Dashboards don’t create value, decisions do. Business intelligence only pays off when analytics are engineered into the organization’s decision process (who decides, on what cadence, with what thresholds, under which guardrails).

Why Analytics Stalls After “Go Live”

Most organizations focus at “pretty dashboards” for four recurring reasons:

Undefined decision moments: teams publish dozens of visuals but haven’t named the specific decisions each is supposed to improve (e.g., weekly inventory, monthly partner allocation, daily case triage). Harvard Business Review has long warned that culture and operating model, not tools, are why “data-driven” ambitions fail.
No common semantics: KPIs disagree across teams because metric definitions and entity keys differ. Without a shared semantic layer, meetings become debates about the number rather than what to do. (We tackled this in Week 2 Multiple versions of the truth.)
Decision latency: insight arrives faster than the organization can act. The time between seeing a signal and making a decision - decision latency - silently erodes value.
Pilot purgatory: analytics and AI succeed in pilots but fail to scale because governance, ownership, and incentives weren’t designed for run-state operations. McKinsey’s recent survey again finds many firms stuck between experiments and impact

From Insight to Impact:

1. Decisions Before Dashboards
Start by cataloging your top recurring decisions and the minimal signals each needs. For every dashboard page, state: Which decision does this change? By whom? How often? What’s the acceptance threshold for action? This is the shift from “reporting” to decision engineering, the heart of Gartner’s decision-intelligence framing.

2. Shared Semantics & Guardrails
Publish metric contracts and entity definitions (with lineage) in the same place users access content. If your BI stack is Microsoft-centric, align with the Fabric/Power BI adoption roadmap: make data discovery, democratization, and literacy first-class adoption goals.

3. Decision Rhythms & Playbooks
Replace “dashboard reviews” with decision reviews. Each review ends with one of three verbs: approve, adapt, or escalate.

4. Action Integration
Put actions one click away: embed write-back forms, links to ticket creation, or API triggers inside the BI experience. If action lives in another system, the dashboard should deep-link into the exact transaction (definitely depending on RBAC). Otherwise, you’re hoping for behavior change rather than engineering it.

What to Avoid

Dashboard stretch = progress: If usage fragments across 40 similar assets, you are adding noise. Consolidate to a single governed view per decision.
Self-service without safeguards: power BI grows fast; governance is important.
Pilot metrics no one owns: every metric needs an accountable owner, a refresh SLA, and a rollback plan if data is wrong.
“Real-time” for prestige: iff the decision only happens weekly, 60-second ingestion buys nothing but cost and complexity.

Leadership must own the role (no delegation!)

1. Decide to decide: clearly define decision thresholds and push teams to answer, “What will we do differently once we reach this point?”

2. Fund adoption, not just technology: invest in change management, training, and data culture, not only in tools and platforms. Technology enables; culture delivers outcomes.

3. Make accountability visible: clarify who owns what, track commitments transparently, and ensure progress is regularly reviewed.

Treat AI as an accelerant to decisions. Use AI to summarize signals and propose actions, but keep explainability and human-in-the-loop where stakes demand it. McKinsey’s 2025 survey shows value remains uneven without operating-model change.

Example

Before: A regional program produced weekly dashboards on stockouts and service coverage. Meetings debated numbers; actions were ad-hoc.
Intervention: Defined two decisions (allocation shift; rapid procurement). Wrote playbooks; embedded action links into the BI app;
After: Allocation decisions moved from monthly to weekly; Disputes dropped as metric definitions became shared, and exceptions triggered pre-agreed actions.

Bottom Line

Dashboards don’t fail because they’re wrong, they fail because they’re detached from decisions. Engineer the path from signal → threshold → action, measure decision latency, and make adoption a first-class product. That’s how analytics becomes an operating advantage, and how leaders move from reporting to results.

References

1. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-10-18-gartner-identifies-the-top-strategic-technology-trends-for-2022

2. https://hbr.org/2019/02/companies-are-failing-in-their-efforts-to-become-data-driven

3. https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/opinions/cost-decision-latency/

4. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai

5. https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/decision-intelligence

6. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-bi/guidance/fabric-adoption-roadmap-data-culture

Most organizations today say they want to be “AI-driven”. However when you scratch beneath the surface, the real blocker isn’t AI or ML the model, it’s the data. Leaders are still making big calls from inconsistent reports, manual reconciliations, and dashboards nobody fully trusts.

In other words: intelligent organizations don’t start with AI; they start by making their data integrated and consistent.

Over the last few years, multiple studies have shown that a significant share of AI and data initiatives fail or stall because the underlying data is fragmented, low-quality, or poorly governed. Gartner and others have warned that a large majority of AI projects could fail, with many leaders themselves blaming poor data quality and access. At the same time, surveys from Salesforce, HubSpot and others show that a sizable portion of enterprise data is either siloed, incomplete, or not trusted enough to drive AI or even basic reporting.

So the question isn’t “How do we adopt AI?” so much as “How do we build a data foundation that AI and humans can rely on?”

The pattern we keep repeating

Most organizations generate huge amounts of data. But the systems, teams, and contracts around that data often don’t talk to each other. The symptoms are remarkably consistent across sectors:

Slow, backward-looking decisions.
Leaders still depend on monthly or quarterly reporting cycles. By the time the numbers land, the situation has changed. Research from vendors and analysts consistently points to data silos as a key cause of delayed, low-confidence decision-making. Check my previous post here (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/elmozamil-elamir_dataforgood-ai-humanitarianinnovation-activity-7389662378948444161-qvPb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAArBu-kB-Es3kFvxCWoo6aj_cRj-DPvqfzQ)
Multiple versions of “the truth.”
The same KPI shows three different values depending on which department generated the report. This isn’t just annoying; it impacts trust and makes it harder for leaders to act decisively. Oracle and others highlight how siloed systems fragment semantics and degrade data quality across the organization. I remember few years ago, when same team requesting analysis for same KPIs from different units, which always create discrepancies and unnecessary additional work.
Shadow data pipelines.
Analysts quietly rebuild the same extracts in spreadsheets, local scripts, or personal BI workbooks. It looks like clever problem-solving, but it’s actually duplicated effort, hidden risk, and a steady drain on capacity. It is evident centralized data and consolidated data sources reduce the efforts and data quality issue. Recently, I saw this practiced by many practitioners who rewrite different scripts to report on same KPI with each script generating different results or impacting system performance.
AI that looks impressive in demos but fails in production.
There’s growing evidence that a large proportion of AI projects stumble not because the algorithms are wrong, but because data is incomplete, mis-labeled, or inaccessible at scale.

This is what “data silos” really do: they don’t just slow you down, they make it harder to know whether the decision you’re making is even the right one.

What “breaking a silo” entails

It’s tempting to translate “integration” into a single technology answer: “We’ll move everything into a Lakehouse, and we’re done.” Sometimes that’s part of the solution, but organizations that make real progress usually work on three things in parallel: operating model, governance, and architecture.

1. Operating model: who owns what, and for whom?

Data silos are often a consequence of unclear ownership rather than malicious intent.

Domain ownership:
Assign domains (e.g., Sales, HR, Supply Chain, Finance) that own specific data products, with clear responsibilities for quality, documentation, and serving downstream consumers. Data mesh thinking has reinforced this idea of “data as a product” owned by domains (and data as asset), even when physical storage is centralized.
A decision-oriented forum.
Instead of endless technical steering committees, stand up a small “Decision Council” where domain leads regularly walk through a handful of cross-cutting metrics tied to outcomes (revenue, service coverage, risk). The focus: which decisions are blocked or distorted because data is fragmented?
Integration as a capability, not a project.
Many transformations treat integration as a one-off item. But ongoing change in products, partners, and regulations means integration needs roadmaps, SLAs, and proper funding.

2. Governance:

Governance used to be framed as a compliance. Multiple recent analyses argue that messy governance and unclear ownership are central reasons AI projects fail to deliver value or fall foul of regulation.

Shared language first:
Publish and maintain a simple semantic layer: clear, business-friendly definitions for entities such as lead, customer, location, case, and time buckets. One glossary, reused across BI tools and data products. I remember, few days ago, I was discussing with a friend on how to utilize machine learning and artificial intelligence to support business, he argued in his current role, the main issue is different and conflicting terminology which made it impossible to automate and interpret the findings.
Data contracts:
Define contracts between producers and consumers: schemas, update frequency, and minimal quality thresholds (e.g., uniqueness, completeness). Modern integration teams increasingly treat these as versioned artefacts. I remember when a team develop a data quality tool which evaluate data quality across different dimensions which resulted in huge impact ensuring our data meets the minimum standard.
Privacy and protection by design:
As privacy regulation tightens and AI laws emerge, organizations need consistent rules on PII minimization, purpose limitation, retention, and role-based access across systems.
Lineage:
Leaders don’t need a spaghetti diagram, but they do need to see where critical numbers originate, which transformations were applied, and which systems feed which models.

3. Architecture:

The technical pattern will vary, but some principles keep showing up:

Near real-time where it matters, batch where it doesn’t.
Streaming or event-driven integration makes sense for inventory, fraud, or protection alerts. Heavy legacy systems or low-volatility dimensions can happily move in scheduled batches with change data capture. For more information refer to my article about ETL vs ELT.
A governed hub plus a shared semantic layer.
Whether you use a warehouse, Lakehouse, or unified data platform, the key is consistent storage, transformation, and access controls, plus a semantic layer that keeps metric definitions aligned across tools.
Master data where it counts.
Master Data Management (MDM) for core entities, customers, households, suppliers, locations, plus reference data for geographies, programs, and partners creates the “join keys” that make cross-domain insight possible. A dedicated video will be developed and uploaded to YouTube.
Quality signals in the open.
Automated checks for completeness, validity, duplicates, and timeliness are important, but they only change behavior if they’re visible. Expose quality scores in BI tools so business users see when a metric is degraded and why.

A practical lens: from fragmented assessments to operational intelligence

Consider a fairly typical scenario in social services or humanitarian operations.

Before integration

Field teams submit assessments in spreadsheets.
Registration data sits in a transactional system managed by a different unit.
Partner organizations send PDFs or email attachments with service delivery reports.
Leadership only gets a reconciled view at the end of the month or quarter, just in time for the next crisis.

This pattern lines up almost exactly with how major vendors describe data silos: scattered spreadsheets and disconnected tools leading to slow, incomplete decisions and an inability to see the whole picture.

What changed

Contracts with partners.
Instead of “send whatever you have,” partners agree to minimum required fields, controlled vocabularies, and a regular submission.
An ingestion hub with feedback.
Partners can submit via API or secure file transfer; submissions are automatically validated, and issues are sent back quickly rather than discovered weeks later.
A semantic model anchored on the household.
Registration, needs assessments, and service data are joined around a mastered “household” or “beneficiary” entity, rather than loosely linked spreadsheets.
A shared workspace.
A self-service BI environment exposes key metrics such as caseload, vulnerability, service coverage, with data freshness and quality indicators visible on each report.

After integration

Operations leads don’t wait for month-end. They can reprioritize weekly, shifting staff and resources to areas with rising caseloads or gaps in coverage. Arguments about “whose numbers are right” drop off because metric definitions and data quality status are openly visible.

This is the shift from data as a reporting artifact to data as operational infrastructure.

Trade-offs leadership can’t delegate

There’s no single “correct” architecture. There are trade-offs that leadership needs to own explicitly:

Warehouse vs. mesh vs. unified platform.
Centralized warehouses simplify standardization and oversight. Data mesh-style domain ownership, on the other hand, scales context and puts those closest to the work in charge of their data products. Modern unified platforms and zero-copy approaches increasingly try to combine both: centralized semantics and governance with federated delivery and local autonomy.
Speed vs. control.
Heavy governance slows experimentation; too little governance produces untrustworthy dashboards and risky AI. A risk-based approach, tighter control around PII, finance, and regulated processes, lighter touch in sandboxes, tends to age better than one-size-fits-all rules.
Build vs. buy.
Buying a platform accelerates time-to-value, but if contracts don’t guarantee open APIs, export rights, and interoperability, you may simply recreate silos on a shinier surface.
Real-time vs. “right-time.”
Not every decision merits streaming. Stockouts, fraud alerts, or protection incidents might require minutes; workforce planning or strategy refreshes can work with hours or days. The question to ask is: What is the acceptable decision latency?

Governance, ethics, and “responsible intelligence"

Silos are not just a technical nuisance; they’re an accountability problem. When data is scattered, it becomes harder to apply consistent consent, retention, and access policies, harder to audit model training data, and harder to explain or contest automated outcomes.

Connecting data under a coherent governance framework makes it easier to:

Apply consistent consent and retention rules across channels.
Track which datasets, transformations, and features fed which models.
Provide meaningful explanations by linking predictions back to traceable, well-defined features.

The goal is not just dashboards, but defensible decisions and AI that leadership can stand behind.

Closing thought

If last week was about putting decisions before data, this week is about making sure the data that feeds those decisions is integrated, governed, and trustworthy. Break silos deliberately, measure the impact on how you decide, and your analytics and AI will start to reflect the real world you manage, rather than the fragmentation you inherited.