When two reports disagree, the meeting becomes a debate about the data. GTMI follows the measure back to the production event, agrees the calculation with its owner, and designs the reporting path around the decision it needs to support.
For operations and engineering teams reconciling OEE, yield, shift performance, or reports across sites.
One team excludes planned downtime and another includes it. A shift crosses midnight but the report uses calendar days. Missing equipment values are corrected by hand with no record of the adjustment. The chart may look clear while the measure underneath remains disputed.
Capture the production context and timestamp.
Agree calculations, exclusions, and ownership.
Show freshness, gaps, and relevant context.
Give the report a clear operational purpose.
We use a disputed or labour-intensive report as the test case. Source capture, extracts, calculations, and dashboard logic show where timing gaps, manual steps, or competing definitions enter the measure. The review also asks who uses the report and which decision it should support.
The reporting brief states the source of truth, calculation, time window, exclusions, and treatment of late or corrected data. Process owners approve the business definition. GTMI then defines the data path, quality checks, and presentation needed to make that measure usable.
A reporting application should receive the data it needs through an approved interface. Depending on the source, this may use a read-only API, MQTT path, historian, or separate store. We assess access and validation boundaries so reporting changes do not introduce uncontrolled access to execution systems.
The service pages explain the work you can commission, the outputs and how it fits alongside your team.
The service explains the contribution and the decisions its outputs support. Where an example is shown, it uses fictional manufacturing data.
The assessment starts with the measure and its source. The right first step may be a definition change, better capture, or a governed data model using your existing reporting tools.
Only when the definitions and operating context support that comparison. The review identifies differences in time windows, exclusions, source capture, and corrections before proposing a shared view.
Start with the report, its source data, and the operational decision it is meant to support. We can discuss whether the first improvement belongs in capture, the calculation, the data path, or the report itself.