How to make forecasting more efficient

When the Process Becomes So Heavy That Analysis Gets Sidelined 

In many organisations, the Business Controller – or an equivalent role – is still responsible for holding the entire planning process together. This means responsibility not only for the numbers themselves, but also for distributions, versions, reminders, consolidations, reconciliations and follow-ups. Forecasts are often updated only during a couple of larger planning cycles throughout the year, typically once in the spring and once after the summer. 
 
Budgeting and forecasting processes also tend to evolve gradually over time through new requirements, manual solutions and local adaptations. As a result, processes easily become both time-consuming and difficult to oversee. Many controllers describe planning cycles that stretch across three to four months. Excel files are sent back and forth, consolidated manually and often require significant detailed knowledge for everything to come together correctly. In some cases, this can involve 35–40 tabs per cost centre. It is therefore hardly surprising that much of the time spent on forecasting goes towards administration rather than analysis. 
 
And that is often where the frustration lies. Controllers are expected to contribute better decision support, stronger business understanding and more forward-looking analysis, yet many are stuck in ways of working where a large share of their time is spent simply keeping the process alive. 
 
The problem is not that organisations lack the need for more frequent updates. The problem is that the process itself is too heavy. When every forecast becomes a project of its own, it becomes difficult to work continuously, even when the business environment requires it. A common request from many controllers is therefore the ability to update forecasts more frequently – monthly or quarterly – without creating additional administration. 

Excel Does Not Just Create More Work – It Also Creates Uncertainty in the Forecasting

 
Excel remains a central part of many planning processes, but when spreadsheets become the infrastructure for budgeting, forecasting and performance tracking, several well-known challenges often arise at the same time: broken formulas, version control issues and uncertainty about which file is actually the correct one. In many cases, these errors are not discovered until much later. This makes the forecast a weaker management tool and means that the controller's work risks becoming more about resolving inconsistencies than generating meaningful insights.

At the same time, the challenges rarely stem from Excel alone. Many organisations already rely on multiple systems for ERP, BI and planning, yet still find their processes fragmented, manual and difficult to manage. Data resides in one system, reporting in another and planning in a third – often with Excel acting as the intermediary layer between them. When systems are not properly connected, new manual workarounds, integration challenges and localised solutions can quickly emerge, making processes even harder to oversee and develop over time.

The challenge is therefore not only about which tool is being used. It is about creating a way of working where planning, reporting and analysis are genuinely connected and where processes are clear enough to be understood, used and developed by the organisation over time.

Another recurring challenge is that budgeting and forecasting often become too controller-driven, meaning that managers and budget owners across the organisation do not always feel ownership of their numbers, particularly when much of the process relies on spreadsheets, manual adjustments and centralised consolidation. As a result, controllers often find themselves chasing inputs, following up on responses and, in practice, carrying more responsibility than the role should require. This creates frustration and makes it more difficult to establish a way of working where more people actively contribute.

The issue, therefore, is not simply low engagement. The issue is that the process is often designed in a way that makes it difficult to create engagement and ownership across the organisation. According to the annual report The State of Corporate Financial Planning, the following factors often lead to strong ownership and engagement:

• Modern and user-friendly planning systems
• Clear processes
• More driver-based approaches

Download the report here ⭢

Key Person Dependency Makes the Process Vulnerable 

In many companies and organisations, there are one or two people who truly understand the full logic behind the planning process. They know which files are used, how the models are connected and which manual steps are required to make everything work correctly. 
 
This naturally makes the process vulnerable. If the individual with critical knowledge leaves the organisation, changes role or is simply unavailable, problems can quickly arise. It also limits continuous improvement. When knowledge resides with individuals rather than being embedded in a clear and well-defined process, it becomes more difficult to develop and improve ways of working over time.

In many organisations, planning models have also evolved gradually over several years through custom solutions, local adaptations and manual workarounds. Over time, the underlying logic can become so complex that it is difficult to fully understand how everything actually fits together.

What Controllers Are Actually Looking For to Make Forecasting More Efficient

Throughout our years in the industry, we have worked with countless controllers, and almost all of them share one common goal: they want to make their planning processes faster and their forecasting more efficient and reliable. They want to change the way they work. Many of them express a desire to:

• automate data collection and consolidation to free up more time for analysis  
• update forecasts more frequently without creating additional administration  
• decentralise the process and improve engagement and data quality across the organisation  
• work more driver-based, using operational logic and business KPIs rather than relying heavily on account structures  
• connect planning, reporting and analysis more effectively  
  reduce key person dependency and create more robust processes  

The goal is therefore not only efficiency. It is about creating better conditions for more value-creating financial planning and analysis. 

How the Right Planning Solution Can Transform the Role 

With the right planning solution, the controller’s role also changes. When data collection and consolidation are automated, the number of manual steps decreases, reducing both workload and the risk of errors. At the same time, it becomes easier to involve the business more clearly, follow up on data across multiple dimensions and work more proactively with drivers, KPIs and deviations. As the manual burden decreases, controllers gain greater opportunity to contribute where the role creates the most value: through analysis, business dialogue and better forward-looking decision support. 
 
This is where a solution like Planacy becomes truly relevant. Not through generic promises of efficiency, but by addressing the everyday challenges many controllers face: manual administration, key person dependency, limited flexibility, difficulties engaging the business and too little time for analysis. With support for automation, driver-based planning, reporting, analysis and integrations, organisations can create better conditions for a more data-driven and continuous approach to financial planning and analysis. 
 
If you would like to see how Planacy can simplify your processes and create more room for analysis, feel free to book a demo or contact us to learn more.