The Dashboard That Everyone Trusts and Nobody Uses
You built an executive dashboard showing weekly revenue by region. It refreshes hourly. Usage analytics show 41 views in the first week and 6 in the most recent week. In interviews, three VPs say the same thing: the number "doesn't match finance." Finance reports revenue net of a 2% channel rebate and attributes by order date; your dashboard reports gross revenue attributed by ship date. The gap is roughly 3-5% monthly and moves around. One VP says she now screenshots the finance report and pastes it into her own deck. The dashboard has 12 charts on one page, a region filter, and a date-range slicer. Your sponsor wants to "make it more engaging" with drill-downs and animated transitions.
1. Explain why the dashboard lost trust and what the trust problem is actually about, using the specific numbers in the setup.
Read the worked answer
The dashboard did not lose trust because it was boring; it lost trust because it disagreed with the number the executives are accountable for. Finance reports net of a 2% rebate and attributes by order date. The dashboard reports gross and attributes by ship date. Those are two different measures with two different attribution rules, so a 3-5% gap that moves month to month is exactly what you would expect: rebate timing and ship-vs-order slippage both vary by period.
Crucially, the VP cannot reconcile the gap herself. A stable, explainable difference can be trusted; a moving one cannot. So she reverts to the finance report, which is the source of record, and the dashboard becomes a decoration. The usage drop from 41 to 6 views is the symptom, not the disease.
Adding drill-downs and animation would make a distrusted number more interactive, which does not help. The problem is definitional alignment, not presentation.
2. Propose a concrete redesign and reconciliation plan, and say what you would do about the sponsor's request.
Read the worked answer
First, align the measure. Either report net revenue by order date to match finance, or report both gross-by-ship and net-by-order side by side with the 2% rebate shown as an explicit line. I would default to the finance definition because that is the number executives are judged on, and expose the gross view as a secondary tab for sales operations.
Second, publish a reconciliation: a small table showing finance total, dashboard total, and the delta decomposed into rebate effect and ship-date timing effect. If the delta is explained every month, the VP stops needing to check.
Third, cut the page from 12 charts to 3-4 that answer specific questions: trend, region contribution, and variance to plan. Keep the region filter; drop the date slicer in favor of fixed standard periods so everyone compares the same windows.
On the sponsor's request: I would say drill-downs are worth adding only after the numbers reconcile, and animation is not worth the engineering time. I would offer to demo the reconciled version to the three VPs and measure whether views recover before investing further.