Restructured executive reporting restores board confidence at a UK water utility
A UK water utility replaced sprawling, inconsistent reports with a governed reporting system that gave leaders a short, reliable view of performance and emerging risks.
Starting point
By 2020, the utility was operating under intense regulatory scrutiny after a £126 million penalty for misreporting. C-suite and Board reports had grown into long, inconsistent packs. Different functions produced their own views of performance, with overlapping metrics, conflicting definitions, and little control over how numbers were compiled.
The executive pack ran to roughly 145 pages each month. Leaders struggled to see issues early, or to know which metrics they could trust. Regulatory submissions drew on the same fragmented data landscape, increasing risk to the organization’s reputation and exposing the Board to further challenge from the regulator.
Approach
The client brought in a consulting team that included Bhuvan Maingi, who now leads Strathen Group, to design a reporting system executives, board and regulators could rely on. The work began with an inventory of existing reports and KPIs across Risk, Finance, Health and Safety, and operations. This surfaced duplication, conflicting definitions, and gaps in ownership from source systems through to Board papers.
From there, the team designed a single page Top 10 KPIs summary per business unit. Each summary focused on a small set of critical indicators tied to regulatory commitments, customer outcomes, risk, and financial performance. The one page view included clear thresholds, trend arrows, and named owners, with drill downs available for data and root cause detail. This became the front door to performance for executives and the Board.
Alongside the new views, the team built a governance framework for data ownership, sign off, and version control. Data lineage was mapped from source systems to dashboards and packs. Each KPI had a defined owner, a documented calculation method, and an agreed target range. A formal sign-off workflow ensured that performance numbers were reviewed and approved before they appeared in executive and Board materials.
Standardized templates were then created for Board, Risk, Health and Safety, and Finance committees. These templates used a common KPI dictionary and aligned definitions and thresholds across functions. The number of “home grown” slides reduced, and committees began to receive information with a consistent structure and language, which made cross committee conversations simpler and more precise.
To support the new reporting system, a consolidated Monthly Executive Pack was designed and tied explicitly to the integrated planning and regulatory reporting cycles. Automation was introduced where possible to pull data into the pack, reduce manual collation, and lower the risk of error. A regular cadence and production timetable were agreed so that contributors knew when and how to update their sections without last minute changes.
Finally, the engagement codified the operating model for reporting. This included a KPI dictionary, a change control process for definitions and targets, and governance forums for resolving disputes about metrics. Training was provided for report producers and owners so that they understood their role in maintaining quality and integrity in the new system.
The real shift was moving from slide by slide reporting to a governed system where every KPI had clear lineage, ownership, and a single place to live.
Outcome
The redesigned reporting system reduced noise and increased trust. The Monthly Executive Pack shrank from around 145 pages to 52 pages, yet executives felt they had more, not less, visibility. The single page Top 10 views for each business unit gave leaders an immediate sense of what was on track, what was off track, and who was responsible for action.
Because definitions, thresholds, and ownership were standardized, the accuracy and consistency of regulatory submissions and Board updates improved. When performance moved, leaders could see the change in the same way across functions and trace it back through the KPI dictionary and data lineage. This reduced time spent arguing about numbers and redirected attention to what should be done.
Earlier visibility of emerging issues became part of the rhythm. Off track metrics were flagged with clear owners and action plans, and committees could track follow through over time. The link between the reporting cadence, integrated planning, and regulatory cycles created a tighter loop between plans, execution, and oversight.
The Board and executive team gained a more disciplined, repeatable way to see performance at a glance, with confidence that the numbers in front of them were controlled and understood. The organization moved from assembling long decks each month to running a management reporting system that could be maintained and improved as the business evolved.
In high scrutiny environments, the shortest pack is often the safest one when it sits on top of clear ownership, aligned definitions, and visible data lineage.
This work now shapes how Strathen Group approaches performance reporting in regulated sectors. Start with governance and definitions, design for executive brevity, and connect reporting directly to planning and regulatory cycles.
