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

Raphael Branger
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios

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!


Beat Honegger
UN 4.2 Unify time series analyses

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





Beat Honegger

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

Jens Herrmann
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios


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

Jens Herrmann
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios

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


Rolf Hichert
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios


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




Jens Herrmann
Planned scenarios: fictitious data

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.


Ronald van Lent
Stacked column charts

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.




Rolf Hichert
SAY - Convey a message

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.

CH 4.3 Use scaling indicators if necessary

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