01
Bring the files together.
Scheduled imports would combine hub files and check missing fields, duplicates and totals. Unfamiliar descriptions would go to finance for classification and approval.
Finance approves classificationsPOWER BI / HUB PERFORMANCETen hubs.
Ten hubs.
One clear view.
A reporting plan for AST: less time assembling spreadsheets, more time acting on what they reveal.
Portfolio report. Reporting improvements are estimates based on the assumptions below.
AST / NETWORK OVERVIEWPower BI · Hub performance
70%less reporting preparation
Estimated: 40 → 12 team hours / week
28 hrsreleased every week
Combined staff time across all ten hubs
3 → 1working day to a reviewed pack
Estimated month-end turnaround
THE BUSINESS PROBLEM
By the time the pack was ready,
the team needed another update.
AST covers ten European hubs delivering managed services, projects and advisory work. In the reporting scenario, each hub sends separate spreadsheets. Finance combines files, checks totals, chases gaps and writes the leadership commentary.
The assumed routine takes 40 team hours each week, and the reviewed month-end pack arrives three working days after close.
The goal
One comparable view of every hub. A reviewed pack within one working day. 70% less recurring preparation, with finance still approving the numbers and commentary.
THE PROPOSED WORKFLOW
From scattered files
to a useful next step.
The report is available to explore. This workflow shows how recurring preparation could be organised around it.
02
Focus on what needs attention.
Power BI calculates profit and year-on-year changes. Rules flag losses and threshold breaches. Exception review would prioritise unusual movements and questions for hub managers.
Managers verify the causes03
Draft the story behind the numbers.
Management commentary would explain verified figures in plain language. Finance would review it and add confirmed explanations. An unknown cause would stay a question.
Finance signs off the pack04
Turn a finding into a next step.
Approved exceptions would get an owner and due date. Follow-up requests and reminders would support the owners, while people decide changes to pricing, costs and workload.
People own business decisionsClear calculations. Human approval. Power BI calculates the KPIs. The proposed imports and reconciliation would follow defined rules. Live imports, approval workflows and notifications are proposed additions. People would approve financial figures and business decisions.
REPORTING SCENARIO
Less preparation.
More room to investigate.
Estimated improvements based on the preparation routine and assumptions below.
WEEKLY REPORTING PREPARATION
Before40 team hours
With the proposed automation12 team hours
28 hours released each week. The remaining 12 hours cover reviewing exceptions, correcting source issues and approving the pack.
Month-end pack: 3 → 1 working day.
Two working days sooner to review performance. This elapsed-time improvement is separate from staff hours released.
ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUE OF RELEASED STAFF TIME€47,040 / year1,344 team hours available for other work
This values the time people could use elsewhere. It is not cash savings: salaries still need to be paid.
How is this calculated?
40 − 12 = 28 hours / week
Time released across the whole company.
28 × 48 = 1,344 hours / year
Assuming 48 reporting weeks.
1,344 × €35 = €47,040 / year
At an assumed €35 loaded hourly staff cost, including salary and employment costs.
Gross capacity value. Implementation, licensing and ongoing support costs are excluded. Cash savings would require an actual reduction in avoidable spending.
This scenario uses 48 reporting weeks; the website’s general calculator uses 52. Choose the assumption that fits your reporting schedule.
THE WORKING POWER BI REPORT
Spot the difference.
Then look closer.
Compare the network, inspect a hub and see profit cards turn green or red in the report. Select a screenshot to preview each view.
Start with the network. Compare operating profit and year-on-year changes across ten European hubs.
The Power BI report supports filtering, cross-highlighting and hub drillthrough. Select a view above to explore its screenshots.
DUBLIN / NEEDS ATTENTION
From profit to loss.
A management review could ask whether costs, pricing or workload explain the €410,694 deterioration. Finance and the hub manager would verify the cause before agreeing an action.
PRAGUE / UNDERSTAND WHAT WORKED
From loss to profit.
A €430,938 improvement gives management a reason to investigate. Confirmed changes could be shared with other hubs; the figures alone do not explain why performance improved.
WHAT THE BUSINESS WOULD GAIN
A clearer route
from information to action.
Finance can investigate.
Less time assembling a pack. More capacity to explain performance and support hub managers.
Hub leaders know what’s next.
Specific questions, named owners and follow-up dates make exceptions easier to work through.
Leadership gets an earlier view.
Reviewed comparisons arrive sooner, so the meeting can focus on decisions and priorities.
START WITH ONE RECURRING REPORT
Less time preparing.
More time deciding.
Bring one recurring report to a 30-minute review. Leave with its biggest bottleneck and a practical next step for automation.
Find your reporting bottleneckNo obligation · A practical conversation