Kommentarübersicht

Auf den Seiten der Kommentarübersicht werden alle öffentlichen Kommentare zur aktuellen Version der IBCS®-Standards in chronologischer Reihenfolge aufgeführt (englisch).


Holger Gerhards

Please find enclosed the result of the workgroup “Sementic noatation for more scenarios per scenario type”

The workgroup has dealt concretely with the following questions:
– Which different scenarios do exist in the reporting world?
– How can these be combines an visualized?

The essential prinviple in teh development was to create a self-contained an uniform notation framework in which any number of scenarios can bei combines an scaled.

We have defined three different scenarios for further detailing AC, PL and FC data:
– Time gradations – Data have different timeliness
– Versions – Data have different statuses
– Variants – Data have a different calculation basis

These scenarios are described below and rules for their visualization are defined. In general, these rules can be applied to the comparison of data as well as to deviations.

You will find the complete discussion paper in the next comment.

We look forward to your comments and a fruitful discussion!
Holger, Jens & Sina

Kommentar inline ansehen
edyta.szarska@controllingpartner.pl

I also agree. Would be great to divide the new Picture into two parts (structure and time) to make it clearer what is vertical (bar chart and table, for structure) and what is horizontal (column+line chart and table, for time).

Kommentar inline ansehen
Rolf Hichert

Do the Dutch think about deflation already?!
But yes – you are right, we should follow your suggestion.

By the way: This figure is identical with figure 34C “Consider inflation accounting” in the poster of 2006(!) when nobody thought about deflation yet…

Kommentar inline ansehen
Rolf Hichert

This figure UN 3.2 has been changed several times in the last 8 or 9 years…

I have discussed the discussion above with Jürgen today – and we both think that we should change it completely…
Why? UN 3.2 is about the suggestion to “unify scenarios” – that’s it. How to handle this in the different chart and table types belongs to the respective paragraphs of EXPRESS (where it is being discussed already – e.g. EX 1.2 “Scenario columns”).

Therefore we suggest to use a very simple new figure: 4 solid dark rectangles on the left (crossed out) – and 4 rectangles in solid light fill, in solid dark fill, framed, and hatched on the right.
This would be completely compliant with rule 7 of our Top Ten Poster.

Kommentar inline ansehen
Rolf Hichert

Yes, your text suggestion makes clearer what has been already touched in the other suggestions of your work group 2.

By the way:
I just see there is a mistake in the text of “scenario comparisons”:
The following lines must be removed completely:

Scenarios can be compared in an absolute or relative way:
Absolute variance = primary scenario – reference scenarioRelative variance = absolute variance / reference scenario

This is not about the comparison of scenarios but the comparison of scenario variances – which belongs to the two following paragraphs.

 

Kommentar inline ansehen
Rolf Hichert

Yes you are both right. And we should make clearer, that the lines (without Plan) belong to “horizontal” and not to “vertical”: May be we can use longer columns and lines positioned further down (overlay chart?).

Something else:
In our new book we have consequently used two highlighting colors:  Blue for highlighting in the chart itself (supporting the message etc.) – and orange for “highlighting from outside” (like in this case). These are two very different things and I suggest to do the same in the coming update of the Standards.

Kommentar inline ansehen