A connected planning platform should link finance plans to the operating assumptions that drive them, not just put several departmental spreadsheets in one place. For a useful connected planning platform evaluation, test whether finance, revenue, workforce, and supply chain plans can share relevant drivers, update coherently, and support decisions your teams actually need to make. Start with the use cases that matter now, then assess whether the platform can support a practical path to broader adoption.
Get in touch to discuss your planning priorities
What makes a planning platform connected, and why does it matter in an evaluation?
Connected planning can describe anything from linked assumptions across a few finance models to a shared planning environment spanning finance, sales, workforce, supply chain, and other functions. The label alone does not tell you how useful the connection will be. During evaluation, define what your organization needs to connect and what decisions those connections should improve.
For example, a revenue forecast may depend on sales capacity, quotas, territory coverage, hiring timing, and average productivity. If those assumptions live in separate files, finance may spend each forecast cycle reconciling versions and asking which numbers are current. A connected model can make the relationships explicit: a change to planned capacity can flow into the revenue outlook, while finance can review the resulting impact alongside expenses and targets.
That does not mean every team needs to plan in the same model or adopt a new process at once. The goal is a controlled exchange of relevant assumptions, outputs, and ownership. A sound evaluation distinguishes between:
Shared data: Teams use consistent source data and definitions.
Connected drivers: A change in one plan can affect another plan where the business relationship calls for it.
Coordinated workflows: People can review, approve, and update plans with clear roles and timing.
Decision-ready reporting: Leaders can see related plans together without manually stitching together conflicting versions.
Use the broader EPM platform evaluation framework to organize vendor selection, then apply the connected-planning tests below to the specific cross-functional needs your team wants to address.
How should you evaluate connected planning across finance, revenue, workforce, and supply chain?
Do not evaluate a platform by counting how many planning areas appear in a product presentation. Choose a small number of realistic business scenarios and trace the inputs, calculations, handoffs, and outputs across teams. This reveals whether connected means operationally useful integration or simply a broad list of features.
Make the demonstration concrete before it begins. Provide a simplified version of a real planning question, the dimensions and assumptions that matter, and the roles involved in the decision. Ask the vendor to show a baseline, change one driver, and explain which downstream values change and why. Then ask what must be configured, loaded, or reviewed outside the model. This keeps the conversation focused on your process rather than a polished tour of unrelated screens.
Finance and FP&A
Begin with the finance foundation: actuals, budget, forecast, headcount, expenses, and the dimensions leaders use to review performance. Ask how the platform accommodates your planning calendar, scenario comparisons, reporting needs, and ownership model. Then test whether an operating change, such as a revised hiring plan or sales outlook, can inform the forecast without finance rebuilding the same assumptions manually.
Finance should remain able to understand and govern its own plan. A connection is not helpful if the model becomes difficult to explain, maintain, or reconcile. Ask users to follow one important number from its source through the plan to a report used in a decision.
Include a reconciliation case in the test. For instance, ask how a department forecast is compared with actual results when a cost center changes or a new scenario is created. Confirm which dimensions remain consistent, where mappings are maintained, and how finance can identify the source of a variance. A platform that connects plans should still let finance explain why a number changed, not only display the new total.
Revenue and sales capacity
For a technology or services company, revenue planning may involve bookings, renewals, sales capacity, quota coverage, territory design, pipeline assumptions, and conversion timing. Ask the vendor to demonstrate a scenario grounded in your sales motion. Can a change in hiring timing or territory coverage affect capacity and the revenue forecast in a way your finance and sales leaders can inspect? Can assumptions be reviewed at the level managers use to run the business?
Test how the plan handles different sales roles, ramp periods, and coverage assumptions if those are important to your model. The purpose is not to demand every possible sales feature. It is to confirm that the specific operating drivers behind your revenue plan can be represented and maintained. See how sales capacity planning connects targets with performance when scoping this use case.
Workforce planning
Workforce plans affect compensation, expenses, capacity, and delivery. Ask whether finance and HR can work from agreed assumptions while retaining appropriate ownership of their processes. A practical test might include a proposed hiring change, its timing, cost, and the effect on a departmental forecast. Verify how vacancies, filled roles, transfers, and other workforce events would be reflected in your own process rather than relying on a generic demo.
Also test a change in organizational structure. If a role moves between departments, determine which team updates the assignment, when the new cost center takes effect, and whether reporting can distinguish the old and new views. This surfaces edge cases that a simple headcount total may hide. Agree in advance which workforce details finance needs and which sensitive employee information should remain restricted.
Supply chain planning
Supply chain is not one universal model. The relevant requirements depend on what your business plans: for example, demand, inventory, procurement, production, or other operational drivers. Identify the specific planning decisions to connect to finance, and bring the people responsible for those assumptions into the evaluation. Ask what data is needed, who maintains it, how often it changes, and what financial outcome leaders need to see.
Do not treat a supply chain module or a broad platform claim as proof of fit. Require a walkthrough based on a representative business process and clearly state which requirements are in scope for the initial implementation.
Integration depth or breadth: which matters more?
A platform can cover many functions but offer little value if it cannot connect the few plans that shape your decisions. Conversely, a focused solution may meet an immediate FP&A need but leave the organization with separate processes as requirements expand. The right balance depends on the sequence of decisions and the reliability of the underlying data.
Use the following comparison to keep the evaluation grounded in trade-offs:
Evaluation approach | What to test | Potential benefit | Risk to manage |
|---|---|---|---|
FP&A-first foundation | Core financial plans, actuals, dimensions, scenarios, and reporting | Establishes a governed starting point around immediate finance needs | Future teams may require additional design or data work to connect |
One cross-functional use case | A defined flow such as workforce cost into the financial forecast | Proves a specific connection and clarifies shared ownership | Unclear responsibilities can make assumptions hard to maintain |
Broad multi-function rollout | Several planning areas, workflows, data sources, and user groups | Can support a wider connected-planning ambition | Scope, change management, and dependencies may become harder to control |
For each approach, ask what connected means in practical terms. Which system or team owns the source data? Which assumptions are entered once and reused? Which calculations should update automatically, and which require review? Who approves the result? The answers help you distinguish valuable integration from complexity that does not support a decision.
Integration breadth is useful when your roadmap is credible and the platform can support it without forcing premature process changes. Integration depth matters when one or two important cross-functional relationships must work reliably from day one. Map your current and near-term use cases before comparing platform breadth. Amvent's overview of Pigment integrations for connected finance planning can help frame the data-flow questions to bring into a discussion.
To compare vendors consistently, score each scenario against a short set of criteria: whether the required inputs are available, whether the relationship between drivers is transparent, whether the workflow assigns clear responsibility, and whether users can explain the result. A simple rating scale is enough if evaluators define what each rating means. For example, meets should mean the scenario works with the proposed design and identified data, not that a presenter says it is possible. Record any dependency on custom work or a later phase next to the score.
Keep evidence alongside the score. Capture the source of each input, the calculation or mapping demonstrated, the role that approved the change, and the report that showed its impact. If a requirement was not demonstrated, mark it as unverified rather than assuming the platform cannot or can do it. This distinction gives your selection team a useful follow-up list and makes trade-offs visible to finance and operating leaders.
What implementation complexity should you test beyond an FP&A-only scope?
Adding planning areas adds more than models. It can introduce new data owners, definitions, approval paths, calendars, access requirements, and change-management needs. A platform demonstration may show the desired end state, but your evaluation should also examine the work required to reach and sustain it.
Ask vendors and implementation partners to walk through the following:
Process alignment: Which teams use different definitions or planning calendars today? Decide which differences need to remain and which should be standardized.
Data readiness: Identify source systems, data quality issues, update frequency, and the person accountable for each feed. Clarify where manual steps remain.
Model ownership: Determine who can create, review, and maintain each planning area after launch. Avoid designs that leave business teams dependent on a single model builder.
Access and governance: Define who can see sensitive data, enter assumptions, approve changes, and review consolidated results. Test representative user roles.
Testing and adoption: Include users from each function in scenario testing. Confirm that outputs, workflows, and handoffs work under realistic operating conditions.
Expansion dependencies: Document what the next planning area needs from the first: shared dimensions, data, governance, or process decisions.
For each dependency, ask for a clear owner and a way to validate readiness. A connected model can expose inconsistencies that were hidden in separate spreadsheets. That is useful, but it can also require agreement on definitions and processes before the connection behaves as expected.
Plan for an implementation that proves a usable foundation, not just a technically complete model. A phased approach can begin with a high-value finance use case and add adjacent planning areas as teams establish confidence and ownership. The path to connected planning explains why gradual expansion can be more practical than trying to transform every function at once. For the work involved in a Pigment delivery, review Pigment implementation consulting and what to expect from an implementation kickoff.
Ask for a phased plan that names deliverables, decision points, and participation from each business owner. A first phase should leave behind more than a working calculation: it should establish agreed definitions, validated data flows, tested access, and a repeatable review process. Then define an expansion gate. For example, a workforce-planning phase might be ready to extend when HR and finance can reconcile headcount, cost assumptions have named owners, and reviewers can complete the forecast cycle without relying on undocumented workarounds.
Be specific about exceptions during testing. Use at least one normal case and one awkward case, such as a late change to a hiring date, an unassigned territory, or a revised planning dimension. Check how the model flags missing inputs, how a user corrects them, and whether changes remain traceable. These checks reveal whether the process is resilient enough for routine planning rather than only a clean demonstration scenario.
How does Pigment fit into a connected planning evaluation?
Pigment is the platform Amvent implements, with connected planning across areas such as finance, sales, supply chain, workforce, and marketing. For an evaluation, the important question is not whether a platform can be called connected. It is whether your team can build a governed planning environment around the decisions and operating drivers that matter, then extend it in a manageable way.
Ask for a demonstration that reflects your actual use case and data. Bring a finance leader and the relevant operating stakeholders. Choose one scenario, such as a change to sales capacity affecting a revenue outlook, or a workforce change flowing into department expense, and follow it through its assumptions, review steps, and outputs. Note what is native to the platform, what depends on configuration or integration, and what requires a process change.
Also ask how your team will maintain the model after the initial delivery. Who owns dimensions and assumptions? How are model changes tested? How will users raise issues and learn new workflows? A good selection process covers not only capabilities, but also operating ownership and ongoing support. Finance leaders looking at the broader decision context can read what CFOs should understand about Pigment and how to assess whether Pigment fits.
Get in touch to test your connected planning use case
Should you buy connected planning now or phase it in later?
Not every organization needs a multi-function implementation at the start. A phased approach can be the better choice when finance has an urgent planning need, data ownership is still being clarified, or other teams are not ready to change their processes. Starting smaller is not the same as abandoning the connected-planning goal. It means choosing a first step that can prove value and establish reusable foundations.
Consider a broader initial scope when several functions already share a clear planning process, stakeholders agree on key definitions, and the organization can commit the people needed to design and adopt it. Consider a narrower start when the cross-functional dependencies are uncertain or the initial use case is still being validated.
Before deciding, write down answers to these questions:
Which business decision is hardest to make with the current planning process?
Which teams and assumptions directly affect that decision?
What must be connected in the first release, and what can follow later?
Who owns data, processes, approvals, and ongoing model maintenance?
What evidence would show that the first phase is ready to expand?
Use your answers to define acceptance criteria. For example, a first phase may be successful when finance can trace a forecast change to its operating assumption, stakeholders can complete review steps on time, and designated owners can maintain the model. The criteria should describe outcomes and behavior, not simply a list of features delivered.
Make the first phase narrow enough to test, but not so narrow that it creates a dead end. Reuse stable dimensions and definitions where they are genuinely shared, and document assumptions that may change as more teams join. If a later revenue or workforce use case needs a different level of detail, capture that requirement now without forcing the entire organization to adopt it immediately. This gives leaders a credible expansion path while keeping scope and accountability understandable.
Chat with us about your connected planning evaluation
Frequently Asked Questions
Is connected planning the same as integrated business planning?
The terms can overlap, but organizations may use them differently. In a platform evaluation, focus on the capabilities and processes you need: shared assumptions, connected plans, coordinated reviews, and useful cross-functional outputs. Ask each vendor to explain its terminology against your use cases.
Does connected planning mean every department has to use one model?
No. Connection does not necessarily require every team to work in one model or adopt one process. It means that relevant data, drivers, and outputs can be coordinated with clear ownership. The right design depends on your organization's planning needs and governance.
Should finance implement first?
Finance is often a practical starting point because it provides a foundation for financial plans and reporting. But the first use case should be selected based on business priorities, readiness, and the cross-functional drivers that need to be connected. A finance-first approach should leave a sensible path for later expansion.
What should we bring to a connected planning platform demo?
Bring a real planning scenario, sample assumptions, the people who own the process, and questions about data, workflows, access, and model maintenance. Ask the presenter to trace a change from input through review to a decision-ready output, and note any configuration or integration dependencies.
Plan your connected planning evaluation with Amvent
Amvent Consulting is a Toronto-based boutique EPM consulting firm and official Pigment Delivery Partner. Our practitioner-led perspective includes firsthand experience leading a 250+ user Anaplan-to-Pigment migration as an end-customer before founding Amvent. If you are weighing connected planning priorities or planning a Pigment implementation, start a conversation with us.
Get in touch to discuss your evaluation
