Comments archive

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

Greg Davey

I recommend an improvement in the English by changing “they should be disjoint …” to be either “they should be disjointed …” or my preference is to completely remove the word “disjoint”.  “disjoint” is superfluous in this sentence, as “mutually exclusive” is sufficient.

View comment inline
Greg Davey

I recommend an improvement in the English by changing “The least goal is to inform …” to “As a minimum the goal is to inform …”

View comment inline

We (that means the work group with Beat Honegger, Raphael Branger, Kristof Gramm, Severin Leuenberger and Alex Pröm) invested some time think about “Aligning the PY coloring with column and overall titles”. Please find our findings and proposals for the extension of the IBCS in this matter attached.

The problem: There is a common understanding in IBCS, that previous year periods are to be colored «in general» in a lighter version of the color used for the actual period. But as the attached examples show:
There is no consistent application of light coloring for previous periods
Titles for previous periods are not consistent

We are looking forward to read your feedback on our proposals!


View comment inline

When I look at the examples and compare with UN 1.2 (ISO: year-month-day) should the examples not change to or at least mention as primary alternative?

_Jun’17   ->  _’17-Jun  or  _2017-Jun
Jun’17_   ->  ’17-Jun_  or  2017-Jun_
.Aug’17    ->  .’17-Aug   or  .2017-Aug

also an example with quarter:
_2017-Q1 or _’17-Q1





View comment inline

When we use quarters, it would look like: 2018-Q2

View comment inline

Hi Rolf,

I do like the proposal an the alternative ACs will be very benefitial.

I also do stongly support the “fade-out” effect for PP. The older data the paler it should be printed (compared to a solid AC)

An important point will be the distinctness of the hatched bars. During our first review at the round table bonn we experienced some dificulties to distinguish the differen FCs.  (especialy on printed reports)

As an alternative we played arround with mirroed hatches  for FC2 2018.


All the best


View comment inline
Rolf Hichert


Because of questions and suggestions from companies and from the Bonn roundtable Jürgen and I have discussed the issue for “more scenarios” in more detail — meaning more visual means if more than two plan scenarios exist, several forecasts must be compared, etc.

In this draft we propose amendments which should be incorporated in the next versions of the Standards.

We must keep in mind: This is not a “must” – as non of the semantic layout suggestions is a must – and it should not make anything more complicated than it is. But the proposal attached can be used IF somebody wants to expand the notation concept.

We are interested to read your comments on this!
Jürgen and Rolf




View comment inline

I can confirm Andrejs observation. BU is indeed very often preoccupied by
‘Business Unit’.

I usually just use PL and keep the existence of BU in secret to prevent confusion.

BG seems to me to be a better alternative.


View comment inline