Comments archive

The pages of this comments archive list all public comments on the latest version of the IBCS® Standards in chronological order.


Ronald van Lent
Variance tables

Within graphs it is clear in the visualisation which variance is shown. A solid bar with a light solid axis, means the variance between the actual and a previous period. (see Fig UN 4.1). Within tables this is not clear, though we chose to have scenario as part of the headers.

To be more consistent with graphs, is it a suggestion to include base scenario in the header? This in combination with the label it is clear how the variance is calculated. So a delta PL, with a hedged header, is the variance between plan and forecast.

 

More
Jürgen Faisst
Table types

@Beat Honegger and Raphael Branger: Thank you for the notice!

More
Jürgen Faisst
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios

Another try with higher resolution:

More
Rolf Hichert
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios

Ronald – you are right: The new figure UN 3.2 is really of bad quality.

Here a second try (not much better, sorry):

Here is the download link.

More
Rolf Hichert
Table types

Figure EX 1.2 does not take into account the changes made in version 1.1:
+We use the previous year notation (solid gray) only when using previous year as a reference scenario.
+Forecast is hatched AND framed: This was forgotten to change in this figure.

(in addition, the horizontal line in the variance table is not necessary.

We suggest to use the attached new figure EX 1.2 in the next version of the Standards.

More
Ronald van Lent
Structural average

Hi Jens,

Thank you for your comments.

In reply to your question. I do not think there is a international symbol used in management reports for average. What more commonly being used are abbreviations like AVG (average), AR (average revenue). Which is in line with abbreviations like AC, PL, FC, BU we already use (we do not use symbols here…) Though one challenge I see is that AC also is used for average cost. But this could be resolved easily by using avg,ar, ac instead (capital vs non-capital)

And regarding the symbol Ø. This is what all business people here in the Netherlands  known as diameter. As this symbol is used both in mathematics and physics taught already at the secondary school. So it neither intuitive.

More
Ronald van Lent
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios

As figure UN 3.2 only gives a visual about the situation of the reference. There is no table visualisation in case of a time series (non reference scenario). 

Ìn addition to the new figure UN 3.2 and the comments of the workgroup, I would suggest that the next 3 figures: actual, planned and forecasted scenarios should be aligned as well by changing the table parts to be consistent. So with the actual scenario the table has headers 2015, 2016, 2017 (solid headers and no mixing with other scenarios).

 

Small remark to figure UN3.2. I assume that it is due to the poor quality. But it currently looks like the PL and FC in the table headers look solid (though in the bar FC is clearly hatched)

More
Rolf Hichert
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios

As Raphael, Beat, and others have already said: Figure UN 3.2 should be updated.

These are the pitfalls:

The actual Standards suggest the use of gray only when we use previous periods as a reference; previous periods not being a reference scenario should be solid dark which is the general notation for actual. (This should have been already corrected when we changed this rule in version 1.1).
In general, when looking at the annual figures of 2017 we probably would not use the forecasted (hatched) values as a reference for the actual (dark) values but rather compare the actual values with the plan and or with the previous year.
Left side of UN 3.2: We should never use more than one category for one year.

In the suggested solution for a new figure UN 3.2 we present a more typical setup: We compare the actual figures of Q3 and the forecasted figures of Q4 with the respective plan values.

In addition, we have added the previous year comparison for Q3 by showing the gray PY triangle (as we should not use more than two overlapped columns).

More
Jens Herrmann
CHECK - Ensure visual integrity

Interesting Idea but I do see major flaw. We usually use units to save width. If we use your proposed alignment we  maybe run into space issues.

Never the less I will present your proposal to some “manager and accountants” and ask them what they think.

More
Jens Herrmann
Planned scenarios: fictitious data

You can use the 3-letter-code for countries.

 

More