Start with the review meeting
Write down the question a manager should be able to answer. “Which matters have passed their expected stage window?” calls for different information from “How much active work is assigned to each attorney?” One needs dates and a target rule; the other needs a clear assignment definition and a current matter status.
Agree on what happens after someone reads the report. A delayed stage might need an explanation, a staff check or an update to a missing field. A dashboard is more useful when it helps someone choose that next step. Adding another chart will not resolve an unclear operating process.
Give each measure a definition
For every indicator, record the source field, inclusion rule, date basis and owner. “Open matters” needs an agreed interpretation of status. “Overdue” needs a target date or a calculation rule. “Variance” needs a stated direction so people know whether a negative value means ahead of target or behind it.
This work should happen before visual design. If two people calculate the same measure differently, a polished card only hides the disagreement. Review a few representative records together, including an incomplete matter and one that changed stage recently. The rule should explain both ordinary and awkward examples.
Separate active work from completed work
An open matter and a closed matter answer different management questions. Current work can reveal where a handoff is waiting. Completed work can help the team inspect the full sequence and compare actual timing with agreed targets. Combining them without explanation can make a trend difficult to interpret.
The 3A Law portal separates open and closed reports. It also offers attorney and staff summaries, so the team can inspect timing and workload through the responsible role. These are reporting capabilities; they do not establish that a particular person caused a delay or that case outcomes improved.
Leave missing information visible
A missing stage date is not the same thing as zero elapsed days. A missing assignment is not evidence that nobody is responsible. Decide how the report presents each gap and where staff can correct the source. Otherwise a calculation can make incomplete records look healthy.
The documented portal normalizes linked Clio records and plain text values into consistent display fields. Missing dates remain a data-quality issue rather than becoming invented values. Target rules and practice-area mappings still need to match the firm’s actual process; normalization cannot make those business decisions for the team.
Make the summary inspectable
A manager should be able to move from an indicator to the records that produced it. The portal’s matter detail shows stage dates and timing information behind the overview. Date and assignment filters make review more focused, while sorting helps identify records worth discussing.
Exports should preserve that context. The project supports CSV, spreadsheet and PDF reporting. A working report should retain the relevant date range and filters so the person receiving it understands the population being reviewed. If the screen and export disagree, the team loses confidence in both.
Read the example without inventing a result
The supplied 3A Law screenshot shows a historical operating snapshot. Its case count and timing figures are not a before-and-after study, and IXM does not present them as hours saved or improved case outcomes. The case study documents what was built: a connected view of matter progress, workload and underlying dates.
For your firm, start with a small reporting specification. List the decision, measure, source, date rule, missing-data treatment and next action. Test it against a few known matters before expanding. That is a stronger foundation than beginning with a wall of KPI cards.
Quick audit
- What decision should this measure support?
- Which source fields and date rules produce it?
- How do open and closed matters differ?
- Can staff inspect missing dates and underlying records?
- Does the export preserve the same filters?
Sources used