The public sector time‑saver: How one team reclaimed 100s of hours with automated reporting 

Public sector reporting has a reputation for being slow, manual, and fragile under pressure. This is not because teams lack commitment, but because the systems behind reporting were never designed for the level of scrutiny now expected. 

Monthly performance packs, Cabinet Office submissions, audit follow-ups, ministerial briefings. All built from data pulled together by hand, reconciled in spreadsheets, emailed back and forth, and signed off just in time. 

One large public sector organization we worked with reached a breaking point. Their reporting cycles were measured in weeks. By the time packs reached senior stakeholders, the data was already out of date. 

As Michael Rasmussen, GRC 20/20 pundit, explains using a driving analogy: “If you’re always looking back, you crash.” Organizations stuck in old spreadsheets are reacting, not anticipating. True risk management requires foresight, not reliance on rear-view data. 

The reporting reality in large public sector organizations

In this case, performance reporting spanned multiple portfolios and programs, each owned by different teams, operating to fixed monthly deadlines. 

The core challenges were structural: 

• Performance data captured manually by multiple teams 

• No standardized format for KPIs, milestones, risks, or dependencies 

• Manual consolidation into monthly packs 

• Limited version history and weak audit trails 

• Reporting that reflected a point in time, not emerging trends 

Legacy processes created a reporting lag of up to a month. Governance was technically happening, but it was always behind reality. 

This pattern is familiar in public sector environments where scale, accountability, and compliance collide. 

At Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, the volume of information requests alone made manual processes unsustainable: 

“Historically, there was a mixture of requests received via paper forms and sometimes email, a large proportion was received through the post, and there was a need to standardize, centralize and digitalize. It was certainly a challenge due to the increasing volume.” 

Marc Wilson, Head of Information Security & Data Protection Officer, NHS Trust 

At CoreStream GRC, we understand that the issue is not effort. It is friction. 

Why manual reporting collapses under scrutiny in the public sector  

When reporting relies on manual consolidation, 3 things happen. 

1. Speed suffers. Teams chase updates, clean data, and reconcile inconsistencies. 

2. Risk increases. Version confusion, missing updates, and undocumented changes create audit exposure. 

It’s not a theoretical risk either.

Research summarized by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales cites studies finding that as many as 90% of spreadsheets contain errors, which is exactly why manual reporting falls apart when scrutiny spikes. 

3. Value disappears. Leadership discussions focus on whether the numbers are right, not what the numbers mean. 

“Clients moving from Excel and PowerPoint into CoreStream GRC have seen immediate benefits. Days of manual report prep replaced by real-time dashboards and committee packs at the click of a button.” 

Michael Rasmussen, GRC Analyst, GRC 20/20 

Like many of our other public sector clients, in this case reporting had become an administrative exercise rather than a governance one. 

Rebuilding performance governance around automation 

The turning point came when the organization stopped asking how to make reporting faster, and instead asked a different question: 

How do we make performance information update itself as work happens? 

The solution focused on automation, standardization, and traceability. 

Key elements included: 

• Automated alerts prompting program and portfolio owners to submit updates 

• Standardized capture of KPIs, milestones, risks, issues, dependencies, and achievements 

• Trigger-based updates when headline ratings changed 

• Automated consolidation into consistent, branded reporting packs 

• Full version history for every reporting cycle 

• Centralized audit trails, including the ability to download historic reports 

• And instead of rebuilding reports each month, the system produced them continuously. 

At Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, teams described a similar shift clearly: 

“We went from 5–10 minutes for one task to just 5 clicks. Less than a minute. We counted.” 

Data Protection & Security Support Specialist, NHS Trust 

The impact: from retrospective reporting to real-time oversight 

 Results were immediate and measurable. 

• Reporting cycles reduced from weeks to hours 

• Single source of KPIs across portfolios and programs 

• Automated, consistent submissions to senior government stakeholders 

• Clear ownership and accountability for updates 

• Full audit trails without manual intervention 

• Ability to report on trends, not just point-in-time status 

• Leadership no longer waited for the monthly pack to understand performance. 

Leadership had live visibility. 

“I’d say each user saves 3 to 5 hours a week. Probably more, but it’s difficult to quantify.” 

Program manager

Why this matters now 

 Public sector organizations are under increasing pressure to report more frequently, more accurately, and with greater transparency. 

Speed without governance creates risk. 
Governance without speed creates irrelevance. 

The lesson from this anonymized case is clear: 

Performance governance only works when reporting is automated, traceable, and embedded into how teams operate day to day. 

“If something feels clunky, users stop using it, even if they can’t always articulate why.” 

Lionel Matsuya, Head of Client Solution Design, CoreStream GRC 

The bigger takeaway for public sector leaders 

Most reporting problems are not reporting problems but system design problems. 

When performance data lives in emails and spreadsheets, governance will always lag reality. When reporting is automated and owned, governance becomes proactive. 

The organizations getting this right are not working harder. They are working differently. 

Want to see how automated performance governance could work in your organization?