Shane Murphy: A Cambridge Business Chart Should Make Its Units Clear

A chart can make a report look finished before the underlying question has been explained. The colours are consistent, the labels are neatly arranged and the title sounds confident. A reader may still be unsure whether the values represent people, messages, requests or completed tasks. I think the first responsibility of a business chart is to make the thing being counted understandable.

I am Shane Murphy, also known as Shane Ian Murphy, formerly of Cambridge and formerly of Limitless Mobile, where I was co-founder and Chief Business Development Officer. This UK business commentary uses a hypothetical Cambridge enquiry report. It includes no actual company figures and makes no claim about the performance of a real business.

Imagine a small service team preparing a chart of incoming enquiries. One colleague counts every message received. Another counts each separate customer request, even if several messages concern it. Both may describe their figures as enquiries. Before the team discusses whether demand has changed, it needs to agree which of those units the chart represents.

I would begin with the question the report is meant to support. Is the team examining how much correspondence it handles, how many distinct requests arrive or how many people ask for help? Those are related questions, but they are not the same question. A useful title and a short definition can keep the chart connected to the particular one being examined.

The time period should be explicit. A reader needs to know which dates are included and whether each comparison covers an equivalent interval. If one period is incomplete, that condition should be visible beside the chart. The team should not rely on the reader noticing a date in a separate worksheet or remembering a qualification from an earlier meeting.

I would also identify the point at which an item enters the count. In our fictional report, a request might be counted when it first arrives, when it is assigned or when it is completed. The appropriate choice depends on the question. The chart should explain the choice so that a reader does not attach a different meaning to the same value.

Categories need definitions that the team can apply consistently. If a message concerns both a collection and a repair, how is it classified? The report should follow an understood method and explain any material limitation. A tidy set of coloured bars does not resolve ambiguity in the way the underlying items were grouped.

When a chart shows a proportion, the reader needs to know what the proportion is of. A share of all received messages differs from a share of distinct requests. I would keep that description close to the value rather than expect the audience to recover it from the wider report. The denominator is part of the meaning, not a technical detail to be hidden after the conclusion.

The scale and labels should support comparison. A reader should be able to see the units, recognise the categories and understand the interval represented by the display. Decorative choices should be reviewed against that purpose. I would ask whether a person unfamiliar with the report can explain what a visible difference means without assistance from its author.

The accompanying commentary should distinguish observation from explanation. The team may see that one category contains more requests in the displayed period. It still needs evidence before attributing that difference to a particular campaign, process change or customer preference. A chart can reveal a question worth investigating without establishing the cause of the pattern.

I would include a brief source note and any significant exclusions. If the report omits messages received through another channel, that boundary matters to interpretation. The reader should not mistake a partial view for a complete account merely because the presentation is polished. The note should explain the scope in language the audience can use.

Before sharing the chart, ask a colleague to describe its question, unit, period and principal limitation. If they cannot, the report needs clearer labelling or a more focused explanation. Adding another chart may not solve a problem in the definition of the first one.

For the hypothetical Cambridge team, useful reporting begins with shared meaning. The chart should help people discuss the work represented by its values. I would judge it by whether the audience understands what has been counted and what conclusions the information can reasonably support.

Author background: https://shanemurphy.co.uk/career

This author-origin business commentary was prepared with AI assistance.