Think back to when your company first chose to implement Apptio IT Planning as the primary budget & forecast tool for your organization. If knew back then what you know today, would you have been able to stand up IT Planning in 30 days or less? More? 

Our premise is that the tool should be very easy to learn/use, the reference data gathering (accounts, departments, vendors) should be pretty simple and customers can practically self-serve in setting up their own solution. Can we really make it that easy? I often think we can make it super-simple but there's something that prevents us from getting there whether it's a software bug, data issue or knowledge gap. 

It seems like implementing ITP is a painful chore and does not offer any instant relief. It takes time to reap the rewards, if any.  

I use the tool so often that things seem really easy and it makes perfect sense to me.  That just makes me naive because I no longer see this with fresh eyes and that affects my perception of whether or not things really are that simple.  Let's ask ourselves:

Was acquiring data as easy as expected?

Was learning the tool as easy as expected?

Could I have set this up by myself?

How did you learn the tool? 

Did we move too quickly, too slowly?

Were there questions we should have asked but didn't? 

Anything else?

I would like to explore this discussion to learn more about how Apptio can improve its delivery practices when deploying IT Planning. 

If you can remember any of the details around the implementation phase of your ITP solution, then please share and let us know what didn't work and how could we have rolled this out more effectively.

The fact we went from excel to a tool (zero to 100km/hr in 2.1 seconds) is a very important aspect to this answer. It is easy to talk about what could have been done differently. But it is critical to keep in mind moving from Excel to the tool, building an automated process, having a source of truth for forecast data, enabling collaboration, is such an accomplishment, such a maturity transformation, all problems, faults, gaps, diminishes in importance.  

This is not saying the ITPF implementation project is perfect. At all. It is a must have before we can have a discussion about what to improve next.

We implemented ITPF after CT. That is a determining factor to evaluate how easy it is to set up ITPF. We already had the data, defined lines of sight, ownership and governance. If we did it in reverse it would have been a different experience for sure.

Learning he tool is easy at that early stage with the basic use cases. Our experience is that end users learn the tool, and once the forecast cycle is completed they "forget" about it and training is required again for the following quarterly forecast, and this is a problem. Compounded by the fact the use cases mature from cycle to cycle and functionality gets more complex.

One piece that could be improved in the implementation process is the next step in the process. Once a forecast is completed in ITPF the data needs to be ported to the ERP system. This is a painful process if done manually. More time should be invested in automating this process. 

Thank you for the great details!

I've "borrowed"  a few really good ideas from you to create some further discussions pieces. Your points are valid but not new.  We hear these a lot and it makes me wonder how we can start to address those pain points. 

For example, why do people "forget" how to use the tool?  We understand that the budget process occurs very infrequently, usually annually, and that people will forget how to use ITP; however, IMHO, forecasting is the most important process for finance so the tool should be in constant use.  In your case, you prepare a quarterly forecast so we're not expecting you to automatically change to monthly because we say so (although that would be nice!).  

Following that logic, if people are not using their forecasting tool on a regular basis, which activities can the tool be used for in-between forecasts?  What are some of the other operational functions your team is required to perform and can be automated by reporting and such?

I think we should figure out what are some good reporting & analysis activities and/or exercises that  finance teams can perform on a monthly basis so that it brings people back to the tool which might develop better muscle memory.  This might also reduce the time spent to re-learn the tool over and over.  I see that as wasted time that could be applied somewhere else like even going home early every once in a while.

I'll come back to the ERP export piece at some later date as that sounds like a challenge which I would love to understand more about.

Cheers!

• Was acquiring data as easy as expected?
  • As we were configuring ITP we were building our 2018 plan in parallel on our legacy system and working on the translation of that taxonomy to TBM speak.  When ITP was ready, it literally was as simple as export from old, apply the mapping to Towers/Sub Towers/Sub Tower Elements and import into ITP.  Sounds so easy when I say it that way...
• Was learning the tool as easy as expected?
  • Some people took to it quickly, others struggled.  I don't think the struggle was because of any inherent complexities in ITP, I think it was more about reluctance to change.  A year later we have a much broader base of people who understand ITP, from both the administration and plan input perspectives.  
• Could I have set this up by myself?
  • Of course I'll say yes, but that answer comes with the benefits of more than a year's worth of accumulated experience.  I still think I'd struggle bringing on SDP and PFP without help.
• How did you learn the tool? 
  • By using it.  A lot.  Yes there's a great knowledge base that fills in some of the finer points but nothing beats sitting down at the keyboard and just working through the various paths and seeing what it can and can't do.
• Did we move too quickly, too slowly?
  • Given the complexity of the environment it was replacing I think the time required was about right.  We were facing an immovable deadline so that probably helped keep things moving at the right speed.  
• Were there questions we should have asked but didn't? 
  • We probably should have spent a little more time fully exploring the pros/cons/consequences of choosing which level to implement our hierarchy.  (I think I still owe you some more background on this).
• Anything else?
  • More as it comes back to me...

Good thread !

I would agree on @George McElfresh's note on spending time really figuring out hierarchy.  It really is the backbone of whatever else you build in ITP.  I've found most of the teams I have worked with struggle with the Cost Element piece.  The relationship between Department and Cost Centers.  I think we need some better literature on this.

Thanks for this thread!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Here is a post that I made a few months ago that has some planning considerations relative to ITP and CT "integrations" - the area that seems to consume the greatest amount of energy in implementing ITP (and PFP for that matter).  

Planning Process Considerations in an Integrated Scenario  

Implementing ITP (or standing it up) is not too difficult.  It is largely a data gathering and structuring exercise for the reference data.  The time consuming activities involve the process definition/engineering/re-engineering or designing around the budgeting and forecasting cycles + any alignment of data to other systems + "integration" of ITP with other systems.

In that vein, here are some initial due diligence/discovery considerations I've developed just in regard to ITP for now.  Addressing these questions are key to getting alignment early to effect the definitions to reference data, hierarchy definition of data, and process definition and managing the chance - the biggest area of lift.

ØWhat are the key dates, durations, deadlines for:

ØAnnual budgeting process – the start, versions, finish?

ØForecasting process –

ØHow often?

ØRolling 12 month – or – different period?  For a specific period?

ØAre YTD actuals used?

ØHow would you characterize your current budgeting process? 

Ø How many people are involved? Approval process and approval hierarchy?  Preparers vs. owners?  Accountable vs. responsible?

Ø Top down?  Bottom up?  Multiple regions, plans, GLs, consolidation of plans?

Ø CapEx?  OpEx?

Ø Annual plans?  For more than one year?

Ø Systems or mechanisms currently used for budgeting and tracking approval status?

Ø Reports or views of the budget?

Ø At what level are budgets prepared, e.g. cost center, account, department, labor, contracts, assets, projects, other?

ØHow many, e.g. cost centers, accounts, departments?

ØIs this different than the level at which transactional activity occurs?

ØHow are changes to the budget addressed during the planning process?  Impact?

ØComparisons?

Ø Are forecasts compared to budgets?  How?

Ø Is transactional activity compared to budgets?  To forecasts?  To both?

Ø Are you able to compare different versions of plans?

ØScenario Planning

Ø Ability to evaluate different plan scenarios:

ØDifferent mixes of internal/external labor in accordance with anticipated demand

ØImpact of changes to spend such as deferral/acceleration of asset purchases

ØChanges in vendor mix

ØImpact of mergers, acquisitions, divestitures/spin-offs

ØThe “long tail” of OpEx in subsequent years

This is an interesting read. We are starting the ITPF implementation next week, and are planning on fully transitioning forecasting at the end of our P1 (March 3). Giddyup...