When implementing FP&A solutions, every project comes with its own set of challenges. Whilst success stories often take centre stage, there’s just as much—if not more—to learn from the moments when things don’t quite go to plan.
We recently partnered with a consulting company to help them deliver an Anaplan implementation for one of their clients. This project turned out to be a particularly memorable one, not least because it involved cheese - delicious parmigiano, to be exact, which was a definite perk for a cheese lover like me! This fantastic company wanted to ditch their inefficient spreadsheets and implement Anaplan to support their financial operations. We were tasked with building a model for FP&A that included more complex elements like sales commissions and treasury management.
Now, while we delivered the product, the road there was bumpier than a poorly aged cheddar. I believe it’s important to share not just the success stories, but also the messy situations where things don’t quite go according to plan. It’s how we learn and improve, right?
Here are the three main challenges we faced:
The Missing Methodology
The first issue was a big one - a lack of methodology. There simply wasn't a structured approach to analysing processes or defining workflows. This led to some truly unproductive meetings. We lacked a framework, clear objectives, and even basic meeting agendas. It was like trying to navigate without a map – we knew where we wanted to go but had no idea how to get there!
The Murky "To-Be" Process
The second significant challenge we encountered was the client's unclear vision of the desired end state. The client struggled to clearly define their "to-be" processes and the specific functionalities they expected from the final Anaplan model. For example, even as we approached deadlines for the treasury module, their understanding of its required capabilities remained unclear. In hindsight, this is often linked to that initial lack of methodology. Without a structured approach, it's tough to get clarity on objectives.
It's a common scenario, though. Clients are eager to see results, especially when they're investing in consultants. Everyone wants to move fast, but skipping the crucial process definition step is a recipe for chaos. As I like to say, it's like trying to build a car without a blueprint– confusing and ultimately ineffective.
Another key contributing factor to this murkiness was the client's limited familiarity with Anaplan. Their mental models for financial planning and analysis were heavily influenced by the tools they had used previously. Consequently, their vision for the "to-be" state often mirrored the limitations and functionalities of those older systems. This made it difficult for them to envision and articulate how Anaplan's unique capabilities could potentially transform their processes in more efficient and insightful ways, which brings me to the third and final challenge.
The Training Gap
The third challenge we faced was the client's approach to learning Anaplan. While their enthusiasm for the platform was evident, they favoured live building during our calls as their primary mode of learning. This approach can be supplementary, but it relies heavily on the client possessing a foundational understanding of the capabilities of the tool. Unfortunately, their engagement with the initial, more structured training was limited.
As a direct consequence of this limited foundational knowledge (which contributed to the murky "to-be" process), we found ourselves in a dual role of building the model while simultaneously teaching the fundamental principles of Anaplan. This significantly slowed down the development process.
Furthermore, their lack of familiarity with Anaplan led to persistent comparisons with their previous tools. They frequently questioned why Anaplan couldn't replicate specific functionalities or workflows in the exact same way. This stemmed from a "to-be" vision that was often anchored in their past experiences, preventing them from appreciating Anaplan's native strengths and the potential for inefficient workarounds, like a "fake" time dimension, in a misguided attempt to mirror familiar structures, that would ultimately lead to suboptimal performance.
Key Takeaways
To sum it all up, here’s what I learned:
Methodology is Key: Without a solid methodology, your project is likely to be unstructured, messy, and inefficient. And that's not a great way to use your consultant's time - or anyone’s really.
Process Matters: Don't rush the process! Invest time in analysing the current state ("as-is"), identify the problems, and clearly define what you want to achieve ("to-be").
Invest in Comprehensive Training: Robust training before and during implementation is non-negotiable. Ensure your team actively engage with foundational training to build a strong understanding, enabling them to define a more informed 'to-be' vision and contribute effectively to model building.
I'd love to hear about your experiences when implementing Anaplan. What lessons did you learn? Share your stories with me in the comments.
If your own Anaplan journey hasn't quite delivered the results you envisioned, or if you feel your project has veered off course, don't hesitate to reach out. We're here at Profit& to help you put your Anaplan project back on track and unlock its full potential. Let's have a conversation about how we can get you where you need to be.
