Case Study 01 • Reporting Automation

NYC ReportingAutomation

A week-long, distributed billing-report cycle for New York City government accounts became a repeatable workflow that one analyst could manage—while preserving review points for exceptions.

  • Scale150+ packages
  • CadenceMonthly
  • EnvironmentNYC government accounts

Overview

Recurring billing reports with operational consequences

During my T-Mobile reporting role, the monthly process supported multiple New York City government accounts and a billing arrangement in which different charge categories required separate handling. Deliverables were segmented by business unit, project, account structure, and service-line constraints.

The work was not simply file conversion. Each Excel/PDF pair had to represent the same account-level detail, survive changing source conditions, and remain reviewable before delivery.

Problem

Too many manual handoffs for a high-volume monthly cycle

The original week-long workflow spread source retrieval and report creation across 5–7 team members. Analysts opened files, copied details into an invoice-style workbook, removed unused rows, exported a PDF, and paired the two deliverables. Repeating that sequence across 150+ account-based packages made consistency depend on careful manual execution.

Approved-tool limits

The source systems were difficult to automate with the standard approved desktop automation options.

Complex segmentation

Packages varied by business unit, project, account number, and line-count rules rather than one simple customer split.

Source exceptions

Service-code changes and source gaps could create mismatches between line items and totals.

Paired outputs

Excel and PDF versions had to stay aligned across a large set of recurring deliverables.

Approach

Automate the repeatable work; surface the exceptions

I separated the workflow into stages so that retrieval, processing, output generation, and review each had a clear responsibility. This reduced repeated interaction with individual files while keeping a deliberate checkpoint for source issues.

  1. 01

    Retrieve

    A JavaScript-assisted browser workflow looped through accounts and downloaded the recurring source files.

  2. 02

    Stage

    Downloaded files were organized in a predictable folder structure for the reporting run.

  3. 03

    Generate

    Excel VBA processed the folder, applied the template logic, and produced the final Excel and PDF package pair.

  4. 04

    Validate

    Checks compared line items with totals and flagged mismatches for manual research before delivery.

Sanitized Evidence

One source path, one paired-output path, one explicit exception queue

Illustrative reporting workflow

Source exports move through controlled staging and shared rules before the same run creates the Excel and PDF pair. Mismatches leave the main path for analyst review.

Conceptual workflow only. Labels are generalized and no client data, source interface, or real account structure is shown.

Key Decisions

Choices shaped by the operating environment

Use a browser-assisted retrieval step

Reasoning

The source environment did not expose a straightforward supported bulk-export path. A focused script reduced repetitive account-by-account work without pretending the entire upstream system was under my control.

Tradeoff

The retrieval step depended on the source interface and still required an informed operator.

Generate both final formats from the same run

Reasoning

Creating the Excel and PDF outputs together reduced the risk that paired deliverables reflected different edits or source states.

Tradeoff

The template logic had to handle formatting and file naming as carefully as the data itself.

Stop for exceptions instead of forcing a result

Reasoning

When source gaps or service-code changes produced a mismatch, a visible review path was safer than silently normalizing the discrepancy.

Tradeoff

Some cases remained manual by design, but the analyst investigated only the flagged exceptions.

Tools & Validation

Built with familiar, approved tools

  • Excel VBA
  • JavaScript
  • Folder loops
  • PDF export
  • Excel generation
  • Exception logic

Review checks

  • Line-item totals matched the expected report total
  • Excel and PDF packages represented the same scope
  • File names and account segmentation followed the delivery structure
  • Flagged source-system gaps were researched before release

Result & Impact

A repeatable process with clearer ownership

150+Excel/PDF report packages
5–7analysts previously involved
1analyst managing the recurring run
Monthlydelivery cadence

The automation reduced the number of manual handoffs, improved consistency between paired outputs, and created capacity for other analysts. Just as important, validation was part of the workflow rather than an informal step performed after generation.

Learnings

Reliability comes from designing for the exceptions

  • Automating a process begins with understanding why the packages are split, not just how the files are formatted.
  • A safe workflow can be highly automated without eliminating expert review.
  • Output consistency improves when related deliverables share the same generation path.
  • Capacity gains are more durable when one person can own the run without making the logic opaque.

Additional context

This case study is intentionally sanitized. Individual agency names, account structures, and source screens are omitted, while the public NYC context, operational scale, and decision logic are preserved. The result should be read as a reporting-process improvement within the tools and permissions available—not as replacement of the upstream billing systems.