Going Beyond Budgeting? Then read this!
https://agile4manager.com/2015/03/beyond-budgeting-gestion-agile-du-budget/

Going Beyond Budgeting? Then read this!

Most finance professionals can agree that budget season is not their favourite time of the year and while alternatives exist most companies are still using traditional budgets for their planning and management operating model. It’s kind of a paradox because when no one likes to do something or like when a company’s products are not in demand then typically over time better alternatives will take their place. Yet, with budgeting, this still hasn’t happened. In my mind, the best alternative is going beyond budgeting which I have written about in several articles previously, however, few companies have been truly successful transitioning to beyond budgeting and I think I know why. Hence, to make a real push for companies to take the leap and be successful let’s discuss the issues with beyond budgeting based on my own experiences. 

Here's how it went when I took a company Beyond Budgeting 

Back in 2010, it was decided that Maersk should go Beyond Budgeting which meant that I was given the task of taking Maersk Drilling down that road during 2011. It was a very interesting project that involved a lot of senior management exposure which was great for me in my early career. The project seemed somewhat straightforward despite touching upon a completely new management operating model. Find a way for the company to do rolling forecasts, target setting and resource allocation in a new way aligned with the principles of Beyond Budgeting. Here’s what we came up with. 

  • Rolling forecasts: Quarterly forecasts with a five-quarterly outlook where we asked our entities for a bottom-up forecast of a bit more than 10 accounts.
  • Target setting: Based on the Q3 forecast which contained the first full view of the next year we would discuss how this was aligned with our strategic ambitions and adjust if necessary.
  • Resource allocation: As we were dealing with large assets in the form of drilling rigs there would be two project accounts that contained significant projects that wouldn’t be capitalized. Essentially, here’s where resources needed to be allocated and as the development on the two accounts was not too dynamic we could do with a quarterly update and allocation of resources as part of the rolling forecast process.

This might seem very simple and no big deal, however, it meant a substantial change for our operating managers as in the past they would do budgeting on a very detailed level and now they would only update a few accounts every quarter. It left them with little control over every subaccount i.e. when the drilling rig had spent some money on paint or pipes the operating manager couldn’t really say whether that was appropriate. Before they knew exactly how much was budgeted for on every single account. I think we can agree that command and control is an outdated management model yet this is where the implementation project failed and I think this is where many of these implementations fail. We didn’t plan and prepare for the cultural change needed for this to happen! 

It’s not just a process it’s a culture and mindset paradigm shift 

Most implementations of new ways of working typically only plan for the new process or system to be implemented but don’t tackle the people that have to operate it. That was also the case for our Beyond Budgeting implementation. We did not provide any meaningful support to the operation managers for changing their way of working. That meant that they continued to work in the old ways and got frustrated because they had let go of a lot of control and had no visibility to have the right discussions with the crew on the rigs for how to spend money. It wasn’t just the operation managers that needed support though. So did the finance managers who had not been part of the project. They were the ones who should act as change agents with the operation managers yet had no real support to do so. All in all, we changed a process but didn’t manage to change the way the company operated. That meant that the push to go Beyond Budgeting failed and nothing really changed. 

There’s a lesson in this for all companies looking for a new planning and management operating model be it Beyond Budgeting or something else. Implementing the process is easy but creating a real change is really hard. Especially if you don’t plan on doing some serious change management. In fact, I’d go so far as to argue that change management is the most important aspect of project management and is what will ultimately decide if you succeed or fail with your project. 

What’s your take on this? Has your company gone Beyond Budgeting or tried a similar shift in management operating model? If so, what were the learnings? What do you think is the most important aspect of project management? I would love to learn from your experiences hence please feel free to share below. Here you can also find previous articles related to budgeting. 

Why You Shouldn’t Care About Your Budget

Now You Wish You Were Beyond Your Budget

Don’t Tell Me You’re Still Doing Budgets?

3 Reasons Your Budget Is Already Outdated

Is Your Resource Allocation Destroying Value?

Anders Liu-Lindberg is the Global Finance PMO for Maersk where my main goal is to create a world-class finance function! I am working on the transformation of Finance and business daily. Formerly I’ve been a Senior Finance Business Partner for Maersk Line Europe Region. I have participated in several transformation processes amongst others helping Maersk Drilling to go Beyond Budgeting and transformed a finance team from Bean-counters to Business Partners. I would love the chance to collaborate with you on your own transformation processes to create great finance functions. Don’t be shy! Let’s get in touch and start helping each other.

Gregory Anderson CPA, CA CFE

Chief Financial Officer at The Legacy Companies

7 年

I am a big fan of beyond budgeting. However pragmatic realities often mean you will end up doing a budget anyway. And by "pragmatic", I really mean the comfort zone of your board and CEO. They are used to a budget so it can still be used as a practical tool to communicate your operational plan for the year. The key is that its not set in stone, can't be rigidly tied into performance pay, and should not get so granular that it defeats the purpose. My take away from your above post is the following. Lean accounting /Beyond Budgeting often call for SIMPLICITY. But often that gets confused with the concept that the right kind of detail is still needed. So when building a budget/rolling forecast, avoid detail that goes down to the account level for example, but get at least the high level metrics that your managers will use to evaluate and ultimately manage the business. In this sense ignoring the paint account is exactly the right thing to do unless dollars spend of paint is a big driver and then LBS used and cost per LBS would go into the forecast. As the articles say, focusing on how you want the manager to manage is question one.

Michael Nicholas

President at P3 Cost Analysts

7 年

Great topic, completely agree with your post, Andres!

Leonard Brown

Helping Finance Managers add value where it can be counted | Turnaround busy loss-makers | Improve profits of the already profitable | Proven step-by-step process | 90-day projects | Training & Coaching throughout |

7 年

I'm a fan of rolling forecasts - but recognise the difficulties encountered in changing from the traditional 'budgeting' process. However, be it budgets or rolling forecasts - if the process is linked to personal performance targets - and in some way, remuneration is linked to performance against those forecasts/budgets, it remains a different version of the same age-old 'game'.

Jeff Blanford

Chief Financial Officer -- Garfield RE-2 SD

7 年

John Mardle is on the right track, but I would take it a step farther. This article seems to be documenting a project that should have been called 'change for change's sake'. I see nowhere why the company determined command and control is 'outdated', and why beyond budgeting (if that's a proper noun I apologize) was so far superior to what the organization was doing (and sounds like it still is after BB failed). I see nowhere in the article where a concrete, actionable reason was given for disrupting everyone's lives--and it sounds like BB was done 'to' them rather than with their participation. People can't take ownership or participate, if they are not given the opportunity, and you can guarantee they will resent and resist if what you are doing makes no sense to them. For that matter, even the hindsight of the article does not make it clear the reason for the BB change. Beyond budgeting sounds like a solution seeking a problem--at least in this instance. I would suggest that the mentality in business and society in general that 'change is the only constant' is becoming toxic. It is becoming a reason in and of itself, when real change should come about because things aren't working--they are broken and they are in need of fixing. Not because someone who doesn't do it (whatever it is) every day decided it's 'outdated'. Command and control is not outdated, because whatever term you apply, it comes down to the same thing: people need structure and stability to perform at their best--yes, necessity is the mother of invention, and yes 'the better work people do is under great stress and at great personal cost', but something happens to bring that out in people--it's not a management decision because you got bored with 'command and control'. It is the environment and circumstances that necessitate change because what you are doing is no longer working--not because you decide that something that is working is simply outdated. People need the information and tools that allow them to do their jobs, and, while command and control may not work everywhere in every situation, manufacturing, drilling, and similar industries operate on principles (engineering and scientific ones) and are run by people who understand the need for organization and structure very well, if they are doing it correctly. Taking that away from them for no clear reason, and trying to replace it with something that makes no sense will always fail--as it should. Buy in is essential, but a clear and compelling reason to change comes before even that. Change for change's sake (also often called 'progress') is really what the business, government, and society as a whole needs to start questioning and relegating to the 'outdated' file. I understand the need for innovation and a competitive edge, but even then change is never an end in itself, if you do it right--it comes about from a clear and compelling need.

John Mardle

Facilitator/Trainer/Mentor of strategic and operational resilience in surface water and drainage

7 年

Yes its culture and mindset but previous experiences have taught me that the 'cost' of such an exercise is extremely high and sometimes leaves hard earned reputations for accuracy left in tatters. Be Careful what you wish for....is the message.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Anders Liu-Lindberg的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了