Hichert Partner Logo

Follow @ibcs_a

Comments since 2015-07-01

Jürgen Faisst 2017-08-22 05:26 pm 0
CH 1 Avoid manipulated axes Avoid-different-class-sizes
Hi Thomas,
"x..y" indicates a set of time periods (not yet clear whether we should suggest to also use it for other dimensions), whereas "x_y" indicates the cumulation of the values from those periods (or elements from another dimension). So "x_y" shows one (cumulative) value, whereas "x..y" shows y-x+1 values. So IMHO the choice of "_" in picture CH 1.3 is correct.  
Thomas Terbuch 2017-08-21 04:02 pm 0
CH 1 Avoid manipulated axes Avoid-different-class-sizes
I suggest to use ".." instead of "_" in figure CH 1.3 as the dots are for time span while the line is for cumulated data. Or is "_" also meant for non-time from-to-ranges? In my understanding ".." is used if a "from-prefix" and a "to-suffix" is available.
jens herrmann 2017-07-31 09:38 am 0
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios and-Budget-period
We could argue about benchmarks not beeing fictitous,
An Index for example is a  abitrary calculated number (there are various forumulas to determine a Index), same for market benchmarks/ averages which is an calculated number and therefore fictitious.

If we ignore the current explanation why the PL is outlined (see. warshaw), then
Plan is just a special case of an Benchmark. A future target which i Planed to reach.

If we do want to follow the warshaw defenition of the outlined bars, we have to create a new visual rule for this use case.

In my first drafts I used a blue as colour for representing benchmarks.
I tried to mark benchmarks as a kind of virtual/ artificial KPI.

If we do not want to use colours we could try a dotted line.

Here a small example the blue line represents the benchmark line

Jürgen Faisst 2017-07-18 02:26 pm 1
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios
This was the result of a workshop we had at the IBCS Annual Conference 2016 in Warsaw: Outlined does not visualize one single scenario (PL) any more, but all "planned" scenarios with fictitious data - in contrast to actual scenarios with measured data. As forecasted scenarios also do not contain measured data, but expected (yet still fictitious) data, the consequence was, to show forecasted scenarios with borders.
Lars Schubert 2017-07-18 02:18 pm 0
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios
Thanks, so Forecast scenario had a border in the early beginnings, changed to non-bordered and now back to bordered? I was always voting for bordered, how did this change come about? I ask because our clients now ask for both and I need to explain the change ... thx
Jürgen Faisst 2017-07-18 02:08 pm 0
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios
Hi Lars,
The web is not updated on Version 1.1 yet. We are working on that. So Forecast with borders as shown in the Barcelona handout is correct with respect to Version 1.1.
Kind regards
Lars Schubert 2017-07-18 01:12 pm 0
UN 3.2 Unify scenarios
I just realized that there is small but important difference between the IBCS web version 1.1 and the printed draft we received in Barcelona regarding Forecast elements: while they are shown with borders in the printed draft (page 112/114), they do not have any border here in the web version. Is this web version only outdated and the bordered element in the printed draft correct?
Michael May 2017-07-16 01:59 pm 0
UN 4.2 Unify time series analyses
In Switzerland within our current projects our clients are all talking about "YTG" key figures, e.g. "Revenue-to-go". Rolf also knows one of our clients personally using this scenario description (we joined/met hin together in March 2016 in Basel).

For me all mentioned abbreviations are clear and comprehensible/understandable. For sure I am not a native speaker.

Jürgen Faisst 2017-07-14 05:12 pm 0
EX 1 Use correct object type Introduction
Hi Michael,
Thank you for this valuable input. We definitely should improve the criteria for the selection between charts and tables in the next version of the Standards (most probably 1.2). 
Jürgen Faisst 2017-07-14 05:02 pm 0
UN 1 Unify terminology 3.1.2-Numbers-units-and-dates
I think we all agree that decimal signs, thousand delimiters and metric prefixes should be unified within one company and documented in an notation manual accordingly. However, I do not see any chance to enforce a global standard for that. ISO tried and did not succeed, as ISO 80000 proofs. So let us go for the IBCS rule that it should be unified within one company. And of  course we can make suggestions on how...
© 2015 IBCS Association. Except where otherwise noted licensed under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 International.