Aureca — Portfolio Dashboard
Decision cockpit · Baserow system of record · RAG and BI-ready portfolio view
Prototype layout Mockup v3 — April 2026 Illustrative values
Developer note: Static HTML mockup. All values are illustrative. In production, widgets fetch from the Baserow REST API. Source chips on each card show the table/field reference. The 💰 Financial lens buttons open the future BI layer with operational context passed as a parameter.
📐
Design intent: This dashboard is the operational cockpit for project and portfolio management. It draws exclusively from the Baserow system of record — no financial actuals. The 💰 Financial lens buttons open a future BI layer that combines this operational view with Finance ERP data via the integration layer. The SO drill-down tables are the primary management interaction. The mock now also previews donor/funding outlooks, portfolio risk, and AWP/MTDP commitments where these can be credibly illustrated. Some views remain placeholders pending Finance and HR data ownership decisions.

So what?

This showcase is not just a dashboard mockup. It demonstrates how I turn fragmented programme, strategy, and finance-related information into a management cockpit that leadership can actually use to steer a portfolio.

  • Align projects to strategic objectives
  • Surface delivery risks before they become reporting surprises
  • Create a clean bridge between operational management and a future financial lens
  • Move leadership from retrospective reporting to active steering

My role

I did not build a production BI tool myself. My contribution was to shape the operating logic: what management needs to see, how operational and financial views should stay separated but connectable, and how the dashboard should support decisions rather than just display numbers.

🌐 DCAF portfolio
🏢 Entity portfolio
⏱ Activity & monitoring
📚 Knowledge & search
⚠️ Data quality
Thematic area: Region: Baserow · Projects table · Last sync 02:14
Global snapshot
Draft
8
Concept phase
Pipeline
23
Across 4 entities
Active
68
↑ +5 vs last year
Suspended
4
Review required
Extended
6
Beyond orig. end date
Completed
42
+12 this year
Projects i "Projects" in OneDCAF includes all work types: projects, programmes, training, advisory, missions, research, analytical work, and any other operational engagement. All are tracked in the Works table with a Type field to distinguish them. total
151
All statuses
Countries covered
41
Active projects
Avg duration
18 mo
Active projects
Donors engaged
24
Active funding sources
Strategic alignment
🎯 Strategic objective alignment — click SO to drill down
SO 1 · Security
28
SO 2 · Rule of Law
22
SO 3 · Governance
18
SO 4 · Cross-cutting
10
Multi-SO
8
8
View financial lens
Source: Works → Strategic_Framework (link table)
📁 Project types
Projects
49
49
Programmes
16
16
Missions
11
11
Training
8
8
Advisory
6
6
Research
5
5
View financial lens
Source: Works.Type
🔵 Portfolio by status
Draft8
Pipeline23
Active68
Suspended4
Extended6
Completed42
View financial lens
Source: Works.Status
Thematic areas & geographies
🏷️ Top thematic areas — active projects
SSR
32
32
Police Reform
25
25
Parl. Oversight
21
21
Intel. Oversight
17
17
Border Mgmt
14
14
Gender & Security
11
11
Justice / ToJ
9
9
Strategic signal: SSR and Police Reform represent 50%+ of portfolio. Gender & Security may be underweighted vs MTDP priorities.
Source: Works → Thematic_Areas (link)
🌍 Geographies — top regions
MENA
22
22
Sub-Saharan Africa
17
17
Europe / CIS
15
15
Asia-Pacific
8
8
Latin America
6
6
Source: Works → Countries.Region
Ending in next 90 days
Police reform programme · JordanExtended
Intel oversight training · TunisiaActive
Parl. oversight · Côte d'IvoireActive
Funding outlook, donor portfolio & strategy planning
💰 Budget vs expenditure — side-by-side preview
Q1 2026
Budget 7.2m
Spent 6.1m
Q2 2026
Budget 7.6m
Spent 4.4m
Q3 2026
Budget 7.9m
Spent 1.8m
Illustrative financial preview only. Real figures depend on the Finance import flow and agreed source fields.
Open full financial lens
Source: Finance import preview · Budget vs Actuals
📆 Confirmed vs pipeline funding outlook — 5 years
2026
Confirmed 19.2m
Pipeline 3.6m
2027
Confirmed 16.1m
Pipeline 4.5m
2028
Confirmed 12.7m
Pipeline 5.0m
2029
Confirmed 9.0m
Pipeline 5.7m
2030
Confirmed 5.3m
Pipeline 5.1m
Forward view requested by management. Exact ownership of “pipeline” data still needs to be confirmed.
Source: Works Financial Sources + Time Periods (illustrative)
🤝 Donor portfolio by instrument
Swiss core budget
8.8m
NL Partnership
6.9m
Pooled Fund
5.0m
Basket funds
3.0m
Bilateral grants
2.3m
View donor financial lens
Source: Works Financial Sources.Instrument (illustrative)
📍 Counts vs indicative value by region
Region# projectsIndicative valueLead teams
MENA22CHF 8.4mMENA, G&S
Sub-Saharan Africa17CHF 6.9mAA-AFR, CP
Europe / CIS15CHF 5.8mEA, G&S
Asia-Pacific8CHF 3.1mEA-AP
Latin America6CHF 1.9mAA-LAC
This explicitly separates project counts from value, as requested.
Source: Works + Countries.Region + Finance preview
🧭 MTO resource allocation — 3 year view
MTO 1
6.6m
MTO 2
4.9m
MTO 3
4.2m
MTO 4
2.8m
Illustrative allocation across 2026–2028. Requires MTO mapping and finance alignment in the data model.
Source: MTDP Objectives + Works Financial Sources (future-state)
Management feedback reflected here: side-by-side budget vs expenditure, confirmed vs pipeline outlook, donor/instrument tracking, distinction between project counts and value, and indicative MTO resource views. These cards are mockup-ready but depend on Finance-side field ownership and mapping to become operational.
Design intent: this tab now previews both the DCAF-wide operational portfolio and the management-information additions requested by the Steering Group. Financial cards remain illustrative until the Finance import and mapping logic are live.
Entity: Year: Status:
Entity: Period:
Activity health
Total activities
312
Q2 2026
Overdue
14
Needs attention
Due this month
38
April 2026
Completed Q2
67
↑ +12 vs Q1
Completion rate
79%
vs 71% last year
Results monitoring (RBM snapshot)
Projects with outcomes
89%
Active projects
Outcomes with indicators
72%
Defined monitoring logic
Indicators updated (90d)
58%
Recent monitoring activity
Outcomes assessed
64%
On track / at risk / unknown
Execution detail
📈 Activity status breakdown
Completed
209
209
In progress
89
89
Scheduled
31
31
Overdue
14
14
Cancelled
9
9
Source: Activities.Status
🔄 Project progress — top active (by completion %)
SSR Programme · Jordan
82%
Police Reform · Tunisia
71%
Parl. Oversight · Kenya
65%
Intel. Oversight · Libya
48%
Border Mgmt · Sahel
39%
Gender & SSR · DRC
28%
Justice Reform · Ukraine
15%
Cyber Security · Georgia
9%
View budget consumption vs progress
Source: Activities (Completed/Total) per Work
Upcoming evaluations
📅 Evaluation calendar (next 6 months)
ProjectTypeDateStatus
Police Reform · TunisiaMid-termMay 2026Planned
SSR Programme · JordanFinalJuly 2026ToR drafting
Governance Support · MoroccoFinalSept 2026Not started
Source: Project_Evaluations.Date + Status
Portfolio structure quality
📋 Outcome achievement & delivery risk
Outcome achievement — active projects
Outcomes on track
62%
Outcomes at risk
24%
Outcomes not yet assessed
14%
Delivery risk — progress vs timeline elapsed
On track
43
≤10pts behind
At risk
18
11–25pts behind
Critical
7
>25pts behind
Delivery risk = activity completion % minus % of planned timeline elapsed. Example: 30% complete but 60% through the timeline = 30 points behind.
Source: Work_Outcomes.Status + Works.Start/End_Date + Activities (completed/total)
🚨 Overdue activities — action required
Training delivery · SSR Jordan28 days
Report submission · Intel Libya21 days
Stakeholder workshop · Ukraine14 days
Assessment completion · DRC7 days
Partner meeting · Sahel5 days
+9 more · auto-alert sent to project managers
Projects not updated >60 days
Governance Reform SupportLast: Jan 12
Security Sector Support ProgrammeLast: Feb 03
Institutional Capacity PilotLast: Feb 11
Source: Activities.End_date < today AND Status ≠ Completed
🔎 Search: Content type: Theme: Region:
How search works: metadata filters and document references live in Baserow. Semantic retrieval is powered by Qdrant (vector search). The system returns relevant document sections — not just file names. Use the AI summary panel to synthesise findings across results. Access controls are enforced at the search layer — you only see content at your clearance level.
Search results & AI synthesis
🔎 Search results — urban policing in Asia

Urban Policing and Community Safety — Regional Concept Note

Project documentAsia Police ReformInternal
This concept note frames urban policing as a governance and accountability issue, with emphasis on municipal coordination, citizen trust, and locally anchored oversight mechanisms. The note draws on three country-level assessments...

Police Reform Support — Mid-term Evaluation Report

EvaluationAsia-Pacific SSR / Police ReformRestricted
The most relevant lesson was that technical policing support was only effective where local political incentives were understood and reflected in programme design. Three of five country cases showed...

Good Practices in Urban Security Programming

Knowledge productMulti-region Police ReformInternal
Urban security programmes that linked policing, municipal governance, and community engagement generated stronger outcomes than projects framed only as technical police capacity-building...

Lessons from Police Accountability Support — Synthesis Note

Lessons learnedAsia Police ReformInternal
Cross-cutting lessons across four Asian country programmes: community liaison mechanisms were the most scalable element; oversight board models transferred poorly without legislative anchoring...
View funding context for results
Source: Qdrant semantic retrieval + Baserow Documents/Sections metadata
🤖 AI synthesis — urban policing in Asia
Across the retrieved documents, urban policing in Asia is framed less as a narrow law-enforcement issue and more as a governance challenge requiring political economy awareness, municipal coordination, and accountability mechanisms.

The strongest recurring finding is that programme design should combine technical police support with attention to incentives, legitimacy, and citizen engagement. Projects that ignored the political economy dimension showed limited sustainability.

Three knowledge products recommend community liaison mechanisms as the most transferable element across contexts.
📊 Results context
Docs found
4
4
Sections hit
12
12
Chunks read
23
23
Query time: 1.8s · Model: llama3 · Access level: Internal
Knowledge base overview
Knowledge products
184
All time
Documents indexed
412
Searchable via AI
Evaluations
23
2021–2026
Transferable lessons
147
Across all themes
📚 Knowledge products by type
Policy briefs
52
52
Assessment reports
43
43
Training materials
35
35
Toolkits
22
22
Evaluation reports
19
19
Other
13
13
Source: Knowledge_Products.Type
💡 Transferable lessons by theme
SSR
38
38
Police
28
28
Oversight
21
21
Gender
16
16
Justice
13
13
Source: Evaluation_Findings WHERE Transferable = true
Entity: Internal governance view · not for external reporting
This tab is for internal governance use. It surfaces data quality gaps that affect strategic reporting, search quality, and Finance integration readiness. Each flag is linked to the governance rule that defines it.
Project record completeness
🔴🟡 Critical flags — requires action
IssueCountImpact
Projects with no activities defined6Progress cannot be tracked. Dashboard shows 0%.
Active projects — no update >60 days9Data quality alert sent to project managers.
Projects with no outcome defined11Weakens strategic alignment & search quality.
Projects with no document attached17Delays knowledge publication and indexing.
Risks with no mitigation defined8Risk register incomplete — governance gap.
Projects missing Finance mapping5Prevents integration with Finance layer. Dashboard will show no financial data for these.
Projects missing region / country4Excluded from geographic analysis.
Source: Works, Activities, Risks — completeness rules
📊 Completeness scores by entity
Test 1
85%
AA-AFR
64%
AA-LAC
61%
CP
65%
EA
66%
EA-AP
62%
G&S
63%
MENA
67%
Test 2
25%
Score = % of mandatory fields completed across all active projects.
Source: Works — mandatory field completeness check
Finance integration readiness
💰 Finance mapping status
StatusCountAction required
Verified63Finance integration active. Dashboards will show financial data.
Pending verification14Finance liaison to co-sign. Target: 5 business days.
Discrepancy3Project code mismatch between OneDCAF and Finance ERP. Escalate to Product Owner.
Not started5Finance mapping stub not created. Project manager to initiate.
Source: Project_Finance_Mapping.Sync_Status
MEAL, indicators & commitments
🧪 Evaluation coverage & completion
Projects requiring evaluation
54
54
Evaluations completed
22
22
Planned in next 12 mo
15
15
Overdue
5
5
Source: Project_Evaluations + Evaluation Plans
📏 1 DCAF RF indicators — usage snapshot
Projects using RF indicators
43
43
Indicators with current values
31
31
Indicators stale >90 days
12
12
Indicator gaps
8
8
Source: Indicators + Measurements (future-state)
🚦 AWP / MTDP commitments
Internal collaborationOn track
External partnershipsWatch
Learning prioritiesBehind
Traffic-light view proposed for delivery against AWP / MTDP commitments over time.
Source: AWP / MTDP commitments framework
Portfolio risk monitoring
🛡 Corporate vs delivery risks
Risk domainLowMediumHighTrend
Corporate risks473↔ Stable
Delivery risks19248↑ +2
Safeguarding / integrity631↓ -1
Source: Corporate Risks + Project Risks (future split)
📉 Projects by delivery risk level
Low risk
31 projects
Medium risk
20 projects
High risk
9 projects
Management requested distinction between portfolio-level and project delivery risks. This mock now shows both.
Source: Risks + Works.Value (future-state)
Design intent: this tab now covers activity execution, RBM/MEAL, evaluations, risk, and delivery against selected AWP/MTDP commitments. Some widgets are placeholders until the corresponding tables and data-entry rules are live.