# The definition before the dashboard.

Before you ask for a better answer, agree on what the question means.

Source: https://kimberlytegroup.com/perspectives/the-definition-before-the-dashboard/

A KimberLyte perspective.

## Start with the decision.

A dashboard can be technically correct and still fail in the room. Finance reads revenue one way. Sales reads it another. Each team can point to a source. The disagreement is about meaning.

Our starting point is the decision the number needs to support. What is included? What is excluded? At what point in time? Who can settle an exception? Those questions belong in the design.

## Give the definition an owner.

A shared definition needs someone who can approve it and a clear way to change it. Otherwise, the next urgent request creates another version.

A semantic layer gives those definitions a place to live and a consistent way to reach dashboards, applications, and AI. It also needs a human operating model: owners, review, and a record of what changed.

## Make disagreement useful.

Disagreement is often a signal that two teams are making different decisions. The answer may be two clearly named measures, not one compromise that serves neither.

Start with a small set of consequential measures. Trace them back to their sources. Test them with the people who use them. A useful definition is one that survives the next real conversation.

## Take it into the room

Can the next person explain the difference without calling the person who built it?

Prepare a concise working note for an internal discussion. Use only information I am authorized to provide in this tool. Do not ask for confidential records or production access. If I have not provided enough context, ask for a sanitized description of the decision and pause; do not invent an organization, facts, results, or owners.

THE QUESTION
Can the next person explain the difference without calling the person who built it?

CONTEXT TO ADD
[A sanitized description of our decision, current process, and known constraints.]

AUDIENCE
Write for the accountable sponsor. Lead with the decision to make, the consequence of waiting, and the evidence needed. Keep technical detail only where it changes that decision.

EXAMINE
1. Which decision uses this measure, and do the old and new definitions answer the same question?
2. Which reports, incentives, forecasts, or AI workflows inherit it? Which dependencies are still unverified?
3. Can a change in the measure be separated from a change in the underlying business?
4. Who approves the definition, resolves exceptions, and explains historical comparisons?
5. What bounded comparison would give us evidence to proceed, revise, or stop?

RETURN
A definition change record: decision supported; old and new definitions; effective date; known downstream uses; historical comparison treatment; accountable owner; evidence still needed.
Use a compact table. Label each material statement as supplied fact, inference, or unknown. Link facts to the context or evidence I supplied; do not invent citations. For each unresolved item, name the role that should answer it and the smallest evidence request that could resolve it. Finish with one decision for the next meeting and what would change the recommendation. This is a working hypothesis for human review, not a finding about our organization.

Prompt adapted from KimberLyte Working tools: https://kimberlytegroup.com/working-tools/
The website's scenarios are fictional illustrations, not evidence about our organization.