The Planning Survey 23 Participant Summary

Participant Summary
The Planning Survey 20 – The

Results
-1-
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Data Decisions. Built on BARC. ..........................................................................................................................................................................4
The Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Software in use and usage scenarios ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Business benefits from planning products .............................................................................................................................................. 8
The Business Benefits Index (BBI) scoring system ........................................................................................................................... 11
Business benefits from planning products vs. Excel ...................................................................................................................... 12
Recommendation and Net Promoter Score (NPS) ............................................................................................................................. 13
The software selection process ................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Selection method ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Products evaluated ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Reasons to buy............................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Time needed ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Sales experience .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Satisfaction and challenges ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Satisfaction .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Challenges ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Trends ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Leaders vs. laggards ................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Integrated corporate planning .............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Integrated performance management .............................................................................................................................................. 37
Cloud-based planning .............................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Predictive planning and forecasting ................................................................................................................................................... 43
Simulation and analysis of scenarios .................................................................................................................................................. 47
Value driver-based planning .................................................................................................................................................................. 49
More survey results: The Analyzer ............................................................................................................................................................ 52
Custom analysis of The Planning Survey data ................................................................................................................................ 52
Compare planning products .................................................................................................................................................................. 52
The Planning Survey 23 – Participant Summary © BARC 2023 2

Introduction
The Planning Survey 23 is the largest and most thorough fact-based analysis of the planning and
budgeting software market currently available. It is not based on anecdotal accounts or personal
opinions, unlike much analyst research, neither is it intended to be a measure of market shares. Instead,
it sets out to analyze market trends and produce meaningful comparisons of competing products across
a wide range of critical software and vendor-related criteria. The Planning Survey also provides a detailed
quantitative analysis of why customers buy planning tools, what they are used for, what problems they
experience with the tools and how successful they are.
This is the ninth edition of The Planning Survey. It employs the same proven methodology as The BI &
Analytics Survey, which has been conducted annually since 2000. Based on the real-world experiences
of 1,321 respondents, much of its value lies in the effective analysis of such an impressive, well-
distributed sample.
The Planning Survey 23 features 19 planning products from 18 different vendors. It includes not just
products from well known global giants such as IBM, Oracle and SAP, but also tools from much smaller
vendors that ordinarily don’t get much press but which, in many cases, offer outstanding value to
customers.
After data cleansing and removing responses from participants unable to answer specific questions
about their use of planning products, we were left with a sample of 897 end users, 149 consultants and
79 vendor and reseller employees. Participants from all over the world took part in The Planning Survey
23.
The findings from The Planning Survey 23 are presented in several documents, each focusing on a
specific set of the survey results.
Document Description
An overview and analysis of the most important
findings and topical results from The Planning
The Planning Survey 23 – The Results Survey 23. Includes advice to buyers of planning
software as well as users of existing planning
solutions based on the results of our analysis.
Provides details of the sample, the products
included and an overview of our methodology.
The Planning Survey 23 – Sample, Products,
Descriptions of the KPIs used in The Planning
Methodology and KPIs
Survey 23 are also provided, including details of
our calculation methods.
A series of executive reports on each of the
products featured in The Planning Survey 23.
The Planning Survey 23 – Vendor Performance Each report contains a short vendor and product
Summaries overview by BARC’s analyst team plus a summary
of the relevant product-related results from The
Planning Survey 23.

Data Decisions. Built on BARC.
BARC is one of Europe’s leading analyst firms for business software, focusing on the areas of data,
business intelligence (BI) and analytics. The company was founded in 1999 as a spin-off of the chair of
Business Administration and Information Systems at the University of Würzburg, Germany. Today, BARC
combines empirical and theoretical research, technical expertise and practical experience, and a constant
exchange with all market participants to provide market-leading research publications, events and
advisory.
Research
BARC user surveys, software tests and analyst assessments in blogs and research notes give you the
confidence to make the right decisions. Our independent research gets to the heart of market
developments, evaluates software and providers thoroughly and gives you valuable ideas on how to
turn data, analytics and AI into added value and successfully transform your business.
Consulting
The BARC Advisory practice is entirely focused on translating your company’s requirements into future-
proof decisions. The holistic advice we provide will help you successfully implement your data & analytics
strategy and culture as well as your architecture and technology. Our goal is not to stay for the long
haul. BARC’s research and experience-founded expert input sets organizations on the road to the
successful use of data & analytics, from strategy to optimized data-driven business processes.
Events
Leading minds and companies come together at our events. BARC conferences, seminars, roundtable
meetups and online webinars provide more than 10,000 participants each year with information,
inspiration and interactivity. By exchanging ideas with peers and learning about trends and market
developments, you gain new impetus for your business.
For further information see:

www.barc-research.com

The Results
Planning, budgeting and forecasting are important elements of corporate management to align
operational business with strategic corporate objectives. In recent years, the dynamics of markets and
competition have increased rapidly and many companies are struggling to keep pace. In particular,
corporate planning and forecasting have become more essential than ever to cope with these changes.
Well-founded decisions based on current forecasts and data analytics, the efficient evaluation of possible
future developments in scenarios and simulations as well as the automation of processes and improved
software support for planners are becoming massively more important.
Decision-makers need up-to-date and high-quality information to cope with increasing dynamics. The
efficient provision of information as well as a high degree of adaptability to changing conditions and
requirements are essential goals. In order to remain capable of making good decisions quickly,
organizations must update their plans and forecasts frequently and integrate tightly.
Software in use and usage scenarios

Successful corporate performance management (CPM) requires comprehensive planning, budgeting
and forecasting, analytics and business intelligence (BI) functionality. In particular, the integration of CPM
disciplines (above all planning) and CPM with analytics (reporting, dashboarding, and analysis) and
financial consolidation are becoming decisive competitive factors for sound decision-making. The
integration of corporate planning (e.g., operational planning with financial planning) and its integration
with analytics (integrated planning & analytics (IP&A)) in common platforms is essential to optimally
support modern corporate management. This is reflected in the use of planning products for planning
use cases (see Figure 1) and other use cases (see Figure 2).
Companies leverage their planning software solutions for financial planning (71 percent) but also
increasingly for operational planning use cases (64 percent). Here, planning takes place at different
aggregation levels. 81 percent of organizations support their traditional annual budgeting processes
with planning products. However, many are of the opinion that in the future it will be more important
to rely on efficient forecasts and projections instead of tedious budgeting, which is reflected in the
growing use of products for forecasting (59 percent). Planned use cases for the future notably include
strategic planning (37 percent) and further expansion in the area of forecasting (31 percent).
Financial planning 71% 19% 9%
Operational planning 64% 21% 15%
Strategic planning 51% 37% 12%
Budgeting 81% 15% 5%
Forecasting 59% 31% 10%
In use Planned Not required
Figure 1: Do you use or plan to use your product for the following planning tasks? (n=821)

Besides planning, Figure 2 shows that standard/enterprise reporting (74 percent) and ad hoc query
(69 percent) are the main BI and analytics requirements companies look for in their planning, budgeting
and forecasting products today. Moreover, dashboards/BI applications (51 percent) and analysis
(46 percent) are also frequent use cases. In particular, dashboards/BI applications is emerging as a
requirement for the future. As our “visual” age of charts, emoticons and infographics continues to
permeate everyday activities, and insights from millions of records get condensed into a single icon,
dashboards – as opposed to traditional reports – are certain to continue moving up this chart.
Experience from BARC consulting projects shows also that financial consolidation is becoming a
requirement for an increasing number of companies (22 percent of respondents plan to use their
planning product for financial consolidation in the future). In particular, the planning of an organization’s
financial results (e.g., balance sheet, income statement, cash flow) may also require a consolidation of
the financial plans of individual companies and subgroups if viewed at group level. For this reason,
functionality for financial consolidation is often needed in financial planning and is an increasing
requirement for some companies but not all (34 percent say they do not require financial consolidation
functionality).
Standard/Enterprise reporting 74% 11% 15%
Ad hoc query 69% 16% 16%
Dashboards/BI applications 51% 29% 21%
Analysis 46% 25% 29%
Financial consolidation 44% 22% 34%
Figure 2: Do you use or plan to use your product for the following tasks? (n=800)
To examine correlations between what the most successful companies do differently to less successful
ones, we classify companies as ‘leaders’ and ‘laggards’. Leaders comprise the top 10 percent (approx.)
of companies based on their achievement of business benefits, while the lowest 10 percent (approx.) are
classed as laggards.
In many companies, especially laggards, Microsoft Excel is still the tool of choice to support planning
processes (see Figure 3). Specialized planning products are now used by 82 percent of the companies
surveyed. Nevertheless, 77 percent also still use Excel separately (or in combination with other tools) for
planning. Other non-specialized software products follow some way behind.

Specialized planning software 82%
Microsoft Excel 77%
Operational systems 40%
Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Access, etc. 18%
In-house developed software 13%
Other 1%
Figure 3: Which software tools does your company use for planning and budgeting? (n=1,050)
Refining the answers in Figure 3 to show the main software tool used for planning reveals that 60 percent
use specialized planning software to support their planning processes (see Figure 4). These companies
have recognized the added value specialized software can provide with functionality to efficiently
support and improve planning, budgeting and forecasting processes. Many of them provide
comprehensive functionality for creating random planning models on different aggregation levels
(strategic as well as operational planning) for an integrated enterprise planning approach (including
financial planning).
However, 27 percent still use Excel spreadsheets with no underlying database or specific planning
functionality as their principal planning product. This is devastating in today’s age of increasing dynamics
where the need for data-centric management decisions is becoming paramount. As we will see in the
following chapters, problems, dissatisfaction and a low level of achievement of business benefits are
among the inevitable consequences of using Excel as a planning product.
Microsoft Excel 27%
Other 1%
Figure 4: Which software tools does your company use most frequently for planning and
budgeting? (n=1,050)
The comparison of leaders and laggards in Figure 5 reveals that 82 percent of leaders use specialized
planning software for planning, budgeting and forecasting, whereas 37 percent of laggards standardize
on Excel. Just 52 percent of laggards use specialized software as their main planning product. Something
we often discover in BARC’s consulting projects is that a company’s choice of software for planning often
reflects its level of appreciation of the value of planning. While planning, budgeting and forecasting are
important elements of corporate management to align operational business with strategic corporate
objectives for many leaders, it is often regarded by laggards as a chore that has to be done at least once
a year.

Markets and competition today are highly dynamic and complex, and the future is characterized by
uncertainty. In recent years, the dynamics of markets and competition have increased rapidly and many
companies are struggling to keep pace. Satisfying customer needs and securing solvency in volatile
markets both require quick decisions and decisive action. Many companies seem to have recognized
that increasing dynamics demand adjustments to corporate management – as well as planning,
budgeting and forecasting – to meet growing requirements. A dynamic environment requires flexible
decision support and short-term updates of targets and forecasts. In order to meet these challenges,
corporate planning and forecasting need to be carried out efficiently, in shorter cycles and must be
updated quickly for well-founded decision-making. This cannot be achieved without sound software
support. Many laggard companies seem to have recognized this fact, which is why the proportion of
laggards still using Excel for planning has decreased in recent years. In our experience, the permanent
transparency of the business, capabilities for short-term forecasting and the consideration of all available
data are strong requirements of digitalization, which are not achievable with spreadsheet-based
planning. It will be interesting to see whether the trend of moving away from Excel continues in the
coming years.

52%
Microsoft Excel 14%

37%
Leaders
2% Laggards
7%

2%
Figure 5: Which software tools does your company use most frequently for planning and
budgeting? Leaders vs. laggards (n=157)
Business benefits from planning products

There are many reasons why organizations adopt planning, BI and analytics products, and many ways
these solutions are put to work. All projects, however, have common goals: to increase understanding
of the forces shaping markets and businesses, and to be able to act on that understanding in a beneficial
way. Ultimately, the hope is to be able to outsmart and out-deliver competitors while proactively
addressing customer needs.
In general, all planning, BI and analytics products are used to achieve benefits in various areas and to
make better decisions based on data. Business Benefits is possibly the most important KPI in the whole
Planning Survey, focusing on the bottom-line benefits of planning projects. Planning that does not
deliver business benefits is superfluous. Unlike core transaction systems, planning, BI and analytics
projects are optional, not mandatory, so they must pay their way in terms of delivering business benefits.

The following business benefits were evaluated by survey participants:
• Better integration of financial planning with operational planning
• Better integration of planning with BI/analytics
• Better quality of planning results
• Improved integration of strategic and operational planning
• Improved software user satisfaction
• Increased competitive advantage
• Increased planning frequency
• Increased transparency of planning
• More precise/detailed planning
• Reduced costs
• Reduced planning complexity
• Reduced resource requirements for planning
• Saved headcount
Figure 6 demonstrates that ‘better quality of planning results’, ‘increased transparency of planning’,
‘more precise/detailed planning’, ‘improved software user satisfaction’, and ‘better integration of
planning with BI/analytics’ are the benefits companies achieve most frequently through the use of their
planning products. All specialized planning products analyzed in our survey are based on integrated
data storage for actuals and plan data (‘single point of truth’). Moreover, comprehensive functionality
for centralized top-down and decentralized bottom-up planning approaches at different aggregation
levels (strategic as well as operational planning) is available as standard to support individual planning
processes. Integrated functionality for reporting, analyses and dashboarding typically rounds off the
range of functions found in specialized planning software.
In contrast to the main benefits, ‘saved headcount’ and ‘reduced costs’ in particular are harder to achieve
through the use of planning software tools. Even with the best software, the tasks of planning, budgeting
and forecasting require a lot of effort for any company and the tools used can only support them in the
process, not entirely automate or reduce business complexity. However, planning tools save a lot of time
compared to other approaches, and the hours previously invested in manual effort can be used for more
value-adding activities. From BARC’s point of view, companies can certainly earn a competitive
advantage with planning products by gaining deeper insights into their data and being more agile,
enabling them to react to current and future developments in their businesses. In the future, it will be
interesting to see how current trends such as artificial intelligence and predictive planning and
forecasting can help to automate planning, budgeting and forecasting processes and free up planners
from repetitive routine tasks.

Better quality of planning results 1% 99%
Increased transparency of planning 2% 98%
More precise/detailed planning 3% 97%
Improved software user satisfaction 3% 97%
Better integration of planning with BI/analytics 4% 96%

Better integration of financial planning with
4% 96%
operational planning
Improved integration of strategic and
6% 94%
Reduced resource requirements for planning 5% 95%
Increased planning frequency 5% 95%
Reduced planning complexity 6% 94%
Increased competitive advantage 5% 95%
Reduced costs 15% 85%
Saved headcount 18% 82%
Not achieved Achieved
Figure 6: To what level have you achieved the following benefits with your product? (n=820)

The Business Benefits Index (BBI) scoring system
We use a scoring system to derive a composite weighted score for each business benefit, based on the
level of benefits achieved. This system is called the BBI (Business Benefits Index). The benefits gained can
be categorized into three major categories (see Figure 7).
Improved Planning
Competitiveness Monetization
and CPM
• Better integration of financial • Improved software user • Reduced costs
planning with operational satisfaction • Reduced resource
planning • Increased competitive requirements for planning
• Better integration of advantage • Saved headcount
planning with BI/analytics
• Better quality of planning
results
• Improved integration of
strategic and operational
planning
• Increased planning frequency
• Increased transparency of
planning
• More precise/detailed
planning
• Reduced planning
complexity
Figure 7: Business Benefits categories

Increased transparency of planning 8.5
Better quality of planning results 8.2
More precise/detailed planning 8.1

Better integration of planning with
7.6
BI/analytics
Improved software user satisfaction 7.4

Better integration of financial planning with
7.2
Increased planning frequency 7.2

Improved integration of strategic and
7.0
Reduced planning complexity 6.9
Reduced resource requirements for planning 6.9
Increased competitive advantage 6.1
Reduced costs 4.7
Saved headcount 4.2
Improved Planning and CPM Competitiveness Monetization
Figure 8: Weighted Business Benefits Index (BBI, n=820)
The weighting system is deliberately designed to be dimensionless to compare KPIs across different
dimensions. For further information on the calculation methods used, see the ‘Sample, Products,
Methodology and KPIs’ document.
Business benefits from planning products vs. Excel

The main source of competition for all planning products is the widespread use of the simple
spreadsheet in Excel, which many business users prefer as their straightforward, quick-to-deploy
planning, BI and analytics tool. However, Figure 9 shows clearly that companies using specialized
planning, budgeting and forecasting products achieve far higher BBI scores than companies using Excel
as their main planning tool, proving that Excel is not entirely suitable as a planning product. Notably,
the top benefits (‘increased transparency of planning’, ‘better quality of planning results’, ‘more
precise/detailed planning’, ‘better integration of planning with BI/analytics’, and ‘improved software user
satisfaction’) are much less likely to be achieved with Excel.

Increased transparency of planning 8.5
4.5
Better quality of planning results 8.2

3.5
More precise/detailed planning 8.1

4.2
Better integration of planning with BI/analytics 7.6

4.0
Improved software user satisfaction 7.4

4.0
Better integration of financial planning with 7.2
operational planning 3.9
Increased planning frequency 7.2

3.6
Improved integration of strategic and 7.0
operational planning 3.7
Reduced planning complexity 6.9

3.1
Reduced resource requirements for planning 6.9

3.6
Increased competitive advantage 6.1

2.6
Reduced costs 4.7

5.3
Saved headcount 4.2

2.8
Specialized planning products Excel
Figure 9: To what level have you achieved the following benefits with your product (-2=not
achieved, 10=high)? Specialized planning products (n=820) vs. Excel (n=143), sorted by level of
benefits achieved with specialized planning products.
Drilling Figure 6 down to product level reveals the individual business benefits that companies have
achieved with their planning products (see Table 1). To calculate the Business Benefits Index (BBI) per
product, we asked users to judge benefits based on real measurements the company has made. The BBI
is calculated by weighting the responses to this question. The KPI displayed in Table 1 is an aggregated
version of this index (see the BBI value in the final column).
It is interesting to observe that companies achieve varying levels of business benefits with different
planning products (see Table 1). Overall, CCH Tagetik users enjoy the highest level of business benefits
in this year’s Planning Survey, closely followed by Planful, Jedox, macs Software and IBM Planning
Analytics. Year after year, Excel ranks last in this table.
Recommendation and Net Promoter Score (NPS)

Not least because of the advantages cited above, specialized planning products have a much higher
recommendation rate for planning purposes than Excel. While 85 percent of users of specialized
planning software say they would “probably” or “definitely” recommend their planning product to other

companies, only 45 percent of Excel users say the same. Indeed, 29 percent of Excel users state they
would “probably not” or “definitely not” recommend the use of Excel as a planning tool to other
companies (see Figure 10). Although comparatively low, the 45 percent figure is still rather surprising
given that Excel lacks an underlying database and many planning features.
Specialized planning products 50% 35% 9% 5%
Excel 22% 23% 26% 18% 11%
Definitely Probably Maybe Probably not Definitely not
Figure 10: Would you recommend your planning product to a similar company? Specialized
planning products (n=846) vs. Excel (n=152)
The recommendation rate of a solution is a key figure for measuring customer satisfaction with a
provider and its solution. In a highly competitive market like the planning and CPM software market,
loyal customers are essential for survival and a high recommendation rate is required to win new
customers. In this context, Net Promoter Score (NPS) is a widely used market research metric. A positive
NPS indicates high customer satisfaction with a vendor and its product and shows customer loyalty to
the solution. Figure 11 shows the top 10 products by NPS.

Figure 11: Top 10 planning products by Net Promoter Score (NPS)

Table 1: To what level have you achieved the following benefits with your product? (n=689)
Better
Improved
integration of Better Reduced
Better quality integration of Improved Increased Increased Increased More Reduced
financial integration of resource Saved
of planning strategic and software user competitive planning transparency precise/detaile Reduced costs planning BBI
planning with planning with requirements headcount
results operational satisfaction advantage frequency of planning d planning complexity
operational BI/analytics for planning
planning
planning
Anaplan 7.4 8.1 8.9 7.2 7.9 6.8 7.3 8.6 8.6 4.5 7.2 7.3 3.5 6.6
Board 8.5 8.6 8.5 7.9 7.8 6.5 7.9 8.8 8.6 4.3 7.3 7.0 4.1 6.5
CCH Tagetik 8.2 7.8 8.5 8.6 8.7 7.8 8.3 9.4 9.0 5.8 7.3 6.9 5.0 7.5
CoPlanner 7.5 8.4 8.5 7.6 7.8 5.2 8.4 8.8 8.9 4.7 7.9 7.5 3.6 6.6
Corporate Planning 8.1 8.3 8.6 8.1 7.9 5.0 8.1 8.9 8.6 4.8 6.9 7.6 3.6 6.1
IBM Plan. Analytics 7.9 8.0 8.6 7.4 7.7 6.7 8.0 8.9 8.2 5.8 7.9 7.3 5.4 7.1
Jedox 8.3 9.1 9.2 8.0 7.7 6.7 8.4 9.4 8.9 5.4 8.1 8.3 5.1 7.2
LucaNet 7.3 8.1 8.7 8.4 8.9 6.6 7.5 9.0 8.8 5.8 7.1 8.0 4.3 6.5
macs Software 8.8 8.9 9.4 8.4 8.6 6.6 8.5 9.7 9.5 5.8 8.1 8.4 4.6 7.2
OneStream 8.0 7.5 8.1 7.0 8.5 6.7 7.4 8.6 7.9 5.6 6.8 6.8 5.1 6.4
Oracle Cloud EPM 7.1 6.8 8.6 7.6 7.8 5.8 7.8 8.6 8.1 6.5 6.9 6.3 3.4 6.8
Planful 8.3 7.8 8.2 7.7 8.2 6.3 8.2 8.9 8.8 6.2 7.8 7.1 6.2 7.3
Prophix 6.5 7.6 8.7 6.8 7.5 6.6 7.8 8.9 9.3 3.1 8.4 7.6 3.5 6.6
SAP Analytics Cloud 7.3 8.0 7.7 6.4 8.1 6.3 6.0 7.3 6.0 5.1 5.8 7.6 3.0 5.6
SAP BPC 5.5 6.7 6.5 5.8 4.1 4.7 5.5 7.1 6.8 2.9 5.4 5.2 3.6 5.5
Serviceware Perf. 8.3 8.8 9.0 7.0 8.8 6.7 7.8 8.9 8.6 4.8 7.5 8.6 3.6 6.8
Unit4 FP&A 8.2 8.3 8.5 7.1 7.5 5.3 7.2 8.1 8.5 2.5 7.2 7.5 2.0 6.4
Valsight 7.5 7.1 9.2 8.4 8.5 7.4 8.5 9.4 8.3 3.1 8.3 7.4 2.9 6.5
Workday Adapt. Plan. 7.9 8.4 8.5 7.7 8.0 6.0 8.6 8.3 8.5 5.3 8.0 7.5 5.4 6.7
Excel 3.9 4.0 3.5 3.7 4.0 2.6 3.6 4.5 4.2 5.3 3.1 3.6 2.8 3.7
The Planning Survey 23 – The Results © BARC 2023

The software selection process
Selection method
A formal competitive software selection process before purchasing is the best approach to choosing a
software product and we highly recommend selecting products in this way. First and foremost, it is
essential to evaluate in detail whether a product fits the technical and functional requirements of the
company. Comparing different products in a detailed evaluation (e.g., a proof of concept) before
purchasing also reduces the risk of choosing the wrong product.
As Figure 12 shows, many companies are aware of the necessity of a competitive software selection
process in order to select the right software product. 74 percent of respondents say their company
conducted a formal product selection process before purchasing their planning software. However,
laggards in particular somewhat underestimate the importance of such a process. As a consequence,
the satisfaction level laggards experience with their providers and the software itself is a long way behind
that of leaders. Laggards also face many more problems than leaders during implementation and when
using their planning software.
Competitive evaluation 74%
Single product evaluation 13%
No formal evaluation 13%
Figure 12: Did your organization conduct a formal product selection before acquiring your
planning product? (n=730)
Products evaluated
According to respondents, of all the products covered in The Planning Survey 23, IBM Planning Analytics
is – like last year – the most evaluated product for acquisition, appearing in 19 percent of selection
decisions (see Figure 13). This is hardly surprising considering that the product has been around since
the early 1980s and IBM is well known worldwide for its BI, analytics and performance management
software.
The remaining top positions are mostly occupied by planning products with a global reach such as Board
(19 percent), SAP BPC (19 percent), SAP Analytics Cloud (19 percent) and Jedox (17 percent). However,
products from vendors with a strong profile in specific regions are also regularly considered for purchase
in software selection processes. There are several other well known products not covered in detail in The
Planning Survey 23 that are evaluated for acquisition by companies. Note that Figure 13 only includes
products that generated more than 30 responses in this year’s Planning Survey.
The Planning Survey 23 – The Results © BARC 2023 17

IBM Plan. Analytics 19%
Board 19%
SAP BPC 19%
SAP Analytics Cloud 19%
Jedox 17%
Anaplan 15%
LucaNet 13%
Corporate Planning 13%
Oracle Cloud EPM 11%
CCH Tagetik 11%
Workday Adapt. Plan. 9%
OneStream 8%
Unit4 FP&A 7%
CoPlanner 7%
Prophix 6%
macs Software 6%
Planful 6%
Valsight 6%
Serviceware Perf. 4%
Figure 13: Which of the following planning products did your organization evaluate for
acquisition? (n=792)
Depending on the size of the company involved, different products are evaluated in software selection
processes. While the likes of Jedox, LucaNet, Board and Corporate Planning are frequently evaluated by
companies with fewer than 100 employees (see Figure 14) and by mid-sized companies with 100 to
2,500 employees (see Figure 15), products from SAP, IBM, Anaplan and Oracle are often evaluated by
companies with more than 2,500 employees (see Figure 16).

Jedox 25%
Other planning product 19%
Corporate Planning Corporate Planner 15%
IBM Planning Analytics 14%
LucaNet 14%
Board 13%
Workday Adaptive Planning 12%
Prophix 11%
macs Software macs complete 10%
Figure 14: Top 10 evaluated products in selection processes – companies with fewer than 100
employees (n=91)
Board 19%
Jedox 19%
Corporate Planning Corporate Planner 17%
LucaNet 16%
SAP BPC 12%
Anaplan 11%
Unit4 FP&A 10%
Other planning product 10%
Figure 15: Top 10 evaluated products in selection processes – companies with 100 to 2,500
employees (n=381)
SAP BPC 31%

Anaplan 22%
Board 21%
Oracle Hyperion Planning 19%
Wolters Kluwer CCH Tagetik 16%
Jedox 13%
OneStream 13%
Figure 16: Top 10 evaluated products in selection processes – companies with more than 2,500
employees (n=312)

When drilling Figure 12 down to product level, additional insight emerges into which products are
chosen more often without a formal evaluation and which regularly come up in competitive situations
(see Table 2).
One reason for not conducting a formal evaluation might be that companies have pre-existing
agreements with vendors to use their products throughout the whole enterprise. However, satisfaction
levels are often quite poor and problems regularly occur when a formal evaluation is not carried out.
Table 2: Did your organization conduct a formal selection process before purchasing your
product? By product (n=612)
Single
Competitive No formal
product
evaluation evaluation
evaluation
CCH Tagetik 97% 3% 0%
CoPlanner 96% 4% 0%
Planful 94% 3% 3%
OneStream 94% 3% 3%
Board 92% 4% 4%
Unit4 FP&A 87% 3% 10%
Prophix 86% 5% 9%
Serviceware Perf. 86% 14% 0%
Anaplan 79% 17% 4%
Corporate Planning 79% 14% 7%
IBM Plan. Analytics 77% 11% 11%
macs Software 69% 22% 9%
LucaNet 66% 16% 19%
Oracle Cloud EPM 64% 29% 7%
Workday Adapt. Plan. 63% 19% 19%
Jedox 63% 15% 23%
Valsight 61% 29% 10%
SAP Analytics Cloud 55% 14% 31%
SAP BPC 45% 24% 30%
Reasons to buy
‘Flexibility of the software’ (51 percent) and ‘good coverage of planning-specific requirements’
(37 percent) are the main reasons why companies buy their planning products. The third most popular
reason – ‘ease of use for planners’ (34 percent) – shows that many companies now put great emphasis
on the business-user-friendliness of planning products in the software selection process.
As with selection projects for most types of software, ‘price-performance ratio’ (34 percent) is another
prominent consideration for companies when buying planning products. Offering flexible and feature-
rich software at an attractive price point can be a very persuasive factor when trying to convince
customers to buy.
The importance of ‘good coverage of reporting/analysis requirements’ (29 percent shows that many
companies are aware of the fact that there can be no proper planning without reporting and analysis

capabilities. The integration of planning with reporting, analysis and dashboards is essential and
therefore has to be considered in the software selection process.
Figure 17 shows all the reasons why companies choose planning products in descending order of
frequency. Vendor-related reasons such as ‘good vendor relationship’ (14 percent), ‘vendor or product
reputation’ (12 percent), ‘size and financial stability of the vendor’ (10 percent) and ‘vendor listed as
corporate standard’ (8 percent) seem to be of minor importance for many companies when selecting a
planning product.
Flexibility of the software 51%
Good coverage of planning-specific requirements 37%
Ease of use for planners 34%
Price-performance ratio 34%
Good coverage of BI/analytics-specific requirements 29%
Convincing performance of software 28%
Predefined data connection 26%
Ease of use for developers 23%
Large data handling capacity 19%
Proof of concept faster or better 16%
Availability of local support 15%
Good vendor relationship 14%
Availability of people skilled in toolset 14%
High innovative capacity of the vendor 13%
Vendor or product reputation 12%
Ability to support large numbers of users 11%
Size and financial stability of the vendor 10%
Deployment option 9%
Vendor listed as corporate standard 8%
Bundled with another product 7%
International focus of the software 5%
Convincing prebuilt solutions 5%
Vendor Functional Non-functional
Figure 17: Why was your product chosen? (n=774)
Excel, a widely used product for planning, BI and analytics all over the world, is rarely evaluated in a
formal software selection process but is usually chosen because it is available and many users are already
skilled at working with spreadsheets. ‘Availability of people skilled in the toolset’ (45 percent, see Figure
18) and ‘price-performance ratio’ (44 percent) are prominent reasons why companies use Excel as their

planning product because in most cases it is already installed so no additional licenses need to be
purchased. However, the increase in manual effort and problems with various aspects of planning that
come hand-in-hand with Excel usually lead to higher total costs in the end. Other prominent reasons for
choosing Excel are ‘flexibility of the software’ (44 percent) and ‘ease of use for planners’ (41 percent).

44%
18%
41%
44%
17%
5%
20%
22%
9%
5%
9%
Good vendor relationship 14%
3%
45%
3%
10%
Ability to support large numbers of users 11% Specialized
11%
planning products
7%
Excel
3%
14%
20%
Other 6%
5%
7%
Figure 18: Why was your product chosen? Specialized planning products (n=774) vs. Excel
(n=148)
Figure 19 indicates that laggards seem to underestimate the need for a thorough software selection
process, affording undue importance to criteria such as ‘vendor listed as corporate standard’, ‘good
vendor relationship’ and ‘vendor or product reputation’ or other criteria. In BARC’s opinion, based on

more than 20 years of guiding customers through software selection projects, a thorough requirements
analysis – including the definition and prioritization of needs – is essential as the basis for every project.
Thoroughly evaluating software products with due regard to these technical and functional requirements
guarantees that the wrong product is not chosen. Of course, criteria such as ‘vendor listed as corporate
standard’, ‘size and financial stability of the vendor’ and ‘international focus of the software’ have to be
considered for simple financial and sustainability reasons. However, greater importance should always
be attached to technical and functional requirements than to how much the product costs. When
selecting a suitable software solution, always focus on your company’s requirements and how each
solution is able to fulfill them.

33%
21%
20%
7%
34%
24%
22%
11%
8%
Ability to support large numbers of users 16%
12%
15%
12%
28%
11%
14%
Good vendor relationship 9% Leaders
16%
8% Laggards
3%
15%
Other 7%
13%
12%
14%
Figure 19: Why was your product chosen? Leaders vs. laggards (n=135)

As it has been since 2017, ‘flexibility of the software’ remains the number one reason why companies
choose to buy planning products. However, over time, priorities seem to evolve and reasons to buy
change in importance. For example, functional considerations such as ‘good coverage of planning-
specific requirements’ and ‘good coverage of reporting/analysis requirements’ are more important to
companies selecting planning products now than in the past – although their importance has declined
somewhat this year. As with every software investment, ‘price-performance ratio’ plays an important role
in purchasing decisions (see Figure 20).
Flexibility of the software
Good coverage of planning-

50%
specific requirements
Good coverage of BI/analytics-
specific requirements
Price-performance ratio
Convincing performance of
software
40% Predefined data connection
Ease of use for planners
Availability of people skilled in

toolset
Availability of local support
30% Ease of use for developers
High innovative capacity of the

vendor
Proof of concept faster or better
Vendor or product reputation
20% Ability to support large numbers

of users
Large data handling capacity
Deployment option
Size and financial stability of the

vendor
10% Bundled with another product
Corporate standard
Good vendor relationship
International focus of the software

0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Figure 20: Why was your product chosen? Timeline 2016 (n=565), 2017 (n=1,158), 2018
(n=808), 2019 (n=911), 2020 (n=904), 2021 (n=867), 2022 (n=808) and 2023 (n=774)

Time needed
As a rule of thumb, software selection projects (excluding the implementation phase) should not take
longer than six months. Requirements can change quite quickly so the choice of product should be
made within three to six months of beginning the requirements analysis. The general goal for completing
the subsequent implementation project should be anything between three and twelve months,
depending on company size, geographical distribution and the scope of the project. Figure 21 shows
that 82 percent of companies implement the planning aspect of their product (from purchase to initial
rollout) within twelve months.
Less than 1 month 5%
1 to less than 3 months 17%
1 to less than 2 years 13%
2 to less than 3 years 3%
3 years or more 1%
Figure 21: How long did it take to implement the planning aspect of the application from
software purchase to initial rollout? (n=722)
Sales experience
A decent sales experience for the buyer is the foundation of a successful project with a valued partner.
For the vendor, it is a matter of merely surviving or thriving. Overall, buyers confirmed that the vendors
whose products they ultimately selected supported them well during the purchase process. On average,
only 2 percent stated that their experience with a vendor was “poor” or “very poor”.
General behavior 1% 94%
Overall rating of product evaluation and

1% 93%
contract negotiation
Timely and thorough response to product-
1% 92%
related questions
Ability to understand your organization's
3% 85%
needs
Marketing/sales promises were kept 3% 85%
Pricing and contract flexibility 4% 79%
Industry-specific knowledge 2% 75%

Bad Good
Figure 22: How would you characterize the following aspects of the sales/purchasing experience
with the vendor? (n=505, ‘Average’ category not included)

Satisfaction and challenges
Satisfaction
In general, companies are satisfied with their planning products. The majority of respondents in this
year’s Planning Survey said they were “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with their specialized
planning software products (see Figure 23). However, Excel, which is not designed specifically for
planning, has the highest level of dissatisfaction with 20 percent of users claiming to be “somewhat
dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with Excel as a planning tool. In contrast, the following products have
the highest levels of satisfaction, based on the total percentage of very satisfied customers.
• macs Software (78 percent)
• Workday Adaptive Planning (71 percent)
• Anaplan (70 percent)
• Planful (68 percent)
• OneStream (67 percent)
Specialized planning
51% 37% 8% 3%
products
Excel 23% 31% 25% 13% 7%
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Figure 23: To what degree are you satisfied with your planning tool? Specialized planning
products (n=846) vs. Excel (n=154)
Challenges
First and foremost, no single category of significant problems is cited as frequently as ‘No significant
problems’, demonstrating that a large portion of respondents (36 percent) do not experience serious
issues when using planning tools. Figure 24 shows that ‘performance too slow’ is the most common
problem encountered during planning implementations (18 percent) followed by a number of issues
related to the organization of the customer as well as the product, features and functions.
A planning tool incapable of serving the needs of a customer is likely to have many detrimental effects,
not least that several benefits will simply become unachievable. This is a clear call to make a careful
selection and not to risk failing to realize the potential benefits from using planning tools such as
improved planning and CPM, competitiveness and monetization.

No significant problems 36%
Performance too slow 18%
Company-specific problems 13%
Lack of interest from business users 11%
Rising costs 11%
Software is not flexible enough 10%
Software difficult to use 9%
Cannot handle large data volumes 7%
Low speed of product development 7%
Unreliable software 6%
Poor support 6%
Unable to get data from some source systems 6%
Missing key product features 5%
Increasing resource requirements 5%
Other 5%
Cannot handle large numbers of users 2%
Product, features and functions Performance and scalability Company-related
Figure 24: What are the most serious problems you have encountered using your product?
(n=829)
Figure 25 offers evidence that Excel users experience many more problems than users of specialized
planning software products. Only 8 percent of Excel users say they have no significant problems at all,
compared to 36 percent of specialized planning software users. Moreover, Excel users struggle with
general problems such as ‘product cannot handle large data volumes’ (42 percent), ‘performance too
slow’ (25 percent) and ‘product cannot handle large numbers of users’ (16 percent). These results clearly
emphasize the importance of a thorough software selection process with a detailed analysis of
requirements and a comprehensive study of the market. Choosing the product that most closely matches
these requirements will help to avoid many of the problems listed in Figure 25.

8%

25%

7%

4%
Rising costs 11%

3%

12%

8%
Product cannot handle large data volumes 7%

42%

8%
4%
Poor support 6%
5%

16%

13%

6%
Other 5%
8%
Product cannot handle large numbers of users 2%

16%
Specialized planning products Excel
Figure 25: What, if any, are the most serious problems your business users have encountered in
the use of your product? Specialized planning products (n=829) vs. Excel (n=150)
An impressive 66 percent of leaders say they have encountered no significant problems in the use of
their planning product (see Figure 26). By contrast, only 18 percent of laggards – who often use Excel as
their main planning product – have no significant problems. Problems experienced by laggards such as
‘performance too slow’ (24 percent), ‘software is not flexible enough’ (22 percent) and ‘software difficult
to use’ (17 percent) point to mistakes in the software selection process.

18%

24%
17%

12%

17%
Rising costs 5%
14%

6%
Cannot handle large data volumes 2%

13%

22%
Poor support 2%
10%

15%

6%
Other 2%
4%

15%
Cannot handle large numbers of users 0%

6%
7%
Leaders Laggards
Figure 26: What, if any, are the most serious problems your business users have encountered in
the use of your product? Leaders vs. laggards (n=151)

Trends
The most important trending topics in terms of planned adoption in the future (see Figure 27) are:
• Predictive planning and forecasting (55 percent)
• Integration of strategic and operational planning (43 percent)
• Simulation and analysis of scenarios (41 percent)
Other topics such as ’value driver-based planning’ (35 percent), ‘integration of planning with BI/analytics’
(32 percent) and ‘integration of operational sub-plans’ (32 percent) trail some way behind.
Self-service planning in business departments 63% 21% 16%
Integration of planning with BI/analytics 57% 32% 11%
Integration of operational sub-plans 55% 32% 13%
Simulation and analysis of scenarios 48% 41% 11%
Integration of strategic and operational

46% 43% 11%
planning
Use of planning product in the cloud 44% 26% 30%
Value driver-based planning 41% 35% 24%
Integration of planning with financial

41% 29% 30%
consolidation
Predefined solutions 30% 26% 44%
Predictive planning and forecasting 13% 55% 33%
Figure 27: Which of the following does your company do/use with your product for planning
and budgeting? (n=783)
Besides ‘self-service planning in business departments’ (21 percent) and ‘predefined solutions’
(26 percent), ‘use of planning product in the cloud’ has the joint second lowest ‘planned’ rate of all the
trending topics listed (26 percent). In 2019, only 23 percent said they were already using a cloud-based
planning product. That figure has jumped to 44 percent in 2023. In contrast, the number of respondents
claiming their company does not require a cloud-based planning product is declining: in 2020,
38 percent of respondents said that cloud-based planning software was not required. The corresponding
figure in 2023 is now 30 percent. This finding shows that companies increasingly recognize the benefits
of cloud-based planning and that adoption levels continue to progress. However, the results of The
Planning Survey confirm what BARC has also discovered in other surveys: cloud-based planning and BI
is a bigger trend in the eyes of software vendors than users. While it is particularly attractive to

companies when addressing new requirements or implementing new planning tools for additional use
cases, there is very little interest in migrating existing on-premises planning implementations to the
cloud. Today, new implementations are predominantly cloud-based. Reasons for this include increasing
cost pressures, the efficient processing of large volumes of data, flexibility, scalability and a lack of
internal IT resources.
Figure 28 confirms BARC’s experience in customer projects that planning approaches within companies,
as well as the planning market in general, are constantly maturing and many organizations now possess
profound expertise in this area. It is no surprise to us that advanced planning topics such as value driver-
based planning and improved integration are gaining in importance as many companies strive to reach
the next level of planning maturity. Also, software vendors are reacting to trends in the market, providing
additional advanced planning functionality and integrated platforms to support customers’ needs.
70% Self-service planning in

business departments
Integration of operational
60% sub-plans
Simulation and analysis

of scenarios
50%
Integration of planning
with BI/analytics
40% Integration of strategic

and operational planning
Value driver-based
30% planning
Use of planning product

in the cloud
20%
Predefined solutions
10% Predictive planning and

forecasting
0% with financial
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 consolidation
Figure 28: Trends in use, Timeline 2016 (n=573), 2017 (n=1,169), 2018 (n=812), 2019 (n=932),
2020 (n=908), 2021 (n=884), 2022 (n=832) and 2023 (n=783)
A dynamic environment requires flexible decision support and short-term updates of targets and
forecasts. Decision-makers need up-to-date and high-quality information to cope with increasing
dynamics. The efficient provision of information as well as a high degree of adaptability to changing
conditions and requirements are essential goals currently being pursued. This is why planning and

especially forecasting are gaining in importance, and also why forecasts are replacing classical budgeting
as the central instrument for corporate management. In recent years, the frequency of updating forecasts
has markedly increased. Many organizations now update their forecasts and projections at least once a
month to take account of changing signals from their corporate management environment. In our
opinion, these developments have accelerated trends such as ‘self-service planning in business
departments’ (up 14 percent since 2018). To increase speed, planning and forecasting must take place
directly in business departments with minimal IT involvement. Therefore, software tools must be simple
and business-user-friendly.
As the ‘in use’ analysis in Figure 28 shows, the implementation of some approaches has increased over
time and many organizations now possess profound expertise in advanced planning topics. As a result,
it is understandable that the ‘planned’ rates for many trending topics are stagnating or decreasing over
time. However, Figure 29 shows that interest in the following trends is growing:
• Predictive planning and forecasting
• Predefined solutions
• Use of planning product in the cloud
Predictive planning and

60% forecasting
Integration of strategic
and operational planning
50%
Value driver-based
planning
Simulation and analysis

40% of scenarios
with BI/analytics
30%
Integration of
operational sub-plans
Predefined solutions
20%
Use of planning product

in the cloud
10%
Self-service planning in
business departments
0%
with financial
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
consolidation
Figure 29: Trends planned, timeline. 2016 (n=573), 2017 (n=1,169), 2018 (n=812), 2019 (n=932),
2020 (n=908), 2021 (n=884), 2022 (n=832) and 2023 (n=783)

Leaders vs. laggards
A comparison between leaders and laggards (see Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden
werden.) shows that leaders are focused on improving their planning activities and therefore are
generally more open to adopting new trends. In particular, their higher level of planning maturity and
more solid grasp of the planning basics puts them in a better position to address advanced planning
topics and benefit from the advantages. Some examples of these topics include:
• Better integration of different sub-budgets with financial results planning and integration of
strategic with operational plans often leads to a significantly higher quality of planning results.
• In a volatile environment, companies have to react to changes quickly. Simulation and the
analysis of scenarios (best/worst case) provide companies with the ability to replace their ‘best
guess’ with objective assessment criteria to minimize the risk of making bad decisions.
• Concentrating on the real drivers of a business with a moderate level of detail couples
significance with efficiency. Using a value driver-based planning approach can often lead to a
reduction in complexity and a shortening of planning processes.
• Predictive analytics and prognosis based on statistical algorithms and machine learning (ML) are
major trends in the market that also affect planning and forecasting (‘predictive planning and
forecasting’). In particular, the automation of forecasting processes with consolidated estimates
using statistical predictions offers the possibility for companies to shorten or automate at least
parts of their planning processes. The integration of planning with analytics is essential for
predictive planning and forecasting as it brings together the relevant data and functionality.
Self-service planning in business departments 81%

48%
Simulation and analysis of scenarios 80%

26%
Integration of planning with BI/analytics 72%

31%
Integration of operational sub-plans 71%

32%
Use of planning product in the cloud 68%

32%
Value driver-based planning 63%

24%
Integration of strategic and operational plans 63%

22%
Integration of planning with financial 63%
consolidation 23%
Predefined solutions 55%

19%
Predictive planning and forecasting 32%

6%
Leaders Laggards
Figure 30: Which of the following does your company do/use with your product for planning
and budgeting? Leaders vs. laggards (n=141)

Many companies we speak with say the main problem they face when addressing trends such as these
is a lack of expertise. This is especially the case in laggard companies where knowledge of the essential
planning basics is often lacking, or planning is only established at a very rudimentary level. In these
organizations, expertise and experience of how to proceed are the main obstacles.
Integrated corporate planning

Determined corporate management requires prompt and well-founded decisions. Organizations face an
increasingly dynamic environment with more frequent and comprehensive forecasts, simulations and
analyses. Increasing dynamics and growing time pressure are forcing companies to update their targets
and forecasts at ever shorter intervals. Planning, budgeting and forecasting must be adapted to these
new requirements. With markets becoming more dynamic and fast-moving, it is expected that the
relevance of carefully integrated corporate planning, which provides valuable information and insights
to management, will continue to increase. The hope is that excelling in this area will give companies a
clear competitive advantage.
Holistic integration of strategic, tactical and operational plans, but also all sub-plans with each other and
with results planning, is the essential foundation for high-quality results in corporate planning.
Furthermore, it is the backbone for the use of modern planning approaches. This applies not only to
value driver-based planning but also to the use of statistical methods and machine learning (predictive
planning and forecasting). For as many as 92 percent of respondents, it is clear that the integration of
strategic, financial and operational planning creates high added value or is even essential for corporate
management (see Figure 31).
Essential for the future 40%
Offers high added value 52%
Offers low added value 7%
Offers no added value 1%
Figure 31: How important is the integration of strategic, financial and operational planning to
the management of your company? (n=656)
Integration must be implemented conscientiously at all levels to maximize its benefits. Integrated
corporate planning quickly provides reliable and relevant information for corporate management only
when all the following aspects are addressed simultaneously. However, organizations must not
underestimate the effort required to thoroughly integrate all sub-plans. Companies constantly need to
question and optimize their planning approaches, tools, structures and processes. Many have a lot of
catching up to do in this area, as the following detailed analyses clearly show.
Objectives and assumptions from strategic planning must automatically be incorporated into annual
planning (see ‘integration of strategic and operational plans’ trend). This is the only way to ensure that
a company's long-term goals are consistent with its medium and short-term goals. Corporate strategy
provides the framework for annual planning and budgeting. It is essential to fully convey the strategic
guidelines into the detailed annual planning data in order to provide orientation and content for tactical
and operational management. Our survey results show that planning is performed annually (classic
budgeting) in 81 percent of the companies surveyed. Designated strategic planning with a medium to
long-term planning horizon is not carried out in all organizations (51 percent). However, 37 percent of
companies plan to invest in strategic planning, making it the planning use case most likely to expand in

the future. Just one third of the companies surveyed (33 percent) have largely or completely integrated
strategic and operational short-term planning (see Figure 32). The majority of organizations (62 percent)
currently only have partial integration or are planning to merge strategic and operational planning in
the future. In these organizations, planning medium to long-term strategic corporate goals – if this is
done at all – is thus isolated from operational, short-term planning. Changes to strategic plans do not
directly affect operational plans and have to be merged at great (manual) effort.
Completely integrated 8%
Relatively advanced integration 25%
Partially integrated 38%
Not integrated but planned 24%
Not integrated and no plans to integrate 5%
Figure 32: How far advanced is the integration of your strategic plans (long-term, medium-
term) and operational planning (short-term)? (n=640)
Companies are forced to make forecasts or predictions at ever shorter intervals in dynamic and volatile
environments. This is the only way to ensure that decisions are based on the latest information available.
Today, four out of ten companies update their forecasts at least once a month, and for leaders the figure
is more than six in ten. The integration and intertwining of annual corporate planning with forecasts
during the year is essential for integrated and transparent management. Predictive planning and
forecasting driven by predictive analytics and machine learning is currently gaining rapidly in importance
in this context.
The technically and economically correct linking of all sub-plans with each other (e.g., sales, production,
resources) and with financial results planning (balance sheet, profit and loss statement, cash flow) is at
the core of integrated corporate planning (see ‘integration of operational sub-plans’ trend). A conclusive
model enables the reliable processing of data from all areas of the company. Comprehensive simulations
are essential in dynamic markets and rely on tightly integrated sub-plans. All integrated sub-plans must
be linked to results planning too in order to correctly represent the financial view of an enterprise. Results
planning only has the necessary informative value if the dependencies between individual sub-plans are
taken into account and these are fully integrated, and also that results from sub-plans are included in
results planning. The effects of operational planning on the financial results of a company are only
directly visible and conclusive when plans are fully integrated.
Currently, only 35 percent of the companies surveyed have largely or completely integrated financial
planning with operational sub-plans (see Figure 33). In 58 percent of organizations, integration is either
limited or planned for the future. This is a critical situation as increasing demands on the frequency and
speed of the provision of adjusted forecasts mean that comprehensively integrated functional models
are a must. Isolated models with cumbersome and error-prone data transfers can no longer satisfy the
requirements of today's decision-makers. An important approach to achieving rapid response capability
is to reduce the level of detail in planning. Companies should look to dispense with details and focus
instead on the bigger picture using sophisticated simulations and intensive analyses to derive insights
for management in a timely manner.

Relatively advanced integration 25%
Not integrated but planned 23%
Not integrated and no plans to integrate 7%
Figure 33: How far advanced is the integration of your financial planning (e.g., P&L, balance
sheet, cash flow) with non-financial sub-plans (e.g., sales, production, resources)? (n=630)
Figure 34 shows that 46 percent of the companies surveyed benefit from integrated strategic and
operational plans (‘in use’). This figure has increased over time from below 40 percent in 2016.
43 percent of organizations are aware of its importance and plan to merge strategic and operational
plans in the future. Furthermore, 58 percent of the companies surveyed benefit from integrating financial
planning with operational sub-budgets (‘in use’). As for integrating strategic with operational plans, the
integration of different sub-budgets and their integration with financial planning has also increased over
time from 53 percent in 2016. In 32 percent of organizations, integration is planned for the future.
Integration of
60% strategic and
50% (in use)
Integration of
40% strategic and
(planned)
30%
Integration of
20% operational sub-
plans (in use)
10%
Integration of
operational sub-
0%
plans (planned)
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Figure 34: Time series for actual and planned integration of planning. 2016 (n=556), 2017
(n=1,146), 2018 (n=790), 2019 (n=909), 2020 (n=879), 2021 (n=870), 2022 (n=801) and 2023
(n=777)
The implementation of integrated corporate planning, including the integration of strategic, financial
and operational plans, is made significantly more difficult by the use of multiple tools within the planning
process. Therefore, it is a major driver for complexity. For example, top-down adjustments are
challenging to implement efficiently and consistently across tool boundaries and also the
comprehensive simulation and analysis of scenarios is difficult to realize across different tools covering
different sub-plans. The results in Figure 35 reflect the generally moderate level of integration of
strategic, financial and operational planning shown before. As of today, 48 percent of the companies
surveyed use multiple combined tools to support the entire planning process. This underlines the fact
that many organizations are still sometimes a long way from the ideal state of a uniform, integrated

solution to support all planning activities. In fact, only 15 percent have implemented their complete
planning process company-wide in a uniform planning tool.
Completely in one unified planning tool 15%
Predominantly in a planning tool with a few

37%
well-integrated additions
In multiple combined software tools 48%
Figure 35: Is the entire planning process covered in a single tool or several different ones?
(n=589)
Integrated performance management

Besides the comprehensive integration of planning disciplines, its integration with analytics (e.g.,
reporting, analysis, dashboards) and other performance management processes (e.g., financial
consolidation, risk management) is essential for holistic corporate management and properly
functioning performance management.
The management of organizations profits from a seamless integration of analytics and planning
functionality. Only this integration allows the comprehensive and – at the same time – efficient
verification of the achievement of objectives as well as the successful application of statistical methods
and machine learning in planning and forecasting (see ‘predictive planning and forecasting’ trend). As
of today, just 42 percent have largely automated or fully integrated both areas (see Figure 36). Despite
an extensive range of products on the market that offer this capability, only 17 percent have managed
to build a uniform model for plan and actual data based on the same software. Therefore, four out of
five companies first have to carry out time-consuming data transfers between planning and analytics for
important analyses or to check the achievement of objectives. Some organizations perform this data
exchange automatically, but this also requires uniform master data, coordinated processes and sufficient
resources to adapt and maintain the interfaces. The integration of planning with BI and analytics is in
place at 57 percent of the companies surveyed, which is an increase of 8 percent on last year (see Figure
38). 32 percent plan to invest in even tighter integration of planning with analytics and business
intelligence in the future.
Integrated with automated data exchanges 25%
No integration 16%
Figure 36: How far advanced is the integration of planning and budgeting with analytics and BI
tools? (n=628)
Financial consolidation is essential to combine the financial data of several legal entities in group
financial statements, eliminating intercompany transactions (IC) to accurately present the group’s
financial performance according to legal requirements (consolidated P&L, balance sheet, cash flow). The
preparation of consolidated financial statements for all the individual legal entities of a group is not only

obligatory from a financial and legal point of view, but also serves as orientation for all decisions relevant
to the group as well as for the planning and controlling of the entire organization. In addition to
consolidating actuals, financial planning at group level also requires a consolidation of the data from
individual legal entities. Figure 37 shows that 38 percent of the companies surveyed have largely
automated or fully integrated both areas. As of today, 24 percent of organizations have not integrated
planning and budgeting with financial consolidation.
Fully integrated 19%
Integrated with automated data exchange 19%
No integration 24%
Figure 37: How far advanced is the integration of planning and budgeting with financial
consolidation? (n=511)
Organizations that place a high value on the correct representation of group relationships are more
likely to have integrated financial planning and consolidation. The standardization of internal and
external accounting and thus of planning and financial consolidation via harmonized structures, charts
of accounts and calculations is an increasingly important goal to ensure that results are more
comparable and more useful. Figure 38 shows that 41 percent of the companies surveyed already benefit
from integrated financial planning and financial consolidation and 29 percent plan to invest in an even
tighter integration in the future.
Integration of
60%
planning with
BI/analytics (in use)
50%
Integration of
40% planning with
BI/analytics (planned)
30%
Integration of
planning with financial
20% consolidation (in use)
10% Integration of
planning with financial
consolidation
0% (planned)
2021 2022 2023
Figure 38: Time series for actual and planned integration of planning. 2021 (n=870), 2022
(n=801) and 2023 (n=777)
Cloud-based planning
Cloud BI and analytics is a trend that can no longer be dismissed and is also a valid implementation
option for planning products. Several purely cloud-based planning products have been released in

recent years and some are already gaining significant market share. However, despite the many
advantages the cloud offers (e.g., near-immediate availability of software, no internal hardware required,
limited IT resources required, needs and usage-based flexible invoicing), relatively few organizations are
currently using their planning product in the cloud according to our survey results. Only 38 percent use
a cloud-based planning product right now (up 2 percent compared to last year’s Planning Survey), while
another 18 percent are planning to use one. Meanwhile, 44 percent of respondents state that they have
no plans to use a cloud-based planning product.
Cloud solution already in use 38%
We plan to use a cloud-based planning solution 18%
Not planned, but it is conceivable 36%
Neither planned nor conceivable 8%
Figure 39: Are you using a cloud-based planning solution or can you imagine doing so? (n=708)
The use of cloud-based planning has jumped from just 8 percent of survey respondents in 2016 to
44 percent in 2023 (see Figure 40). In the last seven years we have seen especially strong growth, which
we believe is an impact of increasing dynamics and the requirement for fast time to value. For many
companies, improving the technology in use is an important investment for optimizing planning and
forecasting. The introduction or modernization of software solutions is a necessary investment for
optimization and many companies leverage cloud-based deployments for new implementations (see
Figure 41). This statement applies not only to planning and CPM, but also to the wider IT strategy of
many companies in general. Especially in dynamic times, cloud-based solutions can provide fast time to
value, eliminating time-consuming installation processes and hardware procurement. Right now,
nothing is more important than up-to-date information for decision-makers, and this demands the use
of specialized software.
60%
50%
In use
40%
30%
20%
Planned
10%
0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Figure 40: Time series for the use and planned use of cloud-based planning. 2016 (n=515), 2017
(n=711), 2018 (n=739), 2019 (n=865), 2020 (n=842), 2021 (n=824), 2022 (n=761) and 2023
(n=730)

31% New solutions are predominantly
implemented in the cloud
New solutions are predominantly
69% implemented on-premises
Figure 41: Which statement about your general IT strategy is most applicable? (n=599)
However, the general view on cloud-based planning displayed in Figure 39 is clearly colored by regional
variations. The DACH region, which represents 59 percent of our overall sample, is still particularly
cautious when it comes to cloud-based planning products, whereas companies in BeNeLux, North
America, UK and Nordics and Asia-Pacific are much more open to the cloud. For example, 67 percent of
respondents from BeNeLux are already using a planning product in the cloud, compared to only
26 percent in the DACH region (see Figure 42). However, attitudes to cloud-based planning solutions –
even in the DACH region – are changing. 21 percent of organizations claimed that cloud-based planning
solutions were neither planned nor conceivable in 2018. This figure has since dropped to just 9 percent
in 2023. In contrast, the ‘in use’ figure has climbed from 6 percent to 26 percent in the same period, and
the ‘planned’ figure from 12 percent to 19 percent.
BeNeLux 67% 5% 19% 10%
North America 64% 14% 18% 5%
UK & Nordics 57% 29% 11% 4%
Asia and Pacific 53% 11% 37%
Eastern Europe 43% 14% 14% 29%
France 41% 41% 18%
Southern Europe 33% 17% 44% 6%
DACH 26% 19% 45% 9%
In use Planned Not planned, but it is conceivable Neither planned nor conceivable
Figure 42: Are you using a cloud-based planning solution or can you imagine doing so? By
region (n=688)
The use of strategically sensitive data (e.g., financials) and high security requirements for planning data
pose serious security concerns and are therefore a key reason why many companies choose not to use

a cloud-based planning product (60 percent, down one percent from last year). Other prominent reasons
include corporate policy (32 percent) and legal reasons (27 percent). Legal reasons often relate to data
protection and data security.
Security concerns 60%

Corporate policy 32%
Legal reasons 27%
Dependency or vendor lock-in 22%
Performance/loading times 21%
Costs 21%
Costs or pricing too complex 19%
Transferability/portability 16%
Reliability 13%
Other 7%
Figure 43: What are the most important reasons for not using cloud-based planning solutions?
(n=305)
The main reason for using cloud-based planning products is the desire for greater flexibility and elasticity
(53 percent, see Figure 44). The level of use of planning and CPM systems is subject to strong seasonal
variation. There is a high usage pattern during budgeting and forecasting periods but the tools are used
significantly less frequently at other times of the year. Furthermore, ‘reduction of maintenance efforts’
(45 percent), ‘faster software updates’ (27 percent), ‘costs’ (23 percent), ‘speed of implementation’
(22 percent) and ‘performance’ (20 percent) are also compelling reasons for choosing a cloud-based
planning product over an on-premises solution.

Flexibility and elasticity 53%
Reduction of maintenance efforts 45%
Faster software updates 27%
Costs 23%
Speed of implementation 22%
Performance 20%
Worldwide availability of the solution 19%
Scalability and better coverage of load peaks 18%
Lack of IT resources 17%
Agility 16%
Security benefits 14%
Other 4%
Figure 44: What are the main reasons for using or wanting to use a cloud-based planning
solution? (n=385)
The majority of companies surveyed experience no major challenges at all when using a cloud-based
planning or CPM solution (35 percent, see Figure 45). However, The Planning Survey results show that
seven out of ten companies do face challenges. ‘Performance expectations not being met’ is the most
common problem encountered (21 percent). Since performance is also an important reason why
organizations opt for the cloud, this figure is surprisingly high. However, performance is a multi-faceted
issue and performance problems can have many causes. It does not necessarily have to be the hardware
resources in the cloud itself, but network problems with the public Internet, multi-tenant use with other
companies and many other problems can negatively affect performance. Furthermore, ‘total costs higher
than expected’ (19 percent) and ‘problems with data security’ (19 percent) are other common problems.

No major challenges 35%
Performance expectations not being met 21%
Total costs higher than expected 19%
Problems with data security 19%
Compliance with regulations and laws 19%
Pricing not transparent enough 14%
Formation of data silos 13%
Accessing data for further processing 12%
Availability and reliability of the solution 11%
Expectations regarding scalability not fulfilled 11%

Portability of the solution between cloud
10%
providers
Other 2%
Figure 45: What are the biggest challenges when using your planning or CPM solution in the
cloud? (n=300)
Predictive planning and forecasting

Artificial intelligence (AI) and predictive technologies are major current trends in almost all areas of the
IT market. Many companies are therefore keen to exploit the potential of predictive functions in
planning, budgeting and forecasting. A key challenge in corporate planning is to generate meaningful
and high-quality planning figures with the least possible effort and a fast throughput time. This applies
to classic annual planning and budgeting, but increasingly also to short-term forecasting and forecasting
processes. For almost two-thirds of the companies surveyed (63 percent), predictive planning and
forecasting have high to very high relevance. Without the advanced integration of planning and
analytics, automated predictions using machine learning or other algorithms are cumbersome and error-
prone.
Very important 20%
Important 43%
Not very important 30%
Not important at all 7%
Figure 46: How important or relevant are predictive planning and forecasting for your
company? (n=644)

A better quality of extrapolations and simulations (56 percent), the relief of planners through automated
processes (46 percent) and easier identification and evaluation of drivers (44 percent) are the top three
benefits companies expect from predictive planning and forecasting (see Figure 47). The quality of
planning results and the high level of effort required by planners are major criticisms of today's planning
processes in many companies. In terms of automation, predictive planning does not have to replace
human planners but it can relieve them by calculating proposals for plan values that they can then adapt.
In this way, planners stay involved in planning processes but are spared some of the routine tasks. The
goal of predictive planning is to support rather than replace human planners.
Better quality of extrapolations and simulations 56%
Relief of planners 46%
Easier identification and evaluation of drivers 44%
Validation of planning results 43%
Support in planning preparation 39%
Faster, more detailed simulations 34%

Higher degree of detail in the results despite top-
27%
down planning
Longer planning horizons 21%
No benefits for our company 6%
Other 2%
Figure 47: What benefits do you see in the use of predictive planning and forecasting in your
company? (n=644)
‘Too little know-how/competence in analytics’ (50 percent) and ‘not enough resources’ (43 percent) are
the two main challenges to the use of predictive planning and forecasting today (see Figure 48). This
can be explained by the current dearth of expertise in this discipline (e.g., data scientists). The newer and
less widespread a technology is, the more difficult it is to find the experts who can use it properly. This
relates not only to the use of the tools themselves, but often also to the concept of how and where
companies can improve their planning using modern methods.

Too little know-how/competence in analytics 50%
Not enough resources 43%
Concerns about validity and reliability 40%
Too little basic data or lack of competence 35%
Lack of traceability 22%
Other challenges in CPM 16%
Costs too high 15%
No proven benefit 14%
Other 4%
No challenges 3%
Figure 48: What challenges do you see in the use of predictive planning and forecasting in your
company? (n=634)
Until 2019, the proportion of companies with plans to make use of predictive planning and forecasting
was increasing steadily each year. However, it has stagnated somewhat in recent years and the rate of
‘planned’ use is now at 55 percent (see Figure ). Nonetheless, it shows that more than half of the
companies surveyed are interested in predictive planning and forecasting and have plans to implement
it in the future.
In sharp contrast to the ‘planned’ use rate, the proportion of companies that are already using predictive
planning and forecasting has dropped significantly this year to just 13 percent (compared to 23 percent
in 2021). In BARC’s opinion, the survey data indicates that the hype around predictive planning and
forecasting is cooling.
Implementing predictive planning and forecasting successfully presents a number of significant
challenges. Companies must identify appropriate use cases and establish essential conditions, which
primarily include development of the appropriate know-how and provision of the necessary monetary
and human resources. Furthermore, a lack of data quality and availability is a major obstacle to accurate
forecasting. Only the right data of the right quality, with the necessary granularity and enough history,
allows solid predictions of probable future developments. Precise forecasts require a sufficiently large
and well-maintained volume of data for training of algorithms. A deep understanding of cause-and-
effect relationships as well as a high degree of integration and maturity of planning and analytics are
essential for this. Information gaps in historical data have to be closed and the possibility of
unprecedented events has to be considered. Moreover, precise forecasts require perfectly chosen and
continuously trained algorithms. Ultimately, business decision-makers have to trust the algorithms,
which is especially challenging when using potentially intransparent or ‘black box’ algorithms.
Some of the challenges mentioned above may be too much for many companies, which may lead to
significantly fewer organizations using and planning to use predictive planning and forecasting (see
Figure ). Moreover, a lack of know-how/competence in analytics and missing resources are additional
barriers to increased usage. The Planning Survey results suggest that many organizations now recognize

that sound support from predictive planning and forecasting is not easy to achieve, and the use cases
that provide real benefits are few and far between.
60%
50%
In use
40%
30%
20%
Planned
10%
0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Figure 9: Use and planned use of predictive planning, timeline. 2016 (n=546), 2017 (n=1,117),
2018 (n=774), 2019 (n=891), 2020 (n=863), 2021 (n=837), 2022 (n=785) and 2023 (n=724)
Companies expect predictive planning and forecasting to bring about extensive improvements in their
planning. The majority of survey participants want to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness above
all through suggested values for planners (59 percent, see Figure 49). In this approach, planners are
supported by forecasts without depriving them of any freedom. They can plan faster, more accurately
and on the basis of uniform assumptions, without losing control of ‘their’ plan figures. The validation
and quality assurance of manual planning is also a common approach (43 percent) and provides support
without limitation. Both approaches – suggested values and validation – are suitable for testing and
improving the models used against reality.
High-quality forecasts and consistent plans require conclusive driver models to capture dependencies
within the enterprise on a value basis. With advanced analysis, correlations can be identified (33 percent)
that remain hidden by classical analysis. Internal data not previously used for corporate planning must
be used more intensively (39 percent). The evaluation of the ‘true’ drivers of corporate success always
requires interpretation. The design of a comprehensive driver model is therefore not only a technical
challenge, but also a business challenge. The rewards for these efforts are driver models that enable
better simulations and scenario calculations (32 percent), with which companies can significantly
increase the relevance of their planning data by calculating many scenarios.
Only 17 percent of companies see fully automated forecasting as a realistic goal. This reflects the
expectation that predictive algorithms will deliver better results than human planners, primarily in
selected areas but not generally.
Planning and CPM vendors are currently investing massively in the integration of statistical methods,
machine learning and artificial intelligence in order to optimally support their customers. In addition to
providing generic functions, BARC also expects the provision of ready-made solutions that are easy to
understand and lead to good results with little effort (e.g., forecasting services for specific topics or
industries) in the future. With ready-made solutions, vendors would also address the biggest challenges
in the use of predictive planning and forecasting today (see Figure 48). Less statistical know-how would

be required in order to use them and the demand on resources would be reduced due to their
prefabricated nature.
Suggested values for planners in budgeting

59%
and forecasting process
Validation and quality assurance of manual
43%
planning
More intensive use of internal data 39%

Identification and validation of driver
33%
dependencies
Automated execution of simulations and
32%
scenario calculations
Use of statistical methods 29%
Increased involvement of external factors 25%

Use of machine learning and artificial
21%
intelligence
Use of big data 20%
Fully automated forecasting 17%
Other 1%
Figure 49: With which approaches do you plan to use predictive planning and forecasting in
your company? (n=546)
Simulation and analysis of scenarios

The potential of simulations in planning and forecasting has long been known. Nevertheless, BARC's
experience from research and consulting shows that their use is far from universal. Simulations allow the
analysis of different scenarios based on mathematical business models and variable input values
(parameters). The detailed comparison of different scenarios helps to evaluate the influence of changes
as well as the resilience of companies and thus provides important insights for corporate management.
The survey results show that the importance of simulations for corporate management has increased.
Increasing dynamics and the associated uncertainty are major reasons for this. 49 percent of the
organizations surveyed confirm that using simulations to better estimate the impact of important
decisions is highly relevant to them (see Figure 50). Only a few organizations do not use simulations for
corporate management currently.

Very important 13%
Important 36%
Not very important 33%
Not important at all 7%
We currently do not use simulations and

11%
scenario analyses
Figure 50: How important are simulations and scenario analyses in your company for corporate
management and decision support? (n=661)
Figure 51 shows that 48 percent of the companies surveyed already benefit from simulations and the
analysis of scenarios. The fact that another 41 percent plan to leverage simulations at some point in the
future confirms that their importance for corporate management has grown massively. Many
organizations now regularly use simulations to better estimate the impact of important decisions.
60%
50%
In use
40%
30%
20%
Planned
10%
0%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Figure 51: Use and planned use of simulations and analysis of scenarios, timeline. 2017
(n=1,164), 2018 (n=812), 2019 (n=932), 2020 (n=908), 2021 (n=884), 2022 (n=832) and 2023
(n=782)
When using simulations, companies analyze and compare different scenarios in a well-founded manner
so they can evaluate possible future developments as well as external effects. This allows important
information to be obtained for corporate management as a basis for decisions. Scenarios – both positive
and negative – must be enriched with risk assessments and measures to evaluate probabilities and
possible action alternatives. The simulation of scenarios is a decisive factor in competition to prepare for
future developments in the best possible way and to identify opportunities and risks.
Sophisticated simulations and scenario analyses must be supported by modern software tools that
enable the efficient management of the required models and data, can be flexibly adapted and offer

sound support functions. Only with these tools can simulations be calculated on-the-fly and quickly
analyzed in detail.
Modern software for corporate planning supports flexible scenario modeling and offers central data
management as well as high-performance computations for simulations and analyses. The pressure of
increasing dynamics is forcing companies to take simulations and scenario analyses more seriously.
The fact that simulations are not yet part of the standard repertoire for many companies, given the high
added value they offer in decision-making, is not least due to the significant challenges they present.
The sheer effort required to create and analyze scenarios and to maintain the necessary simulation
models poses problems for 45 percent of companies (see Figure 52). The amount of effort required is
determined by many parameters and must therefore be addressed from different perspectives (e.g.,
resources, competency, data, model creation and software support).
High effort 45%
Lack of resources and methodological

44%
competence
Insufficient input data 40%
No integrated model in the company 25%
Lack of software support 22%
Simulations are not used by management for

17%
steering
None 5%
Simulations do not provide helpful insights for

5%
us
Figure 52: What are your greatest challenges in the field of simulation and scenario analysis?
(n=620)
In many companies, the use of simulations is strongly focused on financial planning, which is not
surprising, since this dominates the planning activities of many organizations. In the areas of operational
planning and strategic planning, the rate of use is currently lower so the potential for further expansion
is there. Sophisticated simulations can make a major value contribution, especially in strategic planning.
However, due to the many different dependencies and the long time period under consideration, sound
support in this area is particularly difficult to achieve.
Market and competitive dynamics have increased hugely and are set to continue growing. Simulations
and scenario analyses are therefore becoming increasingly important for holistic corporate
management.
Value driver-based planning

In order to enhance meaningfulness and efficiency, many companies increasingly want to direct their
planning toward the central influencing factors of their business. The goal here is to link the relevant
value drivers with the result variables. Value-driver-oriented planning models are suitable for

simulations, as the effects of changes in individual factors or measures can be shown quickly and
transparently. Value driver orientation often goes hand in hand with a stronger top-down orientation.
As a consequence, better focused planning is now an important goal for many organizations. They want
to focus their planning on the key parameters and value drivers for their own businesses, as entering
detailed data is a major cost driver. Consequently, 41 percent of the companies surveyed have already
implemented value driver-based planning models (up from 30 percent in 2016) and another 35 percent
plan to use driver-based planning approaches in the future (see Figure 53). A value-driver-oriented
approach can improve informative value and efficiency, and also forms the basis for elaborate
simulations.
60%
50%
In use
40%
30%
20%
Planned
10%
0%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Figure 53: Use and planned use of value driver-based planning, timeline. 2016 (n=511), 2017
(n=1,078), 2018 (n=723), 2019 (n=834), 2020 (n=862), 2021 (n=834), 2022 (n=766) and 2023
(n=728)
Value driver-based planning is primarily a business planning approach, not a technical one. This is why
the three biggest challenges in its implementation are all non-software-related. The main challenge ‘lack
of resources and methodological expertise’ (54 percent) is followed closely by the effort that is required
to implement the concept (46 percent). In third place comes the difficulty to identify the main drivers,
their influencing factors and dependencies (34 percent), which is, however, needed to implement the
approach and to develop value driver-based planning models. A lack of software support is the fourth
most common challenge (22 percent).

Lack of resources and methodological skills 54%
Lots of effort 46%
Identification of the main drivers, their

influencing factors and dependencies is too 34%
difficult
Lack of software support 22%
Value driver-based planning approaches are not

11%
accepted by management
Value driver-based planning approaches do not

6%
deliver added value for us
Figure 54: What are your biggest challenges in the use of value driver-based planning
approaches? (n=482)

More survey results: The Analyzer
The Analyzer is a powerful, interactive, online tool that enables you to perform your own custom analysis
of the survey data.
Custom analysis of The Planning Survey
data
The Analyzer allows you to analyze the survey data
in numerous ways.
Filtering capabilities let you access the results most
relevant to your organization.
Results can be filtered by region, country, product,
user type, industry and company size (number of
employees).
Compare planning products
One of the outstanding benefits of The Analyzer is
the ability to filter the survey data by your own
customized shortlist of products.
This feature lets you focus on the survey results
related to products of interest to you and make quick comparisons between those tools.
For more information, visit: https://bi-survey.com/planning-survey-analyzer

Copyright © BARC GmbH 2023. All rights reserved.
Data Decisions. Built on BARC.
Germany
BARC GmbH
Berliner Platz 7
D-97080 Würzburg
+49 931 880651-0
www.barc.com
Austria
BARC GmbH
Hirschstettner Straße 19 / I / IS314
A-1220 Wien
+43 660 6366870
Switzerland
BARC Schweiz GmbH
Täfernstr. 22a
CH-5405 Baden-Dättwil
+41 56 470 94 34
Rest of the World

+44 1536 772-451
www.barc-research.com

The Planning Survey 23 Participant Summary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Planning Survey 23 Participant Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Participant Summary

The Planning Survey 20 – The

Data Decisions. Built on BARC. ..........................................................................................................................................................................4

The Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Software in use and usage scenarios ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Business benefits from planning products .............................................................................................................................................. 8

The Business Benefits Index (BBI) scoring system ........................................................................................................................... 11

Business benefits from planning products vs. Excel ...................................................................................................................... 12

Recommendation and Net Promoter Score (NPS) ............................................................................................................................. 13

The software selection process ................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Selection method ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Products evaluated ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Time needed ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

Sales experience .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Satisfaction and challenges ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Leaders vs. laggards ................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Integrated corporate planning .............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Integrated performance management .............................................................................................................................................. 37

Cloud-based planning .............................................................................................................................................................................. 38

Predictive planning and forecasting ................................................................................................................................................... 43

Simulation and analysis of scenarios .................................................................................................................................................. 47

Value driver-based planning .................................................................................................................................................................. 49

More survey results: The Analyzer ............................................................................................................................................................ 52

Custom analysis of The Planning Survey data ................................................................................................................................ 52

Compare planning products .................................................................................................................................................................. 52

The Planning Survey 23 – Participant Summary © BARC 2023 2

The Planning Survey 23 – Participant Summary © BARC 2023 3

For further information see:

The Planning Survey 23 – Participant Summary © BARC 2023 4

Software in use and usage scenarios

Financial planning 71% 19% 9%

Operational planning 64% 21% 15%

Strategic planning 51% 37% 12%

Budgeting 81% 15% 5%

Forecasting 59% 31% 10%

In use Planned Not required

The Planning Survey 23 – Participant Summary © BARC 2023 5

Standard/Enterprise reporting 74% 11% 15%

Ad hoc query 69% 16% 16%

Dashboards/BI applications 51% 29% 21%

Analysis 46% 25% 29%

Financial consolidation 44% 22% 34%

In use Planned Not required

The Planning Survey 23 – Participant Summary © BARC 2023 6

Microsoft Excel 77%

Operational systems 40%

Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Access, etc. 18%

In-house developed software 13%

Specialized planning software 60%

Microsoft Excel 27%

In-house developed software 3%

Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Access, etc. 2%

The Planning Survey 23 – Participant Summary © BARC 2023 7

Specialized planning software 82%

Microsoft Excel 14%

In-house developed software 0%

Business benefits from planning products

The Planning Survey 23 – Participant Summary © BARC 2023 8

The Planning Survey 23 – Participant Summary © BARC 2023 9

Increased transparency of planning 2% 98%

More precise/detailed planning 3% 97%

Improved software user satisfaction 3% 97%

Better integration of planning with BI/analytics 4% 96%