Services

Five ways SchemaHelm can help you understand, strengthen and maintain your data and reporting foundations.

Whether you are trying to understand why reports disagree, map how data moves through the business, prepare for a new system or AI initiative, or simply keep existing reporting healthy, the starting point depends on what you already know about the problem.

Not sure where to start? Describe what is happening and I will tell you which service is the best fit, or tell you honestly if SchemaHelm is not the right solution.

1. Messy Data Diagnostic

Start here if: something is clearly wrong with your reporting but you cannot yet say exactly what.

A focused investigation into where reporting confusion, inconsistency, duplication and risk are coming from.

What I look at

  • conflicting reports and inconsistent figures

  • duplicate, missing or invalid records

  • inconsistent categories or business definitions

  • spreadsheet workarounds and manual fixes

  • gaps in validation and reporting controls

  • processes that depend on undocumented knowledge

What you receive

A written summary of the main problem areas, the likely underlying causes, the key risks to your reporting and a ranked list of what should be addressed first.

Why it matters

Without a clear diagnosis, businesses can spend months correcting individual reports while the underlying cause continues producing new problems.

Scope and timescale agreed before work begins.

2 Schema & Data Flow Mapping

Start here if:you need to understand the wider reporting picture before committing to a system replacement, reporting project or transformation programme.

A structured map of how data moves between source systems, databases, tables, files, spreadsheets, reports and manual steps.

What I look at

  • source systems and reporting dependencies

  • how data moves and where it changes

  • points of manual intervention and uncontrolled adjustment

  • fragile handoffs between systems or teams

  • undocumented transformations

  • candidate sources of truth

What you receive

Depending on the agreed scope, this may include:

  • a mapped data flow

  • key system and process dependencies

  • key transformation points identified

  • areas where manual work creates risk

  • source-of-truth recommendations

  • priorities for documentation or improvement

Why it matters

When the reporting journey is undocumented, business logic can end up living in one or two people's heads. That is a continuity risk as well as a reporting risk.

Scope and timescale agreed before work begins.

3 REPORTING RECONCILIATION AND LOGIC REVIEW

Start here if:two reports, dashboards or spreadsheets disagree and you need to understand why.

A detailed review of where their underlying logic begins to diverge.

What I look at

  • mismatched metrics and conflicting outputs

  • competing definitions of the same measure

  • joins, filters and calculations

  • duplicated or excluded records

  • inconsistent date logic

  • manual spreadsheet adjustments

  • SQL or reporting logic that is difficult to explain, maintain or validate

What you receive

Depending on the agreed scope, this may include:

  • a reporting discrepancy register

  • a plain-English explanation of where and why figures diverge

  • differences in logic and definitions set out clearly

  • recommended metric definitions

  • source-of-truth guidance

  • a prioritised remediation plan

Why it matters

When key reports disagree, confidence drops quickly and decision-making becomes slower, riskier and more dependent on manual checking.

Scope and timescale agreed before work begins.

4 DATA READINESS FOR NEW SYSTEMS, AUTOMATION & AI

Start here if: you are preparing for a new system, system replacement, automation or AI initiative but are not confident that the existing data and reporting foundations are ready.

An assessment of whether the data, definitions, ownership, reporting logic and existing processes beneath the proposed initiative are sufficiently understood, reliable and controlled to build on.

What I look at

  • unclear or contested business definitions

  • undocumented or poorly understood data sources

  • duplicate, missing or inconsistent data

  • weak or absent data-quality controls

  • fragmented or inaccessible data

  • uncertainty about which data or source should be trusted

  • unclear data ownership and accountability

  • reporting logic that cannot be confidently explained

  • manual processes and spreadsheet workarounds

  • dependencies between existing data and proposed new systems

  • risks that could be carried into a system replacement, integration, automation or AI initiative

What you receive

A practical readiness assessment covering:

  • current readiness

  • key data and reporting risks

  • information and documentation gaps

  • important system and data dependencies

  • areas requiring remediation

  • source-of-truth considerations

  • recommendations for clearer data ownership and accountability

  • priorities for strengthening the data foundation

  • a practical roadmap for what should be addressed before the proposed initiative proceeds

Why it matters

New technology does not automatically fix existing data problems.

If a new system, integration, automation or AI initiative depends on data with conflicting definitions, unclear ownership, duplicated records or poorly understood reporting logic, those problems can be carried into the new environment.

Assessing the foundations first helps identify what can be trusted, where clearer ownership is needed and what should be addressed before further complexity is added. This can reduce migration problems, wasted investment, unreliable reporting and avoidable risk.

The aim is not to make every piece of existing data perfect. It is to understand what matters to the proposed initiative and establish a stronger foundation to build on.

This service covers assessment, recommendations and roadmap development. It does not include specialist system implementation or advanced AI implementation.

Scope and timescale agreed before work begins.

5 OPTIONAL REPORTING HEALTH CHECKS

After the initial work is complete, I can return on a six-monthly or annual basis to review whether reporting logic, definitions and data processes are still working as intended.

These reviews can help identify:

  • new spreadsheet workarounds

  • reporting logic that has drifted

  • undocumented changes

  • recurring data-quality issues

  • areas where previous controls are no longer working as expected

What you receive

A short independent health-check report with practical recommendations for anything that needs attention.

This keeps SchemaHelm involved without turning it into a permanent outsourced data team.

WHAT I WORK WITH

Systems and environments

I work with:

  • SQL Server and PostgreSQL

  • SQL reporting logic

  • Excel and manual reporting processes

  • structured data extracts and CSV files

  • database schemas and relationships

  • reporting definitions and calculations

  • data moving between business systems

  • data-quality and validation issues

If your environment is not listed, ask.

I will tell you during the initial discussion whether I am the right person for the work, and if I am not, I will say so.

Where specialist platform engineering, security or implementation expertise is required, I will identify that clearly and help define the appropriate next step.

NOT SURE WHICH ONE YOU NEED?

You do not need to diagnose the problem before getting in touch.

Describe what is happening in a few sentences and I will tell you where I would suggest starting.

If SchemaHelm is not the right fit, I will tell you that too.