Comments archive

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


kbgramm

As as result of the discussion work group 2 would like to suggest to add the following text (additions are bold):

[…]

No rule governs the sequence of scenarios referring to the identical time period – e.g. PL 2015, FC 2015, AC 2015, but the selected sequence should be kept the same in all charts and tables.

In case of comparing measured data of different time periods in a scenario comparison, use the scenario labels (e.g. AC and PY) rather than the labels of the time periods (e.g. 2019 and 2018) in both charts and tables. Make sure that the time period necessary to interpret the scenarios is clearly set in the title, a legend or a column header.

[…]

View comment inline
kbgramm

As as result of the discussion work group 2 would like to suggest to change the text to the following (changes in bold):

“Scenarios with measured data are identified by a solid dark (e.g. black or dark gray) fill for the areas of the respective visualization elements.

If measured data of recent periods (“Actual”) are compared with measured data from earlier periods (e.g. “Previous year”, “Previous month’”, “Month YoY”) in a scenario comparison, then  the areas representing the earlier periods are identified by a lighter solid fill (e.g. light gray). In time series showing measured data from multiple periods, there is no need for coloring earlier periods with a lighter fill.”

View comment inline
Avatar

Thanks Thomas for your input. You are right in all of this points. I created a new Version and synchronized also the numbers between table and Graph.

View comment inline
Ronald van Lent

Hi Bryan,

Interesting topic. My first reaction would be that indead a timeseries of only 1 period would be represented horizontally. However giving it some thoughts, I am not sure anymore.

If we only have one metric for example sales. We can regard it as sales for 1 period, filtered for a country. Or as sales for 1 country filtered for a period. The first one is a time series, the second one a structure. Having a scenario should not differ (with chart types we show also scenario for structures for example actual versus plan).

My change of thought is triggered by when we would only report 1 metric in a graph. The only reaosn I can think of is in dashboard, where I have multiple metrics each with its own graph. In a dashboard I only use bars, never columns.

Regards,

Ronald.

View comment inline
Thomas Terbuch

I like work group 2’s approach not to show a time line (Q3, Q4) when talking about unifying scenario but to use only one time dimension element 2018. I also agree to the table equivalent of the chart.
However it could make sense to use the same values in the table and in the chart. Where I have to disagree is the position of labels in the chart. If more than one scenario code is needed then one should be centered horizontally with the triangle marker while the other should be centered horizontally with the column (instead of being on the bottom).
The labels showing the values are also not in adequate position. The reference scenario should not have a label for the value (meaning “760” should not be shown). The label of the main scenario (in this case AC) should be on top but outside of the column (as it always was).
The label concept used here won’t work if the PL value would be e.g. 700. Regarding these triangle markers on both sides of the AC column I can say that I have good experience in using this and it very well fits the condense idea.  Makes sense to have some figures using this.

View comment inline
Avatar

Like we discussed in London 2018 about timeseries and comparison. . That’s why work group 2 would like to suggest the replacement of figure UN 3.3-1. Here it’s a timeserie, which has not a reference year or scenarios. In the new Figure it should be clear that we see actual values form three years (2016, 2017 and 2018)

View comment inline
Avatar

Like we discussed in London 2018 about timeseries and comparison. That’s why work group 2 would like to suggest the replacement of figure UN 3.2. Here it’s a comparison, which always must have a reference year and the scenarios (Ex. AC and PY). In the new Figure it should be clear that PY (grey) is compared to AC (2018)

View comment inline
Avatar

The third figure: Like we discussed in London 2018 about timeseries and comparison. That’s why work group 2 would like to suggest the replacement of figure EX 1.2-27. Here it’s a comparison, which always must have a reference year and the scenarios (Ex. AC and PY). In the new Figure it should be clear that PY (grey) is compared to AC (2018)

View comment inline
Avatar

Yes we agree, like we discussed in London 2018 about timeseries and comparison. That’s why work group 2 would like to suggest the replacement of figure EX 1.2. Here it’s a timeserie, which has not a reference year or scenarios. In the new Figure it should be clear that we see actual values form two years

 

 

View comment inline