Skip to main content
Quanta Meridian logo
Skip solution areas

Power BI Solutions

Power BI reports that show what changed, why it changed and where attention is needed.

For finance, operations, reporting and assurance teams that need clearer measures, better organised pages and an easy way to move from a headline to the supporting detail.

Quanta Meridian designs and improves Power BI reports, semantic models and refresh processes. The service may involve rebuilding the model, agreeing DAX measures, simplifying the page structure or connecting the report to more dependable data.

Discuss a Power BI reportView the four report examples
Facility, forecast, purchase-item and control records enter a semantic model with a declared grain, relationships and explicit measures. A measure answers a report question, and the result can be traced back to a supporting record. Four indexed outcomes correspond to the four report families shown below.

Power BI reports

Explore Power BI reports built to answer different business questions.

The examples cover facilities and compliance, financial forecasting, purchase to pay and reporting controls. Each report shows how a headline result can lead to the supporting region, contract, process or record.

This gallery contains four report examples. Purchase to Pay also has a complete project page; the other three open as page-by-page report walkthroughs. The editable Power BI files are not available for public download.

Report viewer

Open a report and explore how the information is presented, from high-level summaries to the supporting detail.

Each report can be viewed page by page. Use the page list or the Previous and Next controls, and open any screenshot at a larger size when you need more detail.

Facilities and Compliance Report

Which facilities need attention before the next review?

Eight pages show the overall facilities position, the regions and controls driving it, the actions that are overdue and the people responsible for following them up.

Pages
8
Report visuals
82

The fan shows three representative pages. Use the controls below to view the complete report.

Compliance Summary Power BI report pageRisk by Region Power BI report pageFacility Details Power BI report page
Preview8 pages in this report

Report pages

Explore all 8 report pages.

Move through the report in order with Previous and Next, or choose a page from the list. A larger view opens only when you ask for it.

Page 1 of 8

Compliance Summary

What this page shows
Which facilities need attention before the next review?
How it supports the analysis
Prioritise the facilities, control owners and overdue actions that need review first.
What to notice
The review starts at 78.2% compliance and 73.5% evidence readiness, with 12 critical facilities and 717 overdue actions requiring prioritisation.
Important context
The map and status labels prioritise operational review; they do not establish regulatory compliance or control effectiveness.
Read more about this report

What the report covers

The report starts with the overall facilities position, then shows the regions, controls, missing evidence and overdue actions behind it.

A reviewer can open an individual facility, see which controls need attention and identify the role responsible for the follow-up.

What the data highlights

  • The example opens with 78.2% compliance and 73.5% evidence readiness.
  • Twelve facilities are classed as critical, while 142 need some form of action.
  • 717 of the 1,448 open actions are overdue.
  • The report is designed for an operational review rather than a regulatory or audit opinion.

For a live implementation

  • Connect the report to the organisation’s operational data, then agree the reporting date, refresh schedule and owner.
  • Check performance, permissions, keyboard use and screen-reader behaviour in the environment where the report will be used.

Margin Forecast and Scenario Review

What changed the margin forecast, and which response has the most impact?

Five pages explain the current margin, the reasons for the decline, how the forecast changed over time and the effect of the options tested.

Pages
5
Report visuals
43

The fan shows three representative pages. Use the controls below to view the complete report.

Margin Bridge and Drivers Power BI report pageScenario Choice Board Power BI report pageContract Detail and Approval Checks Power BI report page
Preview5 pages in this report

Report pages

Explore all 5 report pages.

Move through the report in order with Previous and Next, or choose a page from the list. A larger view opens only when you ask for it.

Page 1 of 5

Forecast Summary

What this page shows
What changed in the current forecast, and which contracts require review?
How it supports the analysis
Open the contracts behind the latest forecast and move to the detailed bridge before assigning a driver.
What to notice
The current view shows £88M revenue, £36M margin, a 41.1% margin rate and a rounded £2M adverse movement from the prior forecast.
Important context
The compact waterfall on this page displays a £13M total and repeated £2M labels, so it does not reconcile to the headline. Use the detailed bridge page for driver detail until that visual is corrected.
Read more about this report

What the report covers

The report explains the £1.57m forecast margin decline, reconciles the detailed drivers and compares the supplier response that was tested.

Version history and contract detail show whether the movement is isolated or part of a longer change in the forecast.

What the data highlights

  • The adverse movement is £1.57m: £2.07m of adverse drivers less £0.50m of favourable offsets.
  • The selected supplier option adds £620k and recovers about 39% of the movement.
  • Twelve saved versions show that the forecast has changed over a longer period rather than in one unusual month.
  • The detailed driver bridge is the reconciled view used to explain the movement.

For a live implementation

  • Connect the report to the organisation’s planning and contract data, then agree the reporting period, scenario assumptions and owner.
  • Align the summary view with the detailed bridge, then test refresh performance, permissions and accessibility in the target environment.

Purchase to Pay Process Analysis

Where does purchase to pay slow down?

Six pages show where purchase-to-pay work waits, which routes create the most volume, where payment blocks are concentrated and how one delayed item moved through the process.

Pages
6
Report visuals
63

The fan shows three representative pages. Use the controls below to view the complete report.

Where does purchase to pay slow down? Power BI report pageWhere are waits concentrated? Power BI report pageDelayed purchase items Power BI report page
Preview6 pages in this report

Report pages

Explore all 6 report pages.

Move through the report in order with Previous and Next, or choose a page from the list. A larger view opens only when you ask for it.

Page 1 of 6

Where does purchase to pay slow down?

What this page shows
Where does purchase-to-pay work slow down, and which hand-offs should be reviewed first?
How it supports the analysis
Start with hand-offs that combine high volume with high median or p90 waiting time, then open the transition records.
What to notice
The report covers 251,734 purchase-order items and 1,595,923 events. The typical adjacent-event wait is 51.3 hours across 11,973 recorded routes.
Important context
the time series includes timestamp exceptions and historical outliers. Sequence and elapsed time identify records for review but do not establish root cause.
Read more about this report

What the report covers

The report analyses 251,734 purchase-order items and 1,595,923 events. It moves from overall routes and waiting times to the history of one delayed item.

The remaining pages compare common routes, long waits, repeated work, payment risk and the checks behind the totals.

What the data highlights

  • The analysis covers 251,734 purchase-order items and 1,595,923 recorded events from the BPI Challenge 2019 log.
  • 11,973 process variants show how many different routes the work can take.
  • The broad payment-block flag covers 55,934 items, while 122 items contain the explicit Set Payment Block event. The two figures answer different questions.
  • The selected item took 351.1 days and accumulated 8,426.9 hours between recorded steps.

For a live implementation

  • Connect the report to the intended purchasing and invoice data, then agree the reporting period, refresh schedule and owner.
  • Test performance, permissions and accessibility in the target environment before wider use.

Reporting Controls and Data Quality Review

Can the report be signed off?

Six pages show whether the expected data arrived, the measures are defined, the totals agree and outstanding actions have an owner before the report is signed off.

Pages
6
Report visuals
61

The fan shows three representative pages. Use the controls below to view the complete report.

Governance and Approval Checks Power BI report pageData Quality Evidence Power BI report pageAction and Evidence Queue Power BI report page
Preview6 pages in this report

Report pages

Explore all 6 report pages.

Move through the report in order with Previous and Next, or choose a page from the list. A larger view opens only when you ask for it.

Page 1 of 6

Governance and Approval Checks

What this page shows
Is the supporting information complete enough to pass its sign-off check?
How it supports the analysis
Confirm the approval checks, metric definitions and supporting information before allowing the reporting pack to proceed.
What to notice
Twenty recorded checks are shown as passing, with 43 defined measures, 3,600 evidence records and 1,448 action records available for review.
Important context
The checks are generated from the same report data as the report. A 100% pass result demonstrates the control pattern, not independent assurance or production operation.
Read more about this report

What the report covers

The report checks whether the expected data arrived, the measures are defined, the totals agree and outstanding actions have an owner.

The final pages bring the checks and responsibilities together so a reviewer can see what passed and what still needs attention before sign-off.

What the data highlights

  • All 20 checks pass in the example data.
  • The source population reconciles to 300 sites, 12 controls, 10,800 inspections and 3,600 evidence records.
  • Critical, high and medium priorities add up to the same 1,448 actions shown in the cause analysis.
  • Seven metric groups organise 43 measures across the report.

For a live implementation

  • Agree the reporting date, approver and ownership for unresolved checks, then refine the metric grouping and the chart that combines different units.
  • Confirm the live connection and refresh process, then test performance, permissions and accessibility in the target environment.
4 reports25 report pages249 report visuals

What makes a report useful

The headline should lead naturally to the detail behind it.

The facilities example brings together 300 facilities, 10,800 inspection records and 1,448 current actions. The reviewer can move from the headline to the affected region, facility, control and owner.

The finance, purchase to pay and reporting controls examples follow the same principle. Each one starts with a business question, then connects the headline to the detail needed to understand it.

Semantic model

One facilities reporting model carries the review from headline to owner.

Shared dimensions filter four declared facts. Explicit measures let a reviewer move from the current position to a region, facility, control and named owner role.

1
DimDateReporting period
1
DimSiteFacility and region
*Facilities reporting facts
FactInspection
One facility, control and inspection date
FactCurrentEvidence
One current facility and control evidence item
FactCurrentAction
One current corrective action
FactMonthlySnapshot
One facility and reporting month
1
DimControlControl and objective
1
DimOwnerAction owner role
Explicit DAX measures
  • Assurance score
  • Evidence ready
  • Sites needing action
  • Overdue action items
01
Compliance SummaryCurrent position and priority facilities
02
Risk by RegionRegional concentration and overdue controls
03
Facility DetailsSelected facility, evidence and owner action
Review sequenceSummary → region → facility → evidence or action → owner
ModelSeparate inspection, evidence, action and monthly facts
MeasureExplicit calculations for assurance, evidence and actions
FilterMonth, region, facility and control context
ValidateCounts and rates tied to retained quality checks
Drill-throughSummary to region, facility and named owner role

How the reports are built

Good report design starts with the data model and the questions people need to answer.

Power Query prepares the records, the semantic model defines how the tables relate and DAX calculates the measures used throughout the report.

The page structure then leads from a summary to the region, contract, process step or individual record that explains the result.

About the reports

What these examples show.

The screenshots demonstrate the report design, data model and analytical approach. A live implementation would be connected to the organisation’s data and tested in the environment where it will be used.

01

Inside the reports

Each report starts with a business question, explains the headline figures and provides a route to the supporting detail.

02

For a live implementation

The data connection, refresh schedule, access, ownership, performance and accessibility would be agreed and tested with the organisation.

03

About the editable files

The PBIX files are not available as public downloads. They may be shared separately after the data, metadata and distribution terms have been reviewed.

Related reporting example

Why five reports show different on-time delivery rates

The project recalculates each percentage, explains where the definitions differ and shows the agreed rule used for the final figure.

01

Exact percentage bridge

Why five reports show different on-time delivery rates

Numerical bridge from five published on-time delivery percentages to the approved result

A row-level reconciliation explaining why the SQL reporting mart, Power BI model, Excel management pack, operational extract and manually maintained report show different on-time delivery percentages.

Calculation, event-date, record-grain and extract-population adjustments bring every reported version to the same numerator and denominator with no residual.View the comparison

Related capabilities

The report is only as reliable as the data preparation and measure definitions behind it.

Power BI

Power BI connects an agreed management question to a dimensional model, explicit measures and the records needed to explain the result.

SQL

SQL gives invoice lines, orders, receipts and reference data a declared grain before they become shared reporting totals.

Excel and Power Query

Excel and Power Query are used when people need a familiar workbook without hiding file intake, transformation logic, adjustments or checks.

Start with one reporting question

Bring the report and result that need explaining.

We can trace one headline through its measure and relationships to the supporting records, then agree what should change.

Discuss the report
The final review follows a report question through its measure and supporting record to the person who owns the report.
  1. 01Question
  2. 02Measure
  3. 03Supporting record
  4. 04Report owner