Performance Management Shared Interest Group

  • 1.  Summary and Link to Webinar - Improving the Budget Process - 7/10/2025

    Posted 08-03-2025 02:12 PM

    Topic:  Improving the Budget Process

    Every accountant knows the traditional annual budget process has a host of problems – time consuming, contentious, rapidly overcome by events, etc. – but most still do it.  This webinar explores improvements and solutions to create a better way to plan and manage to achieve that delicate balance of control, efficiency, decision support, and innovation. The focus is on the thinking and management of the budget planning process not the software and tools.

    Panelists:

    Russ Porter, CMA - Assistant Professor of Finance, Sacred Heart University Jack Welch College of Business & Technology

    Greg Hoggard, CMA - VP of Finance at Versova Management Cooperative

    Gary Cokins -  Founder/Author, Analytics-Based Performance Management Advisory Firm

    Bjarte Bogsnes – Chairman, Beyond Budgeting Roundtable

    Moderator:  Larry White, CMA – Former IMA Global Chair

    Listen to the full Webinar at Panel Discussion on Improving Budgeting - IMA PM SIG Webinar.

    This document presents a comprehensive panel discussion from an IMA webinar focused on improving the budgeting process within organizations. The discussion features experts sharing insights on the challenges of traditional budgeting, innovations for improvement, and the role of leadership and technology in enhancing budgeting and performance management.

    Overview of Traditional Budgeting Challenges

    The panelists highlight several major problems with traditional budgeting, including its static nature, lack of flexibility, and rapid obsolescence. Budgets often become outdated by the time they are finalized, limiting their usefulness in dynamic business environments. Additionally, traditional budgeting can foster unethical behaviors such as gaming, sandbagging, and last-minute spending sprees that undermine trust and decision-making quality. The process also forces premature decisions often made at higher organizational levels without the best information available. Despite these issues, traditional budgeting is recognized for providing a framework for aligning organizational objectives and offering a financial language familiar to managers.

    Perceptions and Outcomes of Budgeting Processes

    Polling during the webinar revealed that about half of participants view their budget process as true planning reflecting strategy, while others see it as top-down directed or a process of questionable value. The ideal outcome of a good budgeting and resource allocation process, as discussed by panelists, includes timely and informed decision-making, alignment across organizational levels, and actionable plans that lead to effective operational response. Emphasis was placed on the importance of the budgeting process itself-engaging managers to understand market conditions and operational levers-rather than solely focusing on the final budget numbers.

    Innovations and Alternatives to Traditional Budgeting

    Panelists recommended several innovations to improve or replace traditional budgeting:

    • Integrated Business Planning: A collaborative approach involving operational leaders regularly reviewing performance and forecasts to drive forward-looking decisions.
    • Scenario Planning: Developing multiple forecasts based on different market conditions to prepare for uncertainties.
    • Beyond Budgeting Model: A radical approach that separates the budgeting purposes-target setting, forecasting, and resource allocation-into distinct processes. It emphasizes decentralization, empowerment, transparency, and continuous resource allocation rather than fixed annual budgets.
    • Driver-Based and Activity-Based Budgeting: Utilizing cost drivers and activity consumption rates to create more volume-sensitive and dynamic budgets, reducing gaming and improving forecast accuracy.

    Time Investment in Budgeting

    Polling results indicated that most organizations spend between one month and a quarter of a year on annual budgeting, with fewer organizations completing it in less than a week or more than six months. This reflects the complexity and effort traditionally involved in budgeting cycles.

    Barriers to Adoption of Modern Budgeting Methods

    Key barriers include fear of losing control, resistance to change, trust issues, and the complexity of implementing new processes organization-wide. The panelists stressed that many existing controls in traditional budgeting are illusions and that more effective controls like transparency are preferable. The challenge is not only technical but also cultural, requiring mindset changes and leadership support. The difficulty of implementing methods like zero-based budgeting was also noted due to time and resource constraints.

    Role of Leadership and Organizational Support

    Gaining organizational support for budgeting changes requires strong leadership that asks insightful questions, builds trust, and engages managers across functions. Ownership of budgets by operational leaders rather than finance alone fosters engagement and better outcomes. Surveys within organizations can reveal the true dissatisfaction with budgeting processes and build a case for change. Finance professionals are encouraged to develop soft skills to facilitate rather than control the budgeting process, acting as enablers of business agility.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence in Budgeting

    The panelists observed that while AI has potential to transform budgeting by enabling complex scenario analysis and dynamic forecasting, current use is limited mostly to experimentation or automation of existing processes. There is concern that merely automating flawed processes will not yield improvements. Trust in AI-generated outputs remains a hurdle for adoption. The future impact of AI on budgeting is uncertain but anticipated to be significant.

    The Board of Directors' Role

    The board's role is seen as overseeing strategic alignment and governance rather than managing budgeting details. Trust in executive leadership is crucial for effective budgeting processes. Boards can influence progress by demanding understanding and adoption of modern performance management practices but should avoid micromanaging operational budgeting methods. Misconceptions that boards mandate traditional budgeting are challenged, emphasizing the need for mindset changes at all levels.

    Examples of Successful Budgeting Practices

    Two notable examples were shared:

    • Handelsbanken: A Swedish bank that has operated without budgets, targets, or individual bonuses since 1970, achieving superior performance through autonomy and transparency aligned with Beyond Budgeting principles.
    • Norwegian Municipality: Implementing Beyond Budgeting and self-managed teams in the public sector, achieving significant cost reductions.

    Role of the IMA Performance Management Special Interest Group (SIG)

    The SIG plays an important role in educating finance professionals, sharing best practices, and fostering a community for exchanging ideas and experiences. Members are encouraged to share both successes and challenges to inspire innovation and continuous improvement in budgeting and performance management. 

    In conclusion, the webinar underscores the limitations of traditional budgeting and advocates for more agile, transparent, and driver-based approaches supported by leadership engagement and technological innovation. The discussions emphasize mindset shifts, organizational involvement, and continuous learning as keys to evolving budgeting processes to meet modern business demands.



    ------------------------------
    Larry White CMA,CFM,CSCA
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Summary and Link to Webinar - Improving the Budget Process - 7/10/2025

    Posted 08-09-2025 02:04 AM

    This Webinar has been well worthwhile and covered much interesting material. Thanks to Hessel Brouwer for organizing it, Larry White for chairing it and producing the helpful summary circulated, and the Panel for their contributions. Some questions and comments occur to me, listed as did Larry White. Apologies for the length. I

    Overview: The panel did not suggest that companies derive annual budgets or targets from long term plans directly, using the same driver based methodology. A Webinar poll at 31 minutes indicated nearly two-thirds derived annual budgets from an increment in the previous year (39%) or zero based budgeting (27%). Is it fair to say that long term plans had an indirect influence, at best, on annual budgets?

    Perceptions & outcomes: A traditional view has been that budget disciplines promote financial stability and better credit rating so that borrowing costs are lower. Handelsbanken seem to contradict that traditional view by achieving a long term credit rating of AA- with Standard & Poor's. A check with ChatGPT5 showed: "There is strong evidence that robust budget discipline-and by extension, financial discipline-supports higher credit ratings. In turn, higher ratings lead to lower borrowing costs through reduced credit spreads and improved financing terms." As part of the results ChatGPT5 tabled Empirical Studies: "Link governance, planning, and discipline to improved ratings & lower debt costs." It may be that good governance is more important than budgeting.  

    Innovations & Alternatives: Is there a governance approach to encourage accountants and engineers work together? Some of the Webinar suggestions (integrated planning, scenarios, driver-based and activity-based budgeting) require a joint effort not competition.

    Time Burdeen: Gary Cokins pointed out the endless up-down budget process might be limited with objective engineering estimates of consumption rates and activity based costing. There may be a governance issue in implementation. Accountants may use approximation to link financial forecasts to volume forecasts by operations and market trends by marketing divisions, as Greg Hoggard and Russ Porter indicated.    

    Barriers to Change: Is it time to replace the title "financial controller" with "finance manager"? There is usually competition between divisions (silos) in organizations. This may be a relic of an old fashioned financial control type approach. Bjarte Bogsnes's three purposes of realism, forecasting, and resource allocation may yet be compatible with a combination of operations driven budgeting and forecasting.

    Leadership: Facilitation of operations divisions taking responsibility for their own performance data is preferable to a financial function trying to control other divisions. The finance function can spell out consequences of costs exceeding budget or revenue shortfalls but that is all. Handelsbanken management training and leadership would be interesting.

    Artificial Intelligence: AI makes mistakes. There is as yet no self-checking or error reporting mechanism in AI.

    Board: Maybe it is worth saying that the Board is not a rubber stamp which should trust executive decisions. Directors usually have a legal responsibility to question executive proposals – and many fail to do so. The Chair of the Accounting Standards Board said a root cause of company failures was "a major failure of corporate governance" (Hamilton & Micklethwaite, 2006, p xiii). The thrust in the Webinar is that a Board demands understanding of reports and proposals.  



    ------------------------------
    Geoff Williams Retired Member CA ANZ
    GLW Analysis Services Pty Ltd
    Melbourne VIC
    Australia
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Summary and Link to Webinar - Improving the Budget Process - 7/10/2025

    Posted 08-09-2025 04:29 PM

    Thank you Geoff for your post (and reply to Larry White's post).  Well written by you and very informative and relevant. Thanks. ... Gary



    ------------------------------
    Gary Cokins
    Analytics-Based Performance Management LLC
    President
    gcokins@...
    Cary, North Carolina USA
    ------------------------------