Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Bloquear cita
Lista ordenada
Lista desordenada
Texto en negrita
Éntesis
Superíndice
Subíndice
Procurement and finance often tell different stories about the same numbers. Connected planning closes the gap.
Learn more about this eventProcurement: “I hit my savings targets and delivered €1m of transport savings by negotiating average 5% reductions with my two key suppliers.”
Finance: “Year-to-date, transport costs are up 2% versus budget.”
Struggling to achieve alignment? Both statements can be true. Mid-year is usually a good moment to talk about alignment. H1 numbers are firming up, leadership teams are reviewing performance, expectations for H2 are being reset; and the start of the annual budget process and AOP creation is just around the corner. It’s also the point where disconnects between functions become more visible.
The most common problem is familiar: two functions, two versions of the numbers. Not because one is wrong – but because each is looking at the truth through a different lens. Two functions. Different perspectives on the truth.
Procurement and finance are often asked to explain the same outcome, but they arrive there in very different ways.
Procurement works bottom-up. Category teams focus on negotiated supplier contracts, agreed pricing, and forecast volumes. Attention is usually on core suppliers rather than the long tail. Key materials as opposed to global picture. Savings are calculated based on the best available assumptions at the time – assumptions that inevitably evolve as volumes shift, sourcing strategies change, or demand moves. Full visibility of all downstream cost impacts is rarely available, so estimates become a necessary part of the process.
Finance works top-down. Finance operates from the AOP, using fixed assumptions, standard cost structures, and formal variance analysis against budget and forecast. Costs are aggregated into reporting buckets designed for P&L and EBITDA management, not supplier or category level storytelling.
The result? Procurement may point to a clearly negotiated contract saving that finance cannot see in the P&L. Finance may report a cost increase that procurement believes they have already taken out.
In the opening example, procurement negotiated a genuine discount and calculated savings against forecast volumes. Meanwhile, actuals and forecast changed for valid reasons: total volumes fell, volumes shifted between suppliers, or external impacts – such as a 20% tariff increase – were included in transport cost lines from a finance reporting perspective.
Both sides are right. They’re just not connected.
Where things really break down, the real issue isn’t intent or capability; it’s how complexity is managed.
Procurement assumptions change over time. Finance assumptions are often locked for planning cycles. Costs that procurement sees separately are frequently bucketed together in financial reporting. Trying to reconcile this in Excel quickly becomes manual, fragile, and slow – especially when time pressure peaks such as when the budget process kicks in.
This is where trust starts to erode. Procurement feels their contribution isn’t recognized. Finance feels forecasts are unreliable. Leadership is left arbitrating between two apparently conflicting stories.
The organizations that handle this well don’t depend on reconciliation after the fact. They move to a model where procurement forecasts and finance models share the same inputs and are fully connected.
Not just shared numbers – shared logic.
Contract price changes automatically update forecast costs. Procurement assumptions flow directly into finance bridge reports. Savings are tracked end-to-end, from target to forecast to P&L realization. And when savings don’t appear, both teams can explain why – not argue about who is right.
Address the five fundamentals.
First, a shared cost model structure. Standardized cost models built around agreed cost drivers, not spreadsheets owned by individuals or teams.
Second, aligned business processes. Clear agreement on key activities for example when savings are defined, validated, forecast, and recognized – with finance and procurement working together at every step.
Third, working from the same data sets. One standard version of inputs, volumes, prices, and assumptions, updated consistently.
Fourth, clear roles and responsibilities. Who owns processes and assumptions, who updates them, and who signs off.
Fifth, the right technology. Automation of bottom-up supplier, material, and plant calculations aggregated cleanly with a standard methodology into financial reporting.
Variance analysis: the most underused opportunity - the point where procurement and finance collaborate – not collide.
When numbers move, the question shouldn’t be “whose number is right?” It should be “what actually drove the variance?” With connected models, that becomes possible.
This is where connected planning platforms like Anaplan play a critical role.
Procurement category models, savings initiatives, and volume assumptions can feed directly into AOP and LE creation. A price change in a procurement cost driver automatically flows through standard cost models, for multiple materials creating revised spend forecast and bridge reporting – without manual intervention.
The result isn’t a better spreadsheet. It’s a shared planning environment where procurement and finance operate in one system.
In a volatile cost environment, speed and credibility of re-forecasting are must haves.
Savings that aren’t visible in the P&L don’t count. Forecasts built on stale cost assumptions won’t hold.
The answer isn’t more reconciliation meetings. It’s shared drivers, shared models, and shared accountability. Time spent on analysis and decision making with real time scenario planning, not on cost compilation and excel manipulation
If you want to know more or keep up to date, follow our posts or contact Keyrus EPM.
Procurement: “I hit my savings targets and delivered €1m of transport savings by negotiating average 5% reductions with my two key suppliers.”
Finance: “Year-to-date, transport costs are up 2% versus budget.”
Struggling to achieve alignment? Both statements can be true. Mid-year is usually a good moment to talk about alignment. H1 numbers are firming up, leadership teams are reviewing performance, expectations for H2 are being reset; and the start of the annual budget process and AOP creation is just around the corner. It’s also the point where disconnects between functions become more visible.
The most common problem is familiar: two functions, two versions of the numbers. Not because one is wrong – but because each is looking at the truth through a different lens. Two functions. Different perspectives on the truth.
Procurement and finance are often asked to explain the same outcome, but they arrive there in very different ways.
Procurement works bottom-up. Category teams focus on negotiated supplier contracts, agreed pricing, and forecast volumes. Attention is usually on core suppliers rather than the long tail. Key materials as opposed to global picture. Savings are calculated based on the best available assumptions at the time – assumptions that inevitably evolve as volumes shift, sourcing strategies change, or demand moves. Full visibility of all downstream cost impacts is rarely available, so estimates become a necessary part of the process.
Finance works top-down. Finance operates from the AOP, using fixed assumptions, standard cost structures, and formal variance analysis against budget and forecast. Costs are aggregated into reporting buckets designed for P&L and EBITDA management, not supplier or category level storytelling.
The result? Procurement may point to a clearly negotiated contract saving that finance cannot see in the P&L. Finance may report a cost increase that procurement believes they have already taken out.
In the opening example, procurement negotiated a genuine discount and calculated savings against forecast volumes. Meanwhile, actuals and forecast changed for valid reasons: total volumes fell, volumes shifted between suppliers, or external impacts – such as a 20% tariff increase – were included in transport cost lines from a finance reporting perspective.
Both sides are right. They’re just not connected.
Where things really break down, the real issue isn’t intent or capability; it’s how complexity is managed.
Procurement assumptions change over time. Finance assumptions are often locked for planning cycles. Costs that procurement sees separately are frequently bucketed together in financial reporting. Trying to reconcile this in Excel quickly becomes manual, fragile, and slow – especially when time pressure peaks such as when the budget process kicks in.
This is where trust starts to erode. Procurement feels their contribution isn’t recognized. Finance feels forecasts are unreliable. Leadership is left arbitrating between two apparently conflicting stories.
The organizations that handle this well don’t depend on reconciliation after the fact. They move to a model where procurement forecasts and finance models share the same inputs and are fully connected.
Not just shared numbers – shared logic.
Contract price changes automatically update forecast costs. Procurement assumptions flow directly into finance bridge reports. Savings are tracked end-to-end, from target to forecast to P&L realization. And when savings don’t appear, both teams can explain why – not argue about who is right.
Address the five fundamentals.
First, a shared cost model structure. Standardized cost models built around agreed cost drivers, not spreadsheets owned by individuals or teams.
Second, aligned business processes. Clear agreement on key activities for example when savings are defined, validated, forecast, and recognized – with finance and procurement working together at every step.
Third, working from the same data sets. One standard version of inputs, volumes, prices, and assumptions, updated consistently.
Fourth, clear roles and responsibilities. Who owns processes and assumptions, who updates them, and who signs off.
Fifth, the right technology. Automation of bottom-up supplier, material, and plant calculations aggregated cleanly with a standard methodology into financial reporting.
Variance analysis: the most underused opportunity - the point where procurement and finance collaborate – not collide.
When numbers move, the question shouldn’t be “whose number is right?” It should be “what actually drove the variance?” With connected models, that becomes possible.
This is where connected planning platforms like Anaplan play a critical role.
Procurement category models, savings initiatives, and volume assumptions can feed directly into AOP and LE creation. A price change in a procurement cost driver automatically flows through standard cost models, for multiple materials creating revised spend forecast and bridge reporting – without manual intervention.
The result isn’t a better spreadsheet. It’s a shared planning environment where procurement and finance operate in one system.
In a volatile cost environment, speed and credibility of re-forecasting are must haves.
Savings that aren’t visible in the P&L don’t count. Forecasts built on stale cost assumptions won’t hold.
The answer isn’t more reconciliation meetings. It’s shared drivers, shared models, and shared accountability. Time spent on analysis and decision making with real time scenario planning, not on cost compilation and excel manipulation
If you want to know more or keep up to date, follow our posts or contact Keyrus EPM.
Procurement: “I hit my savings targets and delivered €1m of transport savings by negotiating average 5% reductions with my two key suppliers.”
Finance: “Year-to-date, transport costs are up 2% versus budget.”
Struggling to achieve alignment? Both statements can be true. Mid-year is usually a good moment to talk about alignment. H1 numbers are firming up, leadership teams are reviewing performance, expectations for H2 are being reset; and the start of the annual budget process and AOP creation is just around the corner. It’s also the point where disconnects between functions become more visible.
The most common problem is familiar: two functions, two versions of the numbers. Not because one is wrong – but because each is looking at the truth through a different lens. Two functions. Different perspectives on the truth.
Procurement and finance are often asked to explain the same outcome, but they arrive there in very different ways.
Procurement works bottom-up. Category teams focus on negotiated supplier contracts, agreed pricing, and forecast volumes. Attention is usually on core suppliers rather than the long tail. Key materials as opposed to global picture. Savings are calculated based on the best available assumptions at the time – assumptions that inevitably evolve as volumes shift, sourcing strategies change, or demand moves. Full visibility of all downstream cost impacts is rarely available, so estimates become a necessary part of the process.
Finance works top-down. Finance operates from the AOP, using fixed assumptions, standard cost structures, and formal variance analysis against budget and forecast. Costs are aggregated into reporting buckets designed for P&L and EBITDA management, not supplier or category level storytelling.
The result? Procurement may point to a clearly negotiated contract saving that finance cannot see in the P&L. Finance may report a cost increase that procurement believes they have already taken out.
In the opening example, procurement negotiated a genuine discount and calculated savings against forecast volumes. Meanwhile, actuals and forecast changed for valid reasons: total volumes fell, volumes shifted between suppliers, or external impacts – such as a 20% tariff increase – were included in transport cost lines from a finance reporting perspective.
Both sides are right. They’re just not connected.
Where things really break down, the real issue isn’t intent or capability; it’s how complexity is managed.
Procurement assumptions change over time. Finance assumptions are often locked for planning cycles. Costs that procurement sees separately are frequently bucketed together in financial reporting. Trying to reconcile this in Excel quickly becomes manual, fragile, and slow – especially when time pressure peaks such as when the budget process kicks in.
This is where trust starts to erode. Procurement feels their contribution isn’t recognized. Finance feels forecasts are unreliable. Leadership is left arbitrating between two apparently conflicting stories.
The organizations that handle this well don’t depend on reconciliation after the fact. They move to a model where procurement forecasts and finance models share the same inputs and are fully connected.
Not just shared numbers – shared logic.
Contract price changes automatically update forecast costs. Procurement assumptions flow directly into finance bridge reports. Savings are tracked end-to-end, from target to forecast to P&L realization. And when savings don’t appear, both teams can explain why – not argue about who is right.
Address the five fundamentals.
First, a shared cost model structure. Standardized cost models built around agreed cost drivers, not spreadsheets owned by individuals or teams.
Second, aligned business processes. Clear agreement on key activities for example when savings are defined, validated, forecast, and recognized – with finance and procurement working together at every step.
Third, working from the same data sets. One standard version of inputs, volumes, prices, and assumptions, updated consistently.
Fourth, clear roles and responsibilities. Who owns processes and assumptions, who updates them, and who signs off.
Fifth, the right technology. Automation of bottom-up supplier, material, and plant calculations aggregated cleanly with a standard methodology into financial reporting.
Variance analysis: the most underused opportunity - the point where procurement and finance collaborate – not collide.
When numbers move, the question shouldn’t be “whose number is right?” It should be “what actually drove the variance?” With connected models, that becomes possible.
This is where connected planning platforms like Anaplan play a critical role.
Procurement category models, savings initiatives, and volume assumptions can feed directly into AOP and LE creation. A price change in a procurement cost driver automatically flows through standard cost models, for multiple materials creating revised spend forecast and bridge reporting – without manual intervention.
The result isn’t a better spreadsheet. It’s a shared planning environment where procurement and finance operate in one system.
In a volatile cost environment, speed and credibility of re-forecasting are must haves.
Savings that aren’t visible in the P&L don’t count. Forecasts built on stale cost assumptions won’t hold.
The answer isn’t more reconciliation meetings. It’s shared drivers, shared models, and shared accountability. Time spent on analysis and decision making with real time scenario planning, not on cost compilation and excel manipulation
If you want to know more or keep up to date, follow our posts or contact Keyrus EPM.
Procurement: “I hit my savings targets and delivered €1m of transport savings by negotiating average 5% reductions with my two key suppliers.”
Finance: “Year-to-date, transport costs are up 2% versus budget.”
Struggling to achieve alignment? Both statements can be true. Mid-year is usually a good moment to talk about alignment. H1 numbers are firming up, leadership teams are reviewing performance, expectations for H2 are being reset; and the start of the annual budget process and AOP creation is just around the corner. It’s also the point where disconnects between functions become more visible.
The most common problem is familiar: two functions, two versions of the numbers. Not because one is wrong – but because each is looking at the truth through a different lens. Two functions. Different perspectives on the truth.
Procurement and finance are often asked to explain the same outcome, but they arrive there in very different ways.
Procurement works bottom-up. Category teams focus on negotiated supplier contracts, agreed pricing, and forecast volumes. Attention is usually on core suppliers rather than the long tail. Key materials as opposed to global picture. Savings are calculated based on the best available assumptions at the time – assumptions that inevitably evolve as volumes shift, sourcing strategies change, or demand moves. Full visibility of all downstream cost impacts is rarely available, so estimates become a necessary part of the process.
Finance works top-down. Finance operates from the AOP, using fixed assumptions, standard cost structures, and formal variance analysis against budget and forecast. Costs are aggregated into reporting buckets designed for P&L and EBITDA management, not supplier or category level storytelling.
The result? Procurement may point to a clearly negotiated contract saving that finance cannot see in the P&L. Finance may report a cost increase that procurement believes they have already taken out.
In the opening example, procurement negotiated a genuine discount and calculated savings against forecast volumes. Meanwhile, actuals and forecast changed for valid reasons: total volumes fell, volumes shifted between suppliers, or external impacts – such as a 20% tariff increase – were included in transport cost lines from a finance reporting perspective.
Both sides are right. They’re just not connected.
Where things really break down, the real issue isn’t intent or capability; it’s how complexity is managed.
Procurement assumptions change over time. Finance assumptions are often locked for planning cycles. Costs that procurement sees separately are frequently bucketed together in financial reporting. Trying to reconcile this in Excel quickly becomes manual, fragile, and slow – especially when time pressure peaks such as when the budget process kicks in.
This is where trust starts to erode. Procurement feels their contribution isn’t recognized. Finance feels forecasts are unreliable. Leadership is left arbitrating between two apparently conflicting stories.
The organizations that handle this well don’t depend on reconciliation after the fact. They move to a model where procurement forecasts and finance models share the same inputs and are fully connected.
Not just shared numbers – shared logic.
Contract price changes automatically update forecast costs. Procurement assumptions flow directly into finance bridge reports. Savings are tracked end-to-end, from target to forecast to P&L realization. And when savings don’t appear, both teams can explain why – not argue about who is right.
Address the five fundamentals.
First, a shared cost model structure. Standardized cost models built around agreed cost drivers, not spreadsheets owned by individuals or teams.
Second, aligned business processes. Clear agreement on key activities for example when savings are defined, validated, forecast, and recognized – with finance and procurement working together at every step.
Third, working from the same data sets. One standard version of inputs, volumes, prices, and assumptions, updated consistently.
Fourth, clear roles and responsibilities. Who owns processes and assumptions, who updates them, and who signs off.
Fifth, the right technology. Automation of bottom-up supplier, material, and plant calculations aggregated cleanly with a standard methodology into financial reporting.
Variance analysis: the most underused opportunity - the point where procurement and finance collaborate – not collide.
When numbers move, the question shouldn’t be “whose number is right?” It should be “what actually drove the variance?” With connected models, that becomes possible.
This is where connected planning platforms like Anaplan play a critical role.
Procurement category models, savings initiatives, and volume assumptions can feed directly into AOP and LE creation. A price change in a procurement cost driver automatically flows through standard cost models, for multiple materials creating revised spend forecast and bridge reporting – without manual intervention.
The result isn’t a better spreadsheet. It’s a shared planning environment where procurement and finance operate in one system.
In a volatile cost environment, speed and credibility of re-forecasting are must haves.
Savings that aren’t visible in the P&L don’t count. Forecasts built on stale cost assumptions won’t hold.
The answer isn’t more reconciliation meetings. It’s shared drivers, shared models, and shared accountability. Time spent on analysis and decision making with real time scenario planning, not on cost compilation and excel manipulation
If you want to know more or keep up to date, follow our posts or contact Keyrus EPM.
Procurement: “I hit my savings targets and delivered €1m of transport savings by negotiating average 5% reductions with my two key suppliers.”
Finance: “Year-to-date, transport costs are up 2% versus budget.”
Struggling to achieve alignment? Both statements can be true. Mid-year is usually a good moment to talk about alignment. H1 numbers are firming up, leadership teams are reviewing performance, expectations for H2 are being reset; and the start of the annual budget process and AOP creation is just around the corner. It’s also the point where disconnects between functions become more visible.
The most common problem is familiar: two functions, two versions of the numbers. Not because one is wrong – but because each is looking at the truth through a different lens. Two functions. Different perspectives on the truth.
Procurement and finance are often asked to explain the same outcome, but they arrive there in very different ways.
Procurement works bottom-up. Category teams focus on negotiated supplier contracts, agreed pricing, and forecast volumes. Attention is usually on core suppliers rather than the long tail. Key materials as opposed to global picture. Savings are calculated based on the best available assumptions at the time – assumptions that inevitably evolve as volumes shift, sourcing strategies change, or demand moves. Full visibility of all downstream cost impacts is rarely available, so estimates become a necessary part of the process.
Finance works top-down. Finance operates from the AOP, using fixed assumptions, standard cost structures, and formal variance analysis against budget and forecast. Costs are aggregated into reporting buckets designed for P&L and EBITDA management, not supplier or category level storytelling.
The result? Procurement may point to a clearly negotiated contract saving that finance cannot see in the P&L. Finance may report a cost increase that procurement believes they have already taken out.
In the opening example, procurement negotiated a genuine discount and calculated savings against forecast volumes. Meanwhile, actuals and forecast changed for valid reasons: total volumes fell, volumes shifted between suppliers, or external impacts – such as a 20% tariff increase – were included in transport cost lines from a finance reporting perspective.
Both sides are right. They’re just not connected.
Where things really break down, the real issue isn’t intent or capability; it’s how complexity is managed.
Procurement assumptions change over time. Finance assumptions are often locked for planning cycles. Costs that procurement sees separately are frequently bucketed together in financial reporting. Trying to reconcile this in Excel quickly becomes manual, fragile, and slow – especially when time pressure peaks such as when the budget process kicks in.
This is where trust starts to erode. Procurement feels their contribution isn’t recognized. Finance feels forecasts are unreliable. Leadership is left arbitrating between two apparently conflicting stories.
The organizations that handle this well don’t depend on reconciliation after the fact. They move to a model where procurement forecasts and finance models share the same inputs and are fully connected.
Not just shared numbers – shared logic.
Contract price changes automatically update forecast costs. Procurement assumptions flow directly into finance bridge reports. Savings are tracked end-to-end, from target to forecast to P&L realization. And when savings don’t appear, both teams can explain why – not argue about who is right.
Address the five fundamentals.
First, a shared cost model structure. Standardized cost models built around agreed cost drivers, not spreadsheets owned by individuals or teams.
Second, aligned business processes. Clear agreement on key activities for example when savings are defined, validated, forecast, and recognized – with finance and procurement working together at every step.
Third, working from the same data sets. One standard version of inputs, volumes, prices, and assumptions, updated consistently.
Fourth, clear roles and responsibilities. Who owns processes and assumptions, who updates them, and who signs off.
Fifth, the right technology. Automation of bottom-up supplier, material, and plant calculations aggregated cleanly with a standard methodology into financial reporting.
Variance analysis: the most underused opportunity - the point where procurement and finance collaborate – not collide.
When numbers move, the question shouldn’t be “whose number is right?” It should be “what actually drove the variance?” With connected models, that becomes possible.
This is where connected planning platforms like Anaplan play a critical role.
Procurement category models, savings initiatives, and volume assumptions can feed directly into AOP and LE creation. A price change in a procurement cost driver automatically flows through standard cost models, for multiple materials creating revised spend forecast and bridge reporting – without manual intervention.
The result isn’t a better spreadsheet. It’s a shared planning environment where procurement and finance operate in one system.
In a volatile cost environment, speed and credibility of re-forecasting are must haves.
Savings that aren’t visible in the P&L don’t count. Forecasts built on stale cost assumptions won’t hold.
The answer isn’t more reconciliation meetings. It’s shared drivers, shared models, and shared accountability. Time spent on analysis and decision making with real time scenario planning, not on cost compilation and excel manipulation
If you want to know more or keep up to date, follow our posts or contact Keyrus EPM.
Accede a todos los detalles de esta jugada clave y llévala donde quieras. Disponible en formato PDF.
¿Tiene preguntas sobre nuestras soluciones de EPM? Nuestro equipo está listo para ayudarlo a encontrar el enfoque adecuado para su negocio.
