Strategic Research Agenda - Reporting Center Transformation
1 Strategic Research Agenda
ECIC Static Reporting Center Transformation
Comprehensive research questions and priorities for transforming the documentation repository into a world-class business intelligence and reporting center.
1.1 Research Framework
Context: Investigation findings identified exceptional opportunity to transform ECIC’s documentation repository into a comprehensive static reporting center leveraging Quarto’s advanced dashboard capabilities.
Goal: Answer critical questions to inform optimal implementation strategy, technology choices, and operational procedures for the reporting center transformation.
Methodology: Prioritized research tracks with clear deliverables and decision points.
1.2 Priority 1: Technical Architecture & Performance
1.2.1 Observable JS & Dashboard Performance
Impact: Critical for user experience and adoption success
Q1.1: How well does Observable JS handle large DuckDB result sets (10k+ rows)? - Research Method: Build prototype dashboard with full client dataset - Success Criteria: <2 second load time for executive dashboard - Decision Point: Determines if client-side processing is viable vs server-side pre-aggregation - Related: API Architecture - Performance Requirements
Q1.2: Can Quarto dashboards refresh data without full page reload? - Research Method: Test real-time data binding with Hooks DuckDB updates - Success Criteria: Sub-5-second partial refresh for new data - Decision Point: Real-time vs scheduled refresh strategy - Dependencies: Requires working Observable JS integration
Q1.3: How do interactive dashboards perform on mobile devices? - Research Method: Cross-device testing with actual ECIC team members - Success Criteria: Full functionality on iOS/Android tablets, basic on phones - Decision Point: Mobile-first design vs desktop-optimized approach
1.2.2 Scalability & Infrastructure
Impact: Determines long-term viability and growth planning
Q1.4: At what data volume do DuckDB queries become too slow for real-time dashboards? - Research Method: Load testing with projected 3-year data volumes - Success Criteria: Maintain <10 second response for complex queries at 500 clients - Decision Point: When to implement data partitioning or migrate to cloud database
Q1.5: Are there Cloudflare Pages limitations for interactive dashboard complexity? - Research Method: Deploy prototype with maximum complexity features - Success Criteria: No build time or runtime limitations affecting user experience - Decision Point: Cloudflare Pages vs alternative hosting solutions
Q1.6: How many simultaneous dashboard users can the architecture support? - Research Method: Load testing with concurrent user simulation - Success Criteria: 20 concurrent users without performance degradation - Decision Point: CDN caching strategy and user access patterns
1.3 Priority 2: Data Integration & API Design
1.3.1 Data Source Integration Challenges
Impact: Core functionality depends on reliable data access
Q2.1: Legal review of automated data extraction from Altruist platform - Research Method: Legal counsel consultation on Terms of Service and regulations - Success Criteria: Clear legal opinion on screen scraping vs manual process - Decision Point: Technical solution vs custodian change vs manual process - Critical: Altruist API Limitation
Q2.2: What custodians provide robust APIs for RIA firms? - Research Method: Comprehensive survey of custodian API capabilities and costs - Success Criteria: Identify 2-3 viable alternatives with full API access - Decision Point: Platform migration timeline and client impact analysis - Business Impact: Could resolve major data integration challenge
Q2.3: What accuracy levels are acceptable for different report types? - Research Method: Stakeholder interviews and regulatory compliance review - Success Criteria: Documented accuracy requirements by data type and user role - Decision Point: Data validation rules and error handling procedures - Compliance Impact: SEC audit trail and fiduciary duty requirements
1.3.2 API Performance & Rate Limiting
Impact: Determines refresh frequency and data freshness
Q2.4: LACRM optimization strategies for 100 requests/minute limit - Research Method: Analysis of current data needs vs API constraints - Success Criteria: Design efficient sync pattern meeting all reporting needs - Decision Point: Incremental sync vs full refresh patterns - Technical: LACRM Rate Limiting Solutions
Q2.5: Google Workspace API quota optimization - Research Method: Audit current usage vs quota limits across all services - Success Criteria: Sustainable sync pattern with <50% quota utilization - Decision Point: Service account distribution and batch processing strategy
1.4 Priority 3: Regulatory Compliance & Security
1.4.1 SEC Requirements & Audit Trail
Impact: Critical for regulatory compliance and examination readiness
Q3.1: Are there specific SEC requirements for how advisers present data via APIs? - Research Method: Legal research and SEC guidance review - Success Criteria: Documented compliance requirements for API-based reporting - Decision Point: API design constraints and audit trail requirements - Regulatory Risk: High - affects core architecture decisions
Q3.2: What level of API access logging is required for regulatory examinations? - Research Method: Mock examination simulation with API access scenarios - Success Criteria: Comprehensive logging framework meeting SEC expectations - Decision Point: Logging infrastructure and retention requirements - Related: Security & Compliance Integration
Q3.3: Do clients need explicit consent for data aggregation and reporting? - Research Method: Review client agreements and privacy policy requirements - Success Criteria: Clear consent framework for all data usage - Decision Point: Client communication and agreement amendment needs
Q3.4: How do SEC custody rules apply to API-based data access? - Research Method: Legal counsel consultation on custody regulations - Success Criteria: Documented compliance framework for custody data access - Decision Point: Technical controls and audit procedures
1.4.2 Data Privacy & Protection
Impact: Compliance with privacy regulations and fiduciary duties
Q3.5: ADA accessibility requirements for interactive dashboards - Research Method: Accessibility audit and compliance review - Success Criteria: WCAG 2.1 AA compliance for all dashboard features - Decision Point: Design constraints and alternative access methods - Legal Risk: Discrimination liability and regulatory compliance
1.5 Priority 4: User Experience & Adoption
1.5.1 Training & Change Management
Impact: User adoption success and operational efficiency gains
Q4.1: What training is needed for non-technical users to access interactive reports? - Research Method: User testing sessions with current team members - Success Criteria: 90% of users can access needed reports without support - Decision Point: Training program scope and ongoing support requirements
Q4.2: How much ongoing maintenance do Observable JS dashboards require? - Research Method: Interview other organizations using similar technology - Success Criteria: <4 hours/month maintenance for complete dashboard suite - Decision Point: Internal vs external development and maintenance strategy
1.5.2 Output & Distribution
Impact: Integration with existing workflows and compliance documentation
Q4.3: Can Observable JS charts be exported to PDF/PNG for compliance documentation? - Research Method: Test all export scenarios required for SEC compliance - Success Criteria: High-quality exports suitable for regulatory submissions - Decision Point: Built-in export vs third-party tool integration
Q4.4: How to ensure dashboards can produce print-friendly versions for meetings? - Research Method: Test printing scenarios across devices and browsers - Success Criteria: Professional print output for all critical reports - Decision Point: Responsive design approach and print-specific optimizations
1.6 Priority 5: Strategic Implementation
1.6.1 Competitive Analysis & Market Positioning
Impact: Strategic positioning and competitive advantage
Q5.1: How do ECIC’s planned capabilities compare to competitor offerings? - Research Method: Survey of RIA technology solutions and capabilities - Success Criteria: Clear differentiation strategy and competitive advantages - Decision Point: Feature priorities and go-to-market positioning
Q5.2: What ROI can be expected from reporting center transformation? - Research Method: Time savings analysis and operational efficiency modeling - Success Criteria: Documented business case with measurable benefits - Decision Point: Investment prioritization and resource allocation
1.6.2 Scaling & Growth Planning
Impact: Long-term sustainability and growth support
Q5.3: How does the architecture support planned AUM and client growth? - Research Method: Capacity modeling with 3-5 year projections - Success Criteria: Architecture supports 500 clients and $500M AUM - Decision Point: Infrastructure scaling timeline and investment points
Q5.4: What additional data sources should be integrated for comprehensive reporting? - Research Method: Gap analysis against institutional RIA capabilities - Success Criteria: Roadmap for data source expansion and integration - Decision Point: Phase 2 development priorities and partnerships
1.7 Research Execution Framework
1.7.1 Phase 1 Research (Weeks 1-4)
Focus: Critical path technical questions enabling prototype development
Priority Questions: - Q1.1: Observable JS performance with large datasets - Q1.2: Real-time dashboard refresh capabilities - Q2.1: Altruist screen scraping legal review - Q3.1: SEC API requirements research
Deliverables: - Working Observable JS prototype with real ECIC data - Legal opinion on data extraction approaches - SEC compliance framework for API-based reporting - Performance benchmarks for scaling decisions
1.7.2 Phase 2 Research (Weeks 5-8)
Focus: Integration and user experience questions
Priority Questions: - Q2.2: Alternative custodian evaluation - Q4.1: User training requirements - Q3.2: Audit trail and logging requirements - Q1.4: Data volume scaling limits
Deliverables: - Custodian migration analysis and recommendations - User training program and change management plan - Comprehensive logging and audit framework - Scalability roadmap with capacity planning
1.7.3 Phase 3 Research (Weeks 9-12)
Focus: Strategic and advanced feature questions
Priority Questions: - Q5.1: Competitive analysis and positioning - Q5.2: ROI analysis and business case - Q4.3: Export and compliance documentation - Q5.4: Advanced data source integration roadmap
Deliverables: - Complete competitive analysis and differentiation strategy - Business case with ROI projections and success metrics - Compliance documentation framework - Phase 2 development roadmap and priorities
1.8 Success Metrics & Decision Framework
1.8.1 Go/No-Go Decision Points
After Phase 1 (Week 4): - Go Criteria: Observable JS meets performance requirements + Legal clearance for data access - No-Go Response: Alternative technology evaluation or simplified reporting approach
After Phase 2 (Week 8): - Go Criteria: User adoption plan validated + Scalable integration architecture confirmed - Pivot Response: Adjust scope or implementation approach based on constraints
After Phase 3 (Week 12): - Full Implementation: Complete business case and competitive advantage confirmed - Limited Implementation: Focused deployment based on highest-value use cases
1.8.2 Research Quality Standards
Primary Research: - Direct stakeholder interviews and user testing - Hands-on technical prototyping and benchmarking - Legal counsel consultation for compliance questions - Competitive intelligence through demos and trials
Documentation Standards: - All research questions linked to implementation decisions - Quantitative success criteria for each question - Clear documentation of research methodology - Decision framework with explicit go/no-go criteria
1.9 Cross-References & Integration
Related Documents: - Investigation Report - Foundational analysis - API Data Flow Architecture - Technical specifications - Current Priorities - Implementation timeline integration - Strategic Framework - Business alignment
Integration Points: - Research findings inform API endpoint design - User experience research guides navigation redesign - Compliance research validates security architecture - Performance research determines scaling requirements
Research Coordination: - Primary Researcher: srvo - Technical Consultation: Development team + external advisors as needed - Legal Review: External counsel for regulatory and compliance questions - User Testing: Internal team + select client advisory group - Timeline: 12-week research program with go/no-go decisions at 4-week intervals
This strategic research agenda ensures informed decision-making for the reporting center transformation while maintaining ECIC’s high standards for regulatory compliance and operational excellence.