Stop rebuilding the review deck by hand the week before the meeting.
Early accessClient Reporting Software
Branded quarterly and annual service reviews assembled from the period’s real data - every figure computed, then narrated, never estimated.
- Part of CubeMSP
- Serving businesses across the UK
- 01234 672 617
The service review is the single most valuable meeting a managed service provider has, and it is almost always prepared in the worst possible way: somebody exports three reports the week before, pastes them into last quarter’s deck, writes a summary from memory and hopes the numbers agree. CubeMSP assembles the review from the period’s actual data - incidents raised and resolved, response performance, projects delivered, services supplied, spend, and what is coming up for renewal - and then has the AI write the narrative around figures that have already been calculated. The model never produces a number. It is handed the numbers and asked to explain them, and a human approves the result before a client ever sees it.
- Computed
Every figure, before the AI is involved
- Approved
By a human, before any client sees it
- Scheduled
Raised automatically when they are due
What it does
Inside client reporting software
The parts of CubeMSP that make up client reporting. Everything here shares one database, so nothing needs re-keying between them.
Figures computed, never generated
Ticket volumes, response times, resolution rates, project delivery, service spend and renewal exposure are all calculated from your data. The AI is handed the results and asked to explain them - it is never asked what they are.
Your branding, not ours
Reviews carry your logo, colours and tone. The client is meeting their provider, and nothing in the document should suggest they are meeting their provider’s software vendor.
Approved before it is sent
A generated review is a draft. The account manager reads it, edits the narrative, and publishes. Nothing reaches a client without somebody putting their name to it.
Trends as well as totals
This period against the last four, so the conversation is about direction rather than a single number without context. Improvement and deterioration are both easier to discuss when they are visible.
A document you can hand over
Published as a branded PDF and as a link the client can open. Some clients want a document for the board pack; some want to click. Both work.
On a schedule that runs itself
Quarterly and annual reviews raised automatically for the clients they are due for, so the review that used to slip a month because everybody was busy simply appears.
In practice
Problems this actually solves
Anonymised, but not invented. These are the situations businesses describe to us before they change anything.
Reviews that quietly stopped happening
The situation
Quarterly reviews were contractually promised to fourteen clients. In a busy year eight of them happened, mostly late, because each one took the better part of a day to prepare and the day was never there.
What changed
Reviews are drafted automatically on schedule. Preparation is now reading, editing and approving - closer to twenty minutes than a day - and all fourteen happened on time in the following year.
A deck that disagreed with itself
The situation
The review deck pulled ticket counts from one export, response times from another and spend from the finance system. Twice a client had spotted figures that did not reconcile, which cost more credibility than the underlying numbers were worth.
What changed
Every figure comes from the same record at the same moment. The reconciliation problem disappeared because there is nothing left to reconcile.
A renewal conversation with no evidence
The situation
A client pushed hard on price at renewal. The provider knew they had absorbed a difficult year of extra work, but had no straightforward way to demonstrate it, and conceded a reduction.
What changed
The review shows volume, response performance and project delivery against the previous four periods. The next renewal conversation started from evidence rather than assertion.
How it happens
What implementation actually involves
No mystery, no discovery phase that quietly becomes the project. Five stages, and you will know what each one costs before it starts.
Discovery
A structured session mapping how you run now - the PSA you have outgrown, the spreadsheet of renewals, the shared mailbox that is really your ticket queue, and the review deck somebody rebuilds by hand every six months. We come back with what the platform covers as standard and what needs building.
Configuration
Your service catalogue, ticket taxonomy, boards, roles, approval limits and review templates set up to match how you actually work - not a demo tenant with your logo dropped on it. Your categories, not ours.
Data migration
Clients, contacts, sites, services, renewal dates and enough ticket history to make the knowledgebase and similar-incident retrieval useful on day one. An empty AI is a useless AI, so the history matters more here than in most migrations.
Training & rollout
Role-based training - the service desk learns logging and resolution, account managers learn reviews and renewals, directors learn the reporting. We usually pilot with one technician and one client before opening it up.
Ongoing support
UK support from the people who built the platform and use it themselves, with a named contact, agreed response times, and a roadmap you can influence. Being a small vendor is an advantage here and we intend to keep it.
You might call it something else
Client reporting goes by a lot of names - if you searched for any of these, this is the page you wanted.
- Service review software
- QBR software
- Quarterly business review software
- MSP client reporting
- IT service reporting software
- Client review reports
Questions
The things people ask first
It cannot. Every figure is computed from your data before the model is involved, and the model is given those figures as input. Its job is to write the paragraph around them. This is the single most important rule in the feature and it is enforced in the architecture, not in a prompt.
Yes, and you must - a review cannot be published without a human approving it. Most account managers edit the narrative and leave the figures alone, which is exactly the intended use.
The computed figures and a summary of the period are sent to generate the narrative. It is not used to train the model. If you would rather write the narrative yourself, generation can be switched off per tenant and the review still assembles all the data.
Monthly, quarterly and annual, set per client, since not every client warrants the same cadence. Ad-hoc reviews for a specific date range can be produced at any point.
Yes. Published reviews are available to invited client users as well as by PDF, and previous periods stay available - which turns out to matter when a new finance director asks what they have been getting for the money.
Related
Other things we can put right
MSP CRM Software
Prospects, clients, contacts and sites in the same system as the services you supply and the incidents you handle - so winning an account and running it are one record.
Read moreSubscription Management Software
Every licence, circuit, backup and contract you resell - with quantity, cost, sell price, term and renewal date, and the margin visible on all of it.
Read moreMSP Software
One system for clients, services, renewals, incidents, projects and reviews - built in the UK by a managed service provider.
Read moreIT Project Management Software
Shared kanban boards for migrations, rollouts and onboardings - with the client invited in, and internal-only tasks filtered on the server.
Read more
Part of a bigger system
Client reporting is one part of CubeMSP. You can start here and switch the rest on later - it is the same system, not a separate purchase bolted on.
Talk to us
Is client reporting your actual problem?
Sometimes it is not. Tell us what is going wrong and we will tell you whether this is the right thing to fix first.