Please find out our proposal in pdf format here.
We would be very grateful for any comments on this material as it was not so obvious which rules are mandatory and which are optional.
With this document it will be much easier to check if one report can be named as consistent with IBCS rules.
Neue Themen
An dieser Stelle sammeln wir Empfehlungen und Vorschläge der IBCS® Community zu neuen Themen, die über die aktuelle Version der IBCS®-Standards hinaus gehen. Sie können genau so öffentlich diskutiert werden wie die Regeln der zuletzt freigegebenen Version der Standards.
Bitte in englischer Sprache kommentieren, damit sich die internationale Community an der Diskussion beteiligen kann.
Design standards for planning applications
(by Jef Baeyens)
Don’t we also need design standards for planning applications? For example identifying editable fields by a consistent background color.
Application of semantic notation: Which rules are mandatory, which optional?
(by IBCS v1.2 Work Group 3: Bryan Gough, Edyta Szarska, Jürgen Faisst)
At the London IBCS 2018 conference, there was a number of conversations about
- How consultants guide companies on adopting the Standards and what is required for it to determined IBCS compliant.
- How the IBCS association keeps the standard nature of the IBCS semantic rules while giving companies flexibility to adopt the core building blocks of IBCS while maintaining flexibility in adhering to other requirements.
As a result, a work group was set up to tackle the questions of which rules are mandatory, which rules are optional? The work group has grouped the semantic rules of IBCS v1.1 in two parts:
- Rules requiring the report designer to follow the IBCS stated notation; these are classified as “IBCS notation required”.
- IBCS stated notations which can be used as a suggestion with however the company having the ability to amend the notation to fit corporate circumstances, classified as “company specific notation”. However, IBCS still requires as a rule that the company specific notation is applied consistently across that company’s business reports, presentations and dashboards.
Please find the download link with the work results in the first comment.
Kommentare (5)
Thank you, Edyta. There has been an issue with the notification of subscribers. So again:
Please find our proposal in pdf format here.
In addition to the described topic we should think about a further
Certification or ‚Seal of Quality‘, which is awarded to notation manuals.
This seal certifies that the notation manual successfully implements IBCS.
Such a seal would have several advantages.
On the one hand, the customer can have the quality of the notation manual confirmed.
No watering down of the Brand IBCS with poorly written notation manuals.
The customer can use the seal for its own as a marketing tool
and confirm that their reports (or at least their notation handbook) are IBCS compliant.
The seal itsself is a marketing tool which will improve the visibility and brand recognition
of IBCS which will result into new people beeing interested into IBCS. (which is a good thing :))
I agree Jens. The quality of IBCS implementations could be confirmed by IBCS notation manuals. These way we could also be aware what companies do really good job with IBCS reporting. However I think these manuals will be updated from time to time by both sides:
company, while there is a need of change (i.e. changes in Management Board, in company ownership, in business model etc.)
IBCS Institute, while we have new versions of standards
This means such a ‚Seal of Quality‘ would need to have a ‚Date of Approval‘.
Interesting idea Jens, a couple of questions on the idea, be interested in your thoughts on how this would work –
a) How does the IBCS certification confirm the notation manual translates into IBCS compliant reports?
b) What is the benefit to the company of an IBCS certification on its notation manual? I could see from a non-profit or government-owned but for a profit-driven company, there is some benefit perhaps from reducing information risk but can you think of any others?
I am also very interested if anything in the proposal, gave you cause for concern or you need any clarity on our thought process?
Many thanks
Bryan
my only concern is that in some companies the notation manual comes out strongly but then over
Comparing multiple structure charts with the same structure elements
(by Daniel Doorduin)
How to deal with comparing multiple structure charts with the same structure elements (e.g. comparing markets on sales, profitability, growth and headcount)? Introducing meaningful colors for each market is probably not really a good idea …
Kommentare (1)
Daniel –
I am not sure whether I understand the terms “multiple structure chart” and “structure elements” correctly. Do you mean that you have a fixed “analysis setup” of certain measures such as sales, profitability, etc. on one page — and you use this fixed analysis setup to compare and report different markets, countries, or clients?
If this is the problem we suggest to use icons for the large number of elements in the respective structure dimensions – see structure dimensions. Colors would not be a good choice because you would probably not find enough distinguishable colors.
Tiles
(by Ronald van Lent)
What about tiles…I currently see tiles popping up more and more as a “new” visualization feature? Is it of use for reporting? Or only for monitoring/statistics? Just curious about experience and vision.
Kommentare (1)
Ronald –
here my personal opinion – as far as I know, there has not been an in-depth discussion within the IBCS community yet.
I do not like these tiles, and I do not think that they are helpful.
The reason? They unnecessarily separate different charts, values, tables, or other content. Why separating content if it belongs together on one page?
I always try to put material together on one page which belongs together – see the CONDENSE issue Show related charts on one page.
In my opinion there is no reason of constantly rearranging the tiles – there should be one best way of presenting data: top or bottom, left or right, in the center or not.
And then we should stick to this arrangement. Pilots would not find their instruments quickly enough if their cockpits looks different in every airplane. Pushing content around on the screen makes it much more difficult to remember a certain page setup. Reporting standards mean that we should use the same layouts for the same analyses.
Instead of using tiles I suggest to use „fixed arrangements“ such as some of the examples at https://www.ibcs.com/templates.
These suggestions are not perfect at all but I think that they point in the correct direction. My personal “vision” here is a set of 20 to 30 good standard business analyses – ready to use, always looking the same. We will use them for typical balance sheet analyses, cash flow statements, market analyses, HR ratios, plant productivity, etc. – similar to standard views and cross sections in architectural drawings.
Bitte senden Sie uns Ihre Vorschläge für neue Themen per E-Mail in englischer Sprache zu, damit wir sie hier online stellen können.