Blog · Board and management reporting · Supply chain
Compare inventory, supplier-service and customer-delivery dashboard layouts using one worked US distributor example. See the source rows, calculations, decision owners and a variation that changes supplier performance.
Supply chain dashboard examples are most useful when each layout answers a specific operating decision: what stock needs attention, which supplier commitments were missed, or where customer delivery slipped. Start with that decision, then show the records and denominators behind the result.
A dashboard gallery should help you choose a view. The separate supply chain dashboard guide covers assembly and reconciliation in more detail.
Use a common site filter and reporting cutoff across the views, but give each one its own measure and exception table.
| View | Main question | Headline display | Detail beneath it | Decision owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inventory | Where could usable stock run short? | Inventory value and item-level days of cover | Item, site, available units, demand assumption, replenishment context | Inventory planner |
| Supplier service | Which inbound commitments need follow-up? | On-time commitments divided by commitments due | Supplier, site, original due date, receipt date, missing receipt | Procurement manager |
| Customer delivery | Where did customers miss the agreed delivery date? | On-time orders divided by orders due | Site, customer, order, committed date, delivered date | Distribution manager |
This separates a balance from a flow. The Census Bureau's inventory definitions describe retail inventory as a period-end stock and its inventory-to-sales ratio as that stock relative to monthly sales. The unit-based cover calculation below uses an explicit daily demand assumption instead.
The layout should expose an action, not just a colored tile. NIST's guidance on performance measurement emphasizes accurate, timely measures that support decisions. Put the exception owner and next review alongside the result so the meeting can resolve something.
Consider fictional US distributor Alder Industrial Supply, with sites in Dayton, Ohio, and Reno, Nevada. Its September 2026 review uses inventory at September 30 and commitments due during September. Monetary values are USD. Percentages and cover below are displayed to one decimal place where needed; calculations use unrounded inputs.
The available-stock file contains these item-site rows. Unit cost and approved daily demand are supplied inputs. Available units exclude quarantined stock.
| Site | Item | Available units | Unit cost (USD) | Approved daily demand (units) | Inventory value (USD) | Days of cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dayton | A | 600 | 40 | 30 | 24,000 | 20.0 |
| Dayton | B | 120 | 100 | 20 | 12,000 | 6.0 |
| Reno | A | 450 | 40 | 15 | 18,000 | 30.0 |
| Reno | B | 240 | 100 | 20 | 24,000 | 12.0 |
| Total | 78,000 |
Inventory value is available units multiplied by unit cost. Days of cover is available units divided by approved daily demand. Dayton item B therefore has 120 / 20 = 6.0 days of cover and 120 × 100 = $12,000 of stock.
Place the $78,000 total above a table sorted by cover, with the demand assumption visible. In this example, the planner uses an illustrative review threshold of fewer than 10 days. Dayton item B is the only displayed row below it.
That is a review flag, not a purchase instruction. The planner still needs the open purchase commitments, replenishment lead time, substitute availability and the demand assumption's approval. Reno's item A stock cannot automatically resolve Dayton's item B coverage concern because they are different items.
The detail table earns its space by preventing that mistake. A site-level inventory total alone cannot reveal whether the site holds the items its customers need.
The purchasing export counts each purchase-order delivery commitment once. The outbound file counts customer orders once. Both populations include items due in September that remained undelivered at the cutoff; a missing receipt or delivery cannot count as on time.
| Site | Supplier commitments due | Received on time | Supplier on-time rate | Customer orders due | Delivered on time | Customer on-time rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dayton | 80 | 72 | 90.0% | 100 | 95 | 95.0% |
| Reno | 20 | 14 | 70.0% | 50 | 40 | 80.0% |
| Total | 100 | 86 | 86.0% | 150 | 135 | 90.0% |
The supplier headline is (72 + 14) / (80 + 20) = 86.0%. Put the site comparison beside a supplier exception list with the original commitment date and the buyer responsible for follow-up. Reno's 70.0% makes it the first site to investigate, but the rate alone does not establish the cause.
The delivery headline is (95 + 40) / (100 + 50) = 90.0%. Its detail should identify the due orders that failed the timing test and any missing proof of delivery. It should use the customer's agreed delivery condition, rather than a convenient warehouse departure timestamp.
Do not label this perfect order performance. ASCM's perfect customer order definition includes completeness, documentation and condition as well as delivery expectations. This example contains timing counts only.
Keep every input unchanged except Reno commitments received on time. Suppose a verified receipt correction changes that count from 14 to 18.
| Display | Original calculation | Revised calculation | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reno supplier rate | 14 / 20 = 70.0% | 18 / 20 = 90.0% | +20.0 percentage points |
| Company supplier rate | 86 / 100 = 86.0% | (72 + 18) / 100 = 90.0% | +4.0 percentage points |
| Customer delivery rate | 135 / 150 = 90.0% | 135 / 150 = 90.0% | Unchanged |
The correction moves the supplier view. Inventory value remains $78,000, and the correction supplies no evidence that stock or customer deliveries changed. Record the correction in the reporting notes so readers do not describe it as an operating improvement.
The inventory values sum to $78,000. Supplier numerators sum to 86 and denominators to 100; customer numerators sum to 135 and denominators to 150. Rebuild each company rate from those totals, then match the populations back to their exports.
Keep the site identifiers stable across files. If an inventory export includes a location that the order export excludes, disclose that coverage difference before placing their results together. For a spreadsheet presentation of the same inputs, see the supply chain KPI dashboard layout.
If the review needs a wider exception-management view, the supply chain control tower dashboard guide covers that separate decision context. The supply chain analytics overview explains the broader use of business exports.
Bring your inventory snapshot, supplier commitment export and customer delivery file, with their dates and site identifiers. Covirage maps the columns, and its tools compute and check the comparisons; the external AI model explains the results with every figure traced to its rows. Create a free Covirage account and bring a sample of your own data; creating the account takes about a minute.
See Covirage for supply chain teams for the supporting industry context.
Show the measures needed for the meeting's decisions, plus their period, definitions and source coverage. An inventory review needs stock and demand by item and site. A supplier review needs commitments and receipts. A customer-service review needs due orders and delivery evidence.
They can share a summary page when the same leaders review them, but keep their calculations separate. Inventory is a balance at a stated time. Deliveries are events during a period. Link both to site details without joining every inventory row to every shipment.
No. On-time delivery tests the agreed timing condition. Perfect order performance also considers whether the order was complete, correctly documented and in acceptable condition. Label the narrower measure honestly when your export contains dates but lacks those other checks.
Choose a cadence that matches the decision and the availability of reliable files. Replenishment exceptions may need a daily review, while a leadership review may be monthly. Display the export cutoff so readers can distinguish a changed result from a newly completed reporting period.