ibcs-react

Dashboards

Seven full management dashboards - KPI strip, charts and a table each - assembled entirely from ibcs-react components in IBCS notation.

Seven realistic management dashboards - the things people most commonly build with BI and reporting tools - each assembled entirely from ibcs-react components. Every one is a multi-panel composition (a KPI strip, two or more charts and a table), leads with its message and names its Who / What / When. The figures are fictitious but plausible.

Notation is consistent throughout: AC solid, PY grey, PL hollow frame, FC hatched; variance coloured by impact; cost lines carry higherIsBetter: false so a rise reads red.

How a dashboard is put together

Three things do the work, and none of them is a chart:

  1. The headline is the conclusion. Not "Revenue by region" but "APAC and the new Cloud line carried the quarter". The panels below it are the evidence.
  2. Who / What / When under the headline - the audience, the measure and its unit, and the period. Without them a number is unreadable.
  3. One layout grid. A four-up KPI strip, then panels in a two-column grid (sometimes with a wider left column), each panel a <div> with a small caps title. The library draws inside the panels; CSS grid does the rest.
<div className="kpis">
  <KpiCard
    label="Revenue"
    values={{ AC: 30_100_000, PY: 26_100_000, PL: 28_500_000 }}
    comparisons={["PY", "PL"]}
    format={{ compact: true, decimals: 1 }}
    sparkline={monthlyRevenue}
  />
  {/* three more cards */}
</div>

<div className="panels">
  <Panel title="Operating-income bridge">
    <WaterfallChart width={560} height={290} data={bridge} />
  </Panel>
  <Panel title="Revenue by region">
    <StructureChart comparison="PY" variance="abs" width={360} height={290} data={regions} />
  </Panel>
</div>

Charts take explicit width / height - they are printable artifacts, not fluid boxes. For a panel that must fill a wide column on a laptop and still show all twelve months on a phone, wrap the chart in ScrollChart (or ChartBox for full control over fit and alignment): it renders at the measured width and scrolls sideways below minWidth instead of squashing the categories.

import { ScrollChart, TrendChart } from "ibcs-react";

<ScrollChart height={250} minWidth={760}>
  {(w, h) => <TrendChart comparison="PY" width={w} height={h} data={twelveMonths} />}
</ScrollChart>;

Because ScrollChart takes a render function as its child, the panel around it has to be a client component - a function cannot be handed from a server component to a client one.

1 · Executive overview

The group closed FY26 ahead of prior year on every headline KPI - revenue +15% and a 1.6-point margin gain lift net income to €8.9M (+10%).

Contoso Group · Office of the CFO - performance summary in € thousands, AC versus PY (and Plan) · FY 2026, full year.

Four KPI cards with sparklines set the frame; the bridge explains how revenue becomes operating income; the structure chart splits revenue by region with ΔPY; the trend panel carries all twelve months, actuals to September and forecast after.

Revenue
30.1M+4M+15.3%vs PY
+1.6M+5.6%vs PL
EBIT margin
18%+2+9.5%vs PY
Net income
8.9M+800K+9.9%vs PY
+1.4M+18.8%vs PL
Free cash flow
6.3M+900K+16.7%vs PY
Operating-income bridge · revenue to EBIT
+30.1M-9.7M20.4M-3.9M-4.8M-1.4M10.3MRevenueCOGSGross marginR&DS&MG&AOp. income
Bridge of actual contributions - data table
ContributionRunning total
Revenue+30.1M30.1M
COGS-9.7M20.4M
Gross margin20.4M20.4M
R&D-3.9M16.5M
S&M-4.8M11.7M
G&A-1.4M10.3M
Op. income10.3M10.3M
Revenue by region · share and ΔPY
Europe13.2M+1.2M44%Americas9.4M+1.1M31%Asia Pacific5.3M+1.3M18%Rest of world2.2M+400K7%Total30.1M+4M100%
Composition versus PY - data table
ValuePYΔPYShare
Europe13.2M12M+1.2M44%
Americas9.4M8.3M+1.1M31%
Asia Pacific5.3M4M+1.3M18%
Rest of world2.2M1.8M+400K7%
Total30.1M26.1M+4M100%
Revenue - 12 months, AC / FC vs PY
ACPYPL2.1M2.2M2.4M2.3M2.5M2.6M2.6M2.6M2.7M2.8M2.9M3MJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec+150K+200K+220K+190K+290K+350K+310K+310K+380K+370K+380K+370K
Trend versus PY - data table
CurrentPYPLΔPYΔPY%
Jan2.1M2Mn/a+150K+7.7%
Feb2.2M2Mn/a+200K+10.1%
Mar2.4M2.2Mn/a+220K+10.0%
Apr2.3M2.1Mn/a+190K+9.0%
May2.5M2.2Mn/a+290K+13.2%
Jun2.6M2.3Mn/a+350K+15.4%
Jul2.6M2.2Mn/a+310K+13.8%
Aug2.6M2.3Mn/a+310K+13.5%
Sep2.7M2.4Mn/a+380K+16.1%
Oct (FC)2.8M2.4Mn/a+370K+15.3%
Nov (FC)2.9M2.5Mn/a+380K+15.2%
Dec (FC)3M2.6Mn/a+370K+14.2%

Components: KpiCard, WaterfallChart, StructureChart, TrendChart.

2 · Sales performance

Bookings beat plan by +€1.9M (+8%) and ran +14% on PY - APAC and the new Cloud line carried the quarter while EMEA mid-market lagged.

Northwind Trading · Commercial - bookings and pipeline in € thousands, AC versus Plan and PY · Q3 2026, quarter to date.

The regional columns show AC against a hollow Plan; the ranking chart sorts the product lines by ΔPlan so the two losers sit together at the bottom; the rep table repeats the same variance twice (absolute bar, percent pin) and adds a run-rate sparkline. Click a column header to re-sort it.

Bookings
25.4M+1.9M+8.1%vs PL
+3.1M+13.9%vs PY
Net new logos
184+14+8.2%vs PL
Avg deal size
138K+17K+14.0%vs PY
Win rate
28%+2+5.8%vs PL
Bookings by region · quarterly AC vs Plan
9.1MEMEA8.4MAmericas5.3MAPAC2.6MLATAM-500K+500K+800K+100K
AC versus PL - data table
ACPLΔPLΔPL%
EMEA9.1M9.6M-500K-5.2%
Americas8.4M7.9M+500K+6.3%
APAC5.3M4.5M+800K+17.8%
LATAM2.6M2.5M+100K+4.0%
Product lines · ranked by ΔPlan
Bookings by product line - AC vs PlanACΔPLΔPL%Cloud platformCloud platform+1.5M+20.3%8.9MProfessional svcProfessional svc+500K+33.3%2MAnalyticsAnalytics+400K+8.3%5.2MSecuritySecurity+200K+5.1%4.1MIntegrationIntegration-100K-3.3%2.9MOn-prem licencesOn-prem licences-600K-20.7%2.3MTotal25.4M+1.9M+8.1%
Bookings by product line - AC vs Plan - data table
ACPLΔPLΔPL%
Cloud platform8.9M7.4M+1.5M+20.3%
Professional svc2M1.5M+500K+33.3%
Analytics5.2M4.8M+400K+8.3%
Security4.1M3.9M+200K+5.1%
Integration2.9M3M-100K-3.3%
On-prem licences2.3M2.9M-600K-20.7%
Total25.4M23.5M+1.9M+8.1%
Sales team · bookings, variance and run-rate
 Run-rate
Rivera (Enterprise)
7.4M
+600K+8.8+17.5
Okafor (Strategic)
6.1M
+400K+7.0+17.3
Tan (APAC)
5.3M
+800K+17.8+29.3
Haas (Mid-market)
3.6M
-500K-12.2-2.7
Moreau (Channel)
3M
+600K+25.00.0
Total
25.4M
+1.9M+8.1+13.9

Components: VarianceColumnChart, RankingVarianceChart, DataTable.

3 · Budget versus actual

Revenue is tracking +€0.42M (+3.3%) above plan at month 9, but a procurement overrun keeps the EBIT beat to +€0.18M - watch raw-material spend.

Helios Manufacturing · FP&A - budget versus actual in € thousands, AC versus Plan · FY 2026, YTD through September.

The integrated variance chart puts the monthly ΔPlan directly above the columns and closes with an FY landing bar split into actual and forecast. Below it, the cost-centre table sorts on ΔBudget, and the ranking chart repeats the same variances as a single ordered list. Every cost line is higherIsBetter: false, so overspend is red even though the number is positive.

Revenue YTD
13.1M+420K+3.3%vs PL
Opex YTD
4.6M+220K+5.0%vs PL
EBIT YTD
2.2M+180K+9.0%vs PL
Budget utilisation
73%-2-2.7%vs PL
Revenue build-up · monthly AC vs Plan, with FY landing
+1.5%+3.0%+8.5%+0.7%+1.4%+4.0%+1.4%+1.4%+8.0%+4.7%+5.9%+8.9%+20K+40K+120K+10K+20K+60K+20K+20K+110K+70K+90K+140K1.3M1.4M1.5M1.4M1.5M1.6M1.5M1.5M1.5M1.6M1.6M1.7M13.1M4.9M18MFY26JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Integrated variance of AC versus PL - data table
ACPLΔPLΔPL%
Jan1.3M1.3M+20K+1.5%
Feb1.4M1.3M+40K+3.0%
Mar1.5M1.4M+120K+8.5%
Apr1.4M1.4M+10K+0.7%
May1.5M1.5M+20K+1.4%
Jun1.6M1.5M+60K+4.0%
Jul1.5M1.5M+20K+1.4%
Aug1.5M1.5M+20K+1.4%
Sep1.5M1.4M+110K+8.0%
Oct (FC)1.6M1.5M+70K+4.7%
Nov (FC)1.6M1.5M+90K+5.9%
Dec (FC)1.7M1.6M+140K+8.9%
FY2618Mn/an/an/a
Cost centres · spend vs budget
 
Procurement / raw mat.
2M
1.8M
+220K+12.5
Admin & IT
430K
400K
+30K+7.5
Production
1.2M
1.2M
+20K+1.6
Quality & maintenance
410K
420K
-10K-2.4
Logistics
560K
600K
-40K-6.7
Total opex
4.6M
4.4M
+220K+5.0
Variance drivers · ΔBudget by line (cost: higher is worse)
Spend vs budget - ΔPlanACΔPLΔPL%Raw materialsRaw materials+220K+12.5%2MEnergyEnergy+70K+14.9%540KAdmin & ITAdmin & IT+30K+7.5%430KProductionProduction+20K+1.6%1.2MMaintenanceMaintenance-10K-2.4%410KLogisticsLogistics-40K-6.7%560KTotal5.2M+290K+6.0%
Spend vs budget - ΔPlan - data table
ACPLΔPLΔPL%
Raw materials2M1.8M+220K+12.5%
Energy540K470K+70K+14.9%
Admin & IT430K400K+30K+7.5%
Production1.2M1.2M+20K+1.6%
Maintenance410K420K-10K-2.4%
Logistics560K600K-40K-6.7%
Total5.2M4.9M+290K+6.0%

Components: IntegratedVarianceChart, DataTable, RankingVarianceChart. For the full drill-down version of this view see the budget matrix guide.

4 · P&L deep-dive

Net income reached €8.9M (+10% on PY, +19% versus plan) - gross margin widened to 71.4% as service revenue grew faster than cost of sales.

Software & Service Group · Group Finance - profit and loss statement in € thousands, AC with ΔPY and ΔPL · FY 2026, full year.

The statement carries its own integrated waterfall and two variance columns, so the P&L panel needs no companion chart to be readable. The right rail adds the EBIT split by segment and a margin walk drawn as a bare sparkline.

Revenue
33.9M+3.8M+12.6%vs PY
+1.9M+5.9%vs PL
Gross margin
71%+1+1.9%vs PY
EBIT
14.2M+2.3M+19.3%vs PY
+1.8M+14.5%vs PL
Net income
8.9M+800K+9.9%vs PY
+1.4M+18.7%vs PL
Income statement · integrated waterfall, AC with ΔPY / ΔPL
 PYPLACΔPYΔPL
Software revenue15.4M16.8M17.2M+1.8M+400K
Service revenue14.7M15.2M16.7M+2M+1.5M
=Total revenue30.1M32M33.9M+3.8M+1.9M
−Cost of sales9M9.6M9.7M+700K+100K
=Gross profit21.1M22.4M24.2M+3.1M+1.8M
−Research & development3.5M4M3.9M+400K-100K
−Sales & marketing4.3M4.6M4.8M+500K+200K
−General & admin.1.4M1.4M1.3M-100K-100K
=Operating income (EBIT)11.9M12.4M14.2M+2.3M+1.8M
Financial result, net280K290K300K+20K+10K
=Income before taxes12.2M12.7M14.5M+2.3M+1.8M
−Income taxes4.1M5.2M5.6M+1.5M+400K
=Net income8.1M7.5M8.9M+800K+1.4M
EBIT by segment · AC vs PY
6.4MApplications4.9MCloud2.1MServices800KOther+800K+1.2M+200K+100K
AC versus PY - data table
ACPYΔPYΔPY%
Applications6.4M5.6M+800K+14.3%
Cloud4.9M3.7M+1.2M+32.4%
Services2.1M1.9M+200K+10.5%
Other800K700K+100K+14.3%
Margin walk · gross to net
Gross 71% to EBIT 42% to net 26% margin (% of revenue, AC).

Components: StatementTable, VarianceColumnChart, Sparkline.

5 · Regional breakdown

Group net sales climbed from €25.6M to €30.1M (+17%) over four quarters - a fast-growing Asia Pacific (+45%) led, with every market ahead of PY.

Global Retail Co. · Regional Operations - net sales in € thousands by market, AC versus PY · FY 2026, quarterly.

Three lenses on the same four markets: stacked columns for the quarterly build, a structure chart for the share of the group with ΔPY, and a market-by-quarter matrix whose variance column compares AC against PY (varianceScenarios) rather than the default AC against PL.

Net sales
30.1M+4.5M+17.6%vs PY
Same-store growth
6%+3+106.5%vs PY
Active stores
482+31+6.9%vs PY
Sales / m²
€7.2K+660+10.0%vs PY
Net sales by market · quarterly stacked
6.9MQ17.3MQ27.7MQ38.2MQ4Latin AmericaAsia PacificEMEANorth America
Stacked columns - data table
North AmericaEMEAAsia PacificLatin AmericaTotal
Q12.9M2.1M1.3M600K6.9M
Q23.1M2.1M1.4M700K7.3M
Q33.2M2.2M1.6M700K7.7M
Q43.3M2.3M1.8M800K8.2M
Share of group and ΔPY
North America12.5M+12.6%42%EMEA8.7M+8.8%29%Asia Pacific6.1M+45.2%20%Latin America2.8M+21.7%9%Total30.1M+4.5M100%
Composition versus PY - data table
ValuePYΔPYShare
North America12.5M11.1M+12.6%42%
EMEA8.7M8M+8.8%29%
Asia Pacific6.1M4.2M+45.2%20%
Latin America2.8M2.3M+21.7%9%
Total30.1M25.6M+4.5M100%
Market by quarter · AC vs PY with variance
 Q1Q2Q3Q4
PYACΔBdgPYACΔBdgPYACΔBdgPYACΔBdg
+North America2.6M2.9M+300K2.7M3.1M+400K2.9M3.2M+300K2.9M3.3M+400K
+EMEA1.9M2.1M+200K2M2.1M+100K2M2.2M+200K2.1M2.3M+200K
+Asia Pacific1M1.3M+300K1M1.4M+400K1.1M1.6M+500K1.1M1.8M+700K
+Latin America500K600K+100K600K700K+100K600K700K+100K600K800K+200K
=Group6M6.9M+900K6.3M7.3M+1M6.6M7.7M+1.1M6.7M8.2M+1.5M

Components: StackedChart, StructureChart, MatrixTable.

6 · Operations and cost

Unit cost fell −4.2% versus PY on higher throughput, but an energy spike (+18%) offset half the saving - net conversion cost down €0.31M.

Helios Plants · Operations - conversion cost in € thousands, AC versus PY, where lower is better · FY 2026, YTD.

A cost dashboard is where polarity matters most. The bridge walks PY cost to AC cost through volume, labour efficiency, material yield and energy; the ranking chart and the cost-centre table repeat the same story per category and per centre. Every variance is flagged higherIsBetter: false, and the two KPIs that should fall (cost per unit, scrap rate) carry it too.

Output
1.3M u+94K+7.9%vs PY
Cost / unit
€4-0-4.2%vs PY
OEE
78%+4+5.8%vs PY
Scrap rate
2%-1-25.0%vs PY
Conversion-cost bridge · PY to AC (cost build-up)
0+280K-210K-160K+220K130KPY costVolumeLabour eff.Material yie…EnergyAC cost
Bridge of actual contributions - data table
ContributionRunning total
PY cost00
Volume+280K280K
Labour eff.-210K70K
Material yield-160K-90K
Energy+220K130K
AC cost130K130K
Cost categories · ranked ΔPY (higher is worse)
Cost by category - AC vs PYACΔPYΔPY%EnergyEnergy+220K+18.0%1.4MMaintenanceMaintenance+40K+8.3%520KConsumablesConsumables-40K-9.9%365KMaterialsMaterials-160K-11.4%1.2MDirect labourDirect labour-210K-9.6%2MTotal5.5M-150K-2.6%
Cost by category - AC vs PY - data table
ACPYΔPYΔPY%
Energy1.4M1.2M+220K+18.0%
Maintenance520K480K+40K+8.3%
Consumables365K405K-40K-9.9%
Materials1.2M1.4M-160K-11.4%
Direct labour2M2.2M-210K-9.6%
Total5.5M5.7M-150K-2.6%
Cost centres · spend vs PY with 12-month run-rate
 12-mo
Line 1 · Moulding
2M
2.1M
-100K-4.8
Line 2 · Assembly
1.6M
1.7M
-50K-3.0
Utilities & energy
1.4M
1.2M
+220K+18.0
Maintenance
520K
480K
+40K+8.3
Total conversion cost
5.6M
5.5M
+110K+2.0

Components: WaterfallChart, RankingVarianceChart, DataTable.

7 · Forecast and planning

The rolling forecast lands FY26 revenue at €25.9M (+5% versus plan) on a strong H2 backlog; EBIT closes +€0.30M ahead of plan.

Atlas Industrial · Corporate Planning - rolling forecast in € thousands, AC and FC versus Plan · FY 2026, 9+3 forecast.

Nine months of actuals and a hatched forecast tail run against the plan line; the EBIT panel marks its last two quarters isForecast and lands the year in a stacked AC + FC total bar. The matrix does the same switch structurally - Q1 and Q2 print PL/AC, Q3 and Q4 print PL/FC, set per period.

FY revenue (FC)
25.9M+1.1M+4.4%vs PL
+2.8M+12.1%vs PY
FY EBIT (FC)
3.4M+410K+13.6%vs PL
Order backlog
18.6M+2.7M+17.0%vs PY
Forecast accuracy
96%+2+2.6%vs PY
Revenue · actuals plus forecast tail vs Plan
ACPYPL2M2M2.1M2.1M2.1M2.2M2.1M2.1M2.2M2.3M2.3M2.4MJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec+30K+40K+130K+30K+50K+80K+10K+40K+80K+120K+140K+170K
Trend versus PL - data table
CurrentPYPLΔPLΔPL%
Jan2Mn/a1.9M+30K+1.6%
Feb2Mn/a2M+40K+2.0%
Mar2.1Mn/a2M+130K+6.5%
Apr2.1Mn/a2M+30K+1.5%
May2.1Mn/a2.1M+50K+2.4%
Jun2.2Mn/a2.1M+80K+3.8%
Jul2.1Mn/a2.1M+10K+0.5%
Aug2.1Mn/a2.1M+40K+1.9%
Sep2.2Mn/a2.1M+80K+3.8%
Oct (FC)2.3Mn/a2.2M+120K+5.6%
Nov (FC)2.3Mn/a2.2M+140K+6.4%
Dec (FC)2.4Mn/a2.2M+170K+7.6%
EBIT build-up · AC plus FC vs Plan, FY landing
+9.9%+10.8%+14.3%+18.8%+70K+80K+110K+150K780K820K880K950K1.6M1.8M3.4MFY26Q1Q2Q3Q4
Integrated variance of AC versus PL - data table
ACPLΔPLΔPL%
Q1780K710K+70K+9.9%
Q2820K740K+80K+10.8%
Q3 (FC)880K770K+110K+14.3%
Q4 (FC)950K800K+150K+18.8%
FY263.4Mn/an/an/a
Plan vs actual/forecast matrix · scenarios switch from AC to FC at H2
 Q1Q2Q3Q4
PLACPLACPLFCPLFC
+Order intake6.2M6.5M6.4M6.8M6.6M7.1M6.8M7.4M
+Revenue5.9M6.1M6.1M6.3M6.3M6.6M6.5M6.9M
=EBIT710K780K740K820K770K880K800K950K

Components: TrendChart, IntegratedVarianceChart, MatrixTable.

Where to next

  • Report - the same compositions declared as JSON instead of JSX.
  • Gallery - one dataset through every chart, with a live theme switch.
  • IBCS & ISO 24896 - the notation these dashboards follow.
  • Theming - repaint every panel from one provider.
ibcs-react is an independent open-source library and is not affiliated with, certified by, or endorsed by the IBCS Association or ISO. It follows the IBCS® notation rules (the basis of ISO 24896); IBCS® is a registered trademark of the IBCS Association.

On this page