Comments archive

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

Beat Honegger

Like we discussed in London 2018 about timeseries and comparison. That’s why work group 2 would like to suggest the replacement of figure. 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 (2017 and 2018)


View comment inline
Beat Honegger

Like we discussed in London 2018 about timeseries and comparison. That’s why work group 2 would like to suggest the replacement of figure

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

Hi all,

As we went through the workaround which IBCS rules where mandatory and which were optional, Edyta, Jurgen and myself picked up one part of the Express rule which is not complete.

We are clear that time series should be horizontal and structures should be presented vertically but what about scenarios and measures.

Multiple Scenarios

If for example, we had a number of scenarios for one period. For example, PY, ACT, ACT adjusted for FX, Plan, Forecast and prior forecast. I would think this would be presented horizontally but it’s not overtly clear in the standard.


Again if we were looking at a number of measures say KPI calculations for one business unit and one time period, again I would think that this would be presented vertically but it’s not clear in the standard.

Be very interested in other peoples thoughts.




View comment inline

Interesting idea Jens, a couple of questions on the idea, be interested in your thoughts on how this would work –

a) How does the IBCS certification confirm the notation manual translates into IBCS compliant reports?

b) What is the benefit to the company of an IBCS certification on its notation manual? I could see from a non-profit or government-owned but for a profit-driven company, there is some benefit perhaps from reducing information risk but can you think of any others?

I am also very interested if anything in the proposal, gave you cause for concern or you need any clarity on our thought process?

Many thanks




my only concern is that in some companies the notation manual comes out strongly but then over

View comment inline

I agree Jens. The quality of IBCS implementations could be confirmed by IBCS notation manuals. These way we could also be aware what companies do really good job with IBCS reporting. However I think these manuals will be updated from time to time by both sides:

company, while there is a need of change (i.e. changes in Management Board, in company ownership, in business model etc.)
IBCS Institute, while we have new versions of standards

This means such a ‘Seal of Quality’ would need to have a ‘Date of Approval’.

View comment inline
Rolf Hichert

In our book we give attribution to Andrej (thank you, Andrej!) – because with his contribution above he triggered figure 2.10-10 in chapter “Skalierung” in the German edition of our new book.

View comment inline
Rolf Hichert

In my office there is still a poster of “HICHERT+PARTNER” of 2006(!) hanging at the wall. I made this photo of “rule 104S Use a consistent scaling concept” – see below.
To be honest – I had forgotten this…. But it is not far away from our present discussion, isn’t it?

And next to it I have found rice “102S Visualize different scales”…
This is very close what we now call “Scaling indicators” in CH 4.3.


View comment inline

In addition to the described topic we should think about a further
Certification or ‘Seal of Quality’, which is awarded to notation manuals.
This seal certifies that the notation manual successfully implements IBCS.

Such a seal would have several advantages.
On the one hand, the customer can have the quality of the notation manual confirmed.
No watering down of the Brand IBCS with poorly written notation manuals.

The customer can use the seal for its own as a marketing tool
and confirm that their reports (or at least their notation handbook) are IBCS compliant.

The seal itsself is a marketing tool which will improve the visibility and brand recognition
of IBCS which will result into new people beeing interested into IBCS. (which is a good thing :))

View comment inline

Hi Juergen,

you have succeeded “to reduce to the max” the scaling indicators, with two items:

1) One single rung (of the scale) which  is the only graduation. It is  shown as a line (dotted for one, dashed for ten, and solid for hundred)

2) the unit showing the “thousand” multiplier  (1 dot for ones, 2 dots for thousands, 3 dots for millions and 4 dots for billions)
Comment : I fully agree to put these dots just in front of the rung graduation, in order to show that this line is only here as a scale (and not for any other reason, such as “objective”). Therefore I also think it’s mandatory to put one dot for ones.

My question : As it is shown on the second chart in your first picture, we may want to show thousands (or a second graduation/rung if there is a large amplitude between values), would you put a double line for thousand ?

View comment inline