Solution
Planning views your finance team can trust: variance, scenarios, and workflows on numbers that match the business.
Writeback and native planning experiences depend on your chosen planning product. We implement and integrate; we are not the planning software vendor.
Contact UsContact us for a Free Assessment. We'll follow up within 2 business days. See a sample Free Assessment.
Financial planning analytics is the view finance uses to explain variance, try a scenario, and see whether the forecast still matches the business. It fails when plan, actual, and the scenario live in three files with three calendars.
We design the definitions, the views, and the workflow around the planning product you already chose or are ready to choose. We are not the planning software vendor. Writeback and native planning screens depend on that product.
Actuals come from the ledger, the plan comes from a model, and a third file explains the gap. By the time the story is written, the meeting is over. A planning view is useful when those three share a definition of account, entity, and period.
A downside case and the operating forecast use different revenue rules, so leadership cannot tell whether the gap is the scenario or the math. Scenarios need the same grain and a label that says what was changed.
A forecast owner sends a number, FP&A pastes it, and the prior version is gone. The workflow can capture the submit and the approval. Whether it writes back into the planning product depends on the product. We name that limit in the proposal.
If the board pack is Power BI and the plan is somewhere else, the bridge between them is the work. We connect them for the versions you care about. We do not pretend the report is the planning system.
Hypothetical example. FP&A keeps a bridge from operating forecast to actual for revenue and for opex. In this hypothetical, the forecast is monthly and the ledger actual is weekly, so the bridge doubles the last week. The first fix is the calendar rule, checked for one month, before any scenario screen is designed.
You leave with planning views finance can defend, a written map of plan versus actual, and a clear statement of what writes back and what does not.
Account, entity, period, version, and the revenue or cost figure, agreed with the people who sign variance. The guide is short enough to use in the meeting.
The comparisons leadership already asks for, on those definitions. Extra slices wait until the bridge ties.
Submit, review, and approve, integrated with the planning product or with a capture step in front of it. The proposal names the writeback approach. We do not imply every product supports the same write.
Who changes a version, who refreshes actuals, and how Managed Data Services can watch it if you want ongoing care.
A Free Assessment looks at the variance or scenario that currently takes the longest, the systems that hold plan and actual, and the planning product you want to keep. We say what the first view is and what writeback can and cannot do.
Bring the bridge file and the person who explains it to leadership. We follow up within 2 business days.
No. We implement the definitions, views, and workflows around the product you select. Native planning screens and writeback depend on that product. The proposal names the approach.
The definitions of plan, actual, and version can start now. A build that writes a forecast should wait until the product is chosen, so we do not build a dead end.
No. Actuals stay actuals. A scenario is a labeled version. The view has to make that obvious so a meeting does not treat a case as the close.
Variance only helps if the actual matches the pack finance already defends. Financial reporting is the related work when the close itself is still in dispute.
Describe the outcome you want. The next step is a Free Assessment.
Contact Us