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

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
Beat Honegger

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

View comment inline


I do strongly support the official support of additional scenarios for the next revision of IBCS®-Standards

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
Ronald van Lent

In the examples and templates it is chosen to flip the colours of each stack to create a big contrast.

What I am currently missing is the situation of the use of ordinal data. This data has a sequence. For example output of surveys (scale 1 to 5 how happy somebody is), or within in HR the grouping of employees based on experience/years of service.

Ordinal data could be visualised easily as we can rank the opacity of a colour (ie. sort light to dark grey) and would make analysis/pattern recognition easier. Please note: I am not suggesting that the opacity is linked to a value. It is linked to a sequence.




View comment inline
Rolf Hichert

This is a suggestion for a better way to explain four figures of SAY.
We should change the content of 4 figures but leave the titles as they are.
Why? In several trainings we have experienced that participants do not always understand these figures and their relationship.
(To make this clear: All of this was heavily influenced by the work of Barbara Minto).
Here is my suggestion: We use 3 practical cases A, B, and C which are referred to in all 4 figures:

SA 1

SA 1.1 Map situation
…before explaining the problem:
A   “Plan is production cost of mEUR 23”
B   “Web based tools are important for us”
C   “East Asia is the fastest growing market”

SA 1.2  Explain problem
…before raising the question:
A   “Annual forecast is production cost of mEUR 25”
B   “Our reporting tool is not web based”
C   “We have only one partner in East Asia”

SA 1.3   Raise question
…which then leads to your message:
A   “What can we do to reduce production costs?”
B   “Which web based reporting tool should we buy?”
C   “How can we come to more partners in East Asia?


SA 2.2   Detect, explain, or suggest
A   “3D printers will reduce annual cost by mEUR 2.5” (detection)
B   “We think we should buy product xy because of…” (explanation)
C   “We should contact the nm association” (suggestion)

I have no suggestion for the layout of these figures yet. Using icons for A, B, and C might be a good idea.
I suggest to leave the present numbering for the time being although I think that SA 2.2 should be the first figure of SA 2.

View comment inline

Dear IBCS-Association,

I think there is a contradiction between the rule CH 4.3 and UN 5.2. CH 4.3 recommends scaling indicators with a “power of 10”. However, “UN 5.2–scaling lines” states that a “multiplier of ten” may be used.

From my experience, a multiplier of ten is easier to understand by report recipients and hence I recommend adapting CH 4.3 to “a multiplier of ten”.

Best regards


View comment inline
Heinz Steiner

Perhaps we could ask the FH OÖ (Ober Österreich) who already did some eye-tracking experience in this field.

View comment inline