audience, everybody looks bad. And time, effort and -in many cases- money has been wasted.
Under-informed requester
The problem is that in many cases, the requester might -at first- not have visibility of the complete information journey to begin with.
As a consultant, it is paramount to understand that you’re un- or under-informed. And to keep asking the question: for who is it? Until the complete information journey reveals itself.
