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

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.


View comment inline
Rolf Hichert

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.

View comment inline
Ronald van Lent

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.

View comment inline
Ronald van Lent

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)

View comment inline