Training Example — Not Live Data
Same Data, Two Dashboards
What happens when you apply the five Dashboard Challenge Questions

The Five Dashboard Challenge Questions

1Who uses this report? 2How often do they look at it? 3What decision does it support? 4What action will someone take? 5If we stopped, what breaks?
This report looks professional. But can it answer the five questions?

This is a zombie report.

It's produced monthly. It takes 4 hours of analyst time. It looks professional. But no one can name the decision it supports, the action it triggers, or what would break if it stopped. This is the kind of report the CE's questions are designed to kill.

Monthly Branch Activity Summary — January 2026

Generated: 5 Feb 2026  |  Distribution: All DDs & ADs
Total Visits
1.87M
▲ 2.1% vs Dec
Items Borrowed
842K
▼ 1.4% vs Dec
Programmes Held
387
▲ 8.3% vs Dec
Programme Attendance
14.2K
▲ 5.7% vs Dec

Monthly Visits by Branch (Top 10)

Borrowing Trend — Past 6 Months

Branch Activity Detail

Branch Visits Borrowed Programmes Attendance Satisfaction
Jurong Regional198,42089,100421,5808.4
Tampines Regional187,35084,200381,4208.1
Woodlands Regional176,88078,500351,3108.3
library@harbourfront142,60062,300311,1807.9
Bishan Public138,20061,800281,0508.2
Ang Mo Kio Public125,70055,400269808.0
Bedok Public118,90052,100249208.1
Queenstown Public98,40043,200228408.4
Question 1
Who uses this?
Sent to "All DDs & ADs." No specific reader identified. If asked, no one claims to rely on it.
Question 2
How often?
Produced monthly. Most recipients skim the summary numbers. Several admit they haven't opened it in months.
Question 3
What decision?
No decision is named. The data is descriptive. It says what happened but doesn't connect to any choice or action.
Question 4
What action?
No thresholds, no triggers, no recommended responses. Visits went up 2.1% So what? What changes because of that?
Question 5
If we stopped?
Nothing breaks. No workflow depends on this report. Stopping it would save 4 analyst hours per month with zero operational impact.

This dashboard exists to support specific decisions.

Same underlying branch data. But every metric is connected to a named decision, a specific decision-maker, an action threshold, and a clear consequence. It takes less analyst time to produce because it only includes what matters.

Branch Performance — Decision Dashboard

Decision-maker: Regional Directors & DD (Public Library Services) Frequency: Monthly review, weekly for flagged branches Period: January 2026
🔴

Action Required

Borrowing Per Visit Ratio — library@harbourfront
Decision: Should we investigate service configuration at harbourfront, or is the low borrow-per-visit ratio driven by its transit patron profile?
0.44
Below 0.50 threshold
Who acts on this
Regional Director (Central), with DD approval if service changes are needed
Action threshold
Borrow-per-visit below 0.50 for two consecutive months triggers a branch review
Recommended action
Patron purpose survey at harbourfront (2 weeks). If transit-driven, reclassify expected ratio. If not, review collection placement and signage.
If we stopped tracking
Branches with declining service effectiveness go undetected until satisfaction scores drop, a lagging signal that arrives months later.
Borrow-per-Visit by Branch
Harbourfront vs Network Avg (6 Months)
🟡

Watch — Approaching Threshold

Programme-to-Reading Conversion — Network-Wide
Decision: Are our reading programmes converting attendees into borrowers? Should we adjust format mix for FY26?
23%
Target: 30%
Who acts on this
AD (Reading & Learning), reviewed quarterly with DD
Action threshold
Below 25% for one quarter triggers format review. Below 20% triggers programme restructuring recommendation.
Breakdown by format
Book clubs: 41% conversion. Reading challenges: 28%. Read-alouds: 18%. One-off events: 9%. The format mix matters more than the aggregate.
If we stopped tracking
Budget continues allocated by attendance volume. Formats that fill seats but don't build readers receive equal or greater funding. Reading Champion outcomes unmeasured.
Conversion by Format
Network Conversion Trend (Quarterly)
🟢

On Track — Continue Current Approach

Physical Visitorship Run Rate — Toward 22.5M Target
Decision: Are we on pace for the FY26 visitorship target? Do we need to adjust branch hours or marketing?
22.4M
On pace
Who acts on this
DD (Public Library Services), monthly review
Action threshold
Below 95% of annualised run rate triggers marketing review. Below 90% triggers branch hours assessment.
Current status
Annualised run rate: 22.4M against 22.5M target (99.6%). Three branches below individual targets. Monitor but no network action needed.
If we stopped tracking
Shortfall against the Reach KPI not detected until year-end. No time to intervene. Divisions cannot adjust plans mid-year.
Cumulative Visits vs FY26 Target Pace
Question 1
Who uses this?
Named: Regional Directors, DD (Public Library Services), AD (Reading & Learning). Each metric has a specific owner.
Question 2
How often?
Monthly review for all. Weekly monitoring for flagged branches. Quarterly deep dive on programme conversion.
Question 3
What decision?
Each card names a decision: investigate service config, adjust format mix, modify branch hours or marketing.
Question 4
What action?
Thresholds trigger specific responses: patron surveys, format reviews, programme restructuring, hours assessment.
Question 5
If we stopped?
Each card states consequences: declining effectiveness undetected, ineffective formats funded, KPI shortfalls missed.

The Difference

Both dashboards use the same underlying branch data. View A took 4 analyst hours to produce and generated no decisions. View B took 2 analyst hours, less time, because it only includes what matters, and it directly supports three active decisions with named owners, clear thresholds, and specified actions. The next time you see a report, ask the five questions. If it can't answer them, it's a zombie. Retire it and build something that drives decisions.