A dashboard nobody acts on is a cost, not an asset. Business intelligence consulting starts from the decisions your executives actually need to make, and builds reporting around those decisions rather than a generic template.
Reports exist but nobody trusts the numbers, different teams report different figures for the same metric, or decisions are still being made from spreadsheets despite an analytics tool already being in place.
Your current reporting is trusted and used - in that case the need is usually deeper analytics capability, not BI consulting.
We start with the business outcome you need, not a product shortlist. That means sitting with the people who own the outcome, mapping current constraints, and agreeing what "solved" actually looks like before any vendor conversation starts.
We score realistic options against your own criteria - cost, fit, implementation risk, local support - without a reseller margin sitting behind the answer. Where a vendor in our partner network is not the best fit, we say so.
You receive a written recommendation with the trade-offs made explicit, not a single option presented as the only one. Sign-off is yours; the case for it is ours to make clearly.
Once a direction is chosen, we oversee delivery and integration with your existing systems, so the handover from decision to working system stays our responsibility, not yours to chase.
The relationship does not end at go-live. We stay engaged as an advisor for the decisions that follow - scaling, renewals, the next system that needs to talk to this one.
A data-source audit, a defined set of metrics tied to real decisions, and a reporting structure built around those metrics rather than around whatever the tool ships with by default.
A first working reporting set typically takes 4-6 weeks once data access is confirmed.
Business intelligence work is contracted in stages rather than sold as one block. The diagnostic - a data-source audit and an agreed set of metrics tied to real decisions - is a standalone engagement, so you can stop there and hand the findings to whoever builds the reporting, including your own team. Building the reporting layer, and ongoing advisory as the metric set changes, are contracted separately and only once you decide to take them up. What moves the cost is the number of data sources in scope, how much reconciliation they need before anything can be reported from them, and whether the definitions behind each metric are already agreed across the business or still have to be negotiated. Scope and commercial terms are put in writing before work begins.
Finance and operations leaders carrying a reporting mandate their current systems cannot meet. Multi-entity groups where the same metric arrives differently from each subsidiary and is reconciled by hand before anyone can act on it. Organizations that bought a BI platform and never got the adoption, because the reports answer questions nobody was asking. Boards and audit committees that have asked for a figure the estate cannot currently produce on demand. And teams about to commission a second dashboard project after the first one went unused.
It depends on how many data sources are involved and how consistent they already are - the audit stage gives a case-specific timeline.
Data preparation and ongoing maintenance of the reporting layer are usually the larger cost, not the BI tool's own licence.
Where data residency applies, it is a constraint on the platform and architecture choice from the outset.
The realistic BI and analytics platforms for your data volume and team size, compared on fit rather than on brand recognition.
Yes - the audit stage is specifically where existing data sources and systems are mapped before any new platform is proposed.
If your reporting does not yet answer the questions your executives actually ask, the first conversation is about those decisions rather than about a platform. Book a BI review and we will tell you whether what you have is a data problem, a definition problem or a reporting problem - and say so plainly when the answer is that your existing tool is fine and the metrics are not.