EPM requirements gathering is the work of agreeing on the planning decisions, processes, data, controls, and user needs a platform must support before you select one. For finance leaders, the goal is not to produce the longest feature list. It is to give stakeholders a shared, testable description of the problems to solve, the outcomes that matter, and the constraints a future system must respect.
Get in touch to discuss your planning requirements
What should EPM requirements gathering produce?
A useful requirements process produces a decision-ready baseline. It helps your organization compare potential approaches using its own planning needs rather than a vendor's default demonstration. It also gives finance, technology, and operational teams a reference point for scoping implementation and agreeing on what success means.
At minimum, the output should make clear:
Which decisions need better support: for example, how finance updates a forecast, evaluates a hiring scenario, or explains a variance.
Which planning processes are in scope: the owners, contributors, inputs, timing, handoffs, and outputs for each process.
What a satisfactory outcome looks like: observable improvements such as a more repeatable forecast cycle or clearer ownership of assumptions.
What constraints must be addressed: data availability, security, existing systems, reporting obligations, timing, and internal capacity.
How requirements will be prioritized and validated: so essential needs are distinguished from preferences and each stakeholder knows how decisions will be made.
These are not yet a technical design or a complete platform scorecard. Requirements should explain the work the organization needs to do. Later, your team can assess which product and implementation approach best supports it. If you are also planning a formal selection, our EPM RFP template guide covers how to carry requirements into an RFP and vendor evaluation.
Why gather requirements before you evaluate platforms?
When requirements are unclear, platform discussions tend to begin with features. Different departments then describe different problems using the same labels, such as âforecastingâ or âreporting.â A demonstration may look compelling without showing whether the platform can support the actual workflow, assumptions, and decisions your team relies on.
Beginning with requirements gives finance leaders a way to keep the conversation grounded. It can reveal that two stakeholders want the same outcome but use different definitions, or that a seemingly small request depends on data and approvals that are not yet in place. Those issues are easier to resolve before a selection is treated as final.
It also helps prevent the opposite problem: an exhaustive wish list that makes every feature sound mandatory. A concise, ranked set of requirements lets the team ask better questions, focus demonstrations on relevant use cases, and distinguish a genuine gap from a difference in terminology or process.
Requirements gathering should therefore precede, but connect to, platform evaluation. If you are at the broader question of how to organize a platform decision, see this guide to EPM platform evaluation for finance leaders. This article focuses on the upstream work: agreeing what the business needs before comparing options.
Who should participate in requirements gathering?
Finance should lead the process, but requirements should not be written by finance in isolation. The right participants are the people who own, contribute to, depend on, or govern the planning processes under consideration. Keep the working group small enough to make decisions, then consult broader stakeholder groups in focused sessions.
Executive sponsor: sets the business outcomes, resolves priority conflicts, and confirms what is in scope.
Finance and FP&A process owners: describe planning cycles, models, assumptions, reporting needs, and decision points.
Operational stakeholders: explain how sales, workforce, or supply-chain plans are created and how they connect to financial plans.
Technology, data, and security partners: identify source systems, integration expectations, access controls, and technical constraints.
End users and contributors: explain how work is actually completed, where handoffs fail, and what would make a process usable.
In a mid-market or enterprise organization, one person may hold several of these perspectives. What matters is that they are represented and that the group distinguishes the person who requests a capability from the person who owns the process or data behind it. A VP Finance may sponsor a better forecast, while analysts, budget owners, data teams, and business leaders each contribute to making that forecast work.
Agree on decision rights at the start. Identify who can approve scope, who ranks requirements, who resolves disagreements, and who signs off on the final baseline. Without clear ownership, workshops can produce useful observations but no binding decisions.
How do you gather EPM requirements step by step?
1. Set a clear boundary for the work
Write down why the organization is considering a change now and what decision this process must support. The boundary might include financial planning and analysis first, or it might include connected processes that affect the same plan. State what is explicitly out of scope, too. A boundary prevents a requirements exercise from expanding into a redesign of every finance and operational process at once.
Define the planning horizon and organizational areas being considered. Clarify whether you are documenting the current process, a desired future process, or both. Usually, you need both views: the current state explains the problem, while the future state describes the change you want to enable.
2. Map the decisions and processes, not just the spreadsheets
For each planning process, trace how a decision is made from start to finish. Ask who initiates it, what information is needed, who supplies assumptions, how reviews happen, what changes between versions, and what output informs a decision. Capture timing and handoffs as well as the model or report.
For example, a revenue forecast requirement should not stop at âforecast revenue by month.â Document the business questions the forecast must answer, the relevant planning owners, the assumptions that drive the numbers, how updates are reviewed, and how the forecast relates to the operating plan. The exact detail depends on the business and intended scope; do not assume every organization needs the same planning structure.
Process maps can be simple. A short sequence of steps, named owners, inputs, outputs, and pain points is often more useful than a complex diagram that stakeholders cannot validate. Where a process differs across teams or regions, record the variation rather than prematurely forcing one standard.
3. Interview stakeholders with evidence-based prompts
Use interviews or focused workshops to explore what participants do and why. Ask for a recent example: âShow me how the last forecast update moved from an assumption change to an approved result.â This invites concrete detail. Follow up with questions such as:
What decision were you trying to make, and what information was missing or hard to trust?
Which inputs do you own, and where do they come from?
What happens when an assumption changes late in the cycle?
Where do people reconcile numbers or maintain work outside the main process?
Which reviews, approvals, or controls are necessary, and which exist only because the current process is difficult?
What would need to be different for you to use the output confidently?
Do not treat every complaint as a system requirement. A request to âput everything in one report,â for example, may point to a question about access, definitions, or decision ownership. Record the problem first, then explore possible capabilities without committing to a solution too early.
4. Inventory the data, assumptions, and integrations
Planning requirements depend on information flowing between systems and people. List important inputs, their owners, sources, refresh expectations, and known quality concerns. Include master data and planning dimensions where relevant, such as time, entity, department, product, location, or customer segment. These examples are prompts, not a universal design checklist; include only dimensions that support real planning decisions.
Ask where actuals, headcount, bookings, operational drivers, and assumptions are maintained, as applicable to the scope. Identify which values are entered manually, which are imported, and which are calculated. Note how teams currently reconcile differences between sources. The aim at this stage is to reveal dependencies and questions, not to prescribe a data architecture.
Clarify integration expectations in business terms: which information needs to move, in which direction, how frequently it must be refreshed, and who is accountable for resolving failures. This helps technology partners assess feasibility later. For a broader discussion of connected finance data flows, see Pigment integrations for connected finance planning.
5. Document controls, access, and usability needs
Record who should view, enter, change, approve, and administer different information. Access requirements may vary by role, team, entity, or sensitivity of data. Ask how the organization needs to trace changes and preserve review controls. Involve security and technology partners early, especially where requirements touch confidential employee, customer, or financial information.
Usability is also a requirement, not an afterthought. Identify the types of users and tasks the process must support: entering assumptions, reviewing changes, analyzing scenarios, or consuming reports. Ask what training and guidance users will need. A design that is technically capable but confusing to its intended contributors is unlikely to produce consistent inputs.
6. Separate must-haves from preferences
For every candidate requirement, capture why it matters and what happens if it is not met. Then rank it using a shared scale. A simple approach is to tag each item as essential for the initial scope, important but negotiable, or a future opportunity. Define the labels before scoring so that âmust-haveâ does not become a synonym for âmy team asked for it.â
Useful prioritization tests include whether a requirement supports a high-value decision, is necessary for a control or compliance obligation, removes a material process bottleneck, or is a dependency for other requirements. Record the consequence of deferring it. Where stakeholders disagree, document the trade-off and assign an owner to resolve it rather than silently averaging the scores.
7. Validate the baseline with real scenarios
Before requirements guide a selection, walk through them with the people who supplied them. Use a few representative planning scenarios, such as updating a key assumption, reviewing a forecast change, or tracing a result back to its inputs. Check whether the requirements describe the work clearly enough that different stakeholders understand the same expected outcome.
Ask process owners to confirm that important exceptions and handoffs are represented. Ask technology and data partners to flag dependencies that may affect feasibility. Ask the sponsor to confirm priorities and scope. Resolve contradictions, mark open questions explicitly, and maintain a dated version of the approved baseline.
What belongs in an EPM requirements document?
A requirements document can be a structured spreadsheet, a concise brief, or a combination of process maps and a register. The format matters less than whether a reader can understand the requirement, its rationale, and how the organization will validate it. A practical register can use fields like these:
Field | What to record | Example prompt |
|---|---|---|
Requirement | A clear statement of the need, without prescribing a product feature | What does the process owner need to accomplish? |
Business outcome | The decision or result the requirement supports | What becomes easier, clearer, or more reliable? |
Owner and users | Accountable process owner and affected roles | Who supplies, reviews, approves, or uses the information? |
Priority and rationale | Rank plus the reason for that rank | What is the impact if this is deferred? |
Dependencies | Related data, systems, processes, controls, or decisions | What must be available or agreed first? |
Acceptance evidence | A way to verify the need is supported | What scenario or output would demonstrate success? |
Write requirements so they can be tested. âThe forecast should be flexibleâ is too broad to evaluate. A stronger statement identifies who needs to change which assumptions, how the change should flow through the relevant plan, and what review or output is required. The exact wording should reflect your organization rather than generic templates.
It is useful to keep the requirement, proposed solution, and vendor response in separate fields. That separation lets the team compare options without confusing an existing workaround or a stakeholder's preferred feature with the underlying business need.
How should finance leaders use requirements to compare options?
Once a baseline is validated, turn the highest-priority requirements into evaluation questions and scenarios. Ask each prospective approach to address the same business situation. For example, demonstrate how a change to an assumption would be entered, reviewed, reflected in related outputs, and explained to the relevant decision-makers. Keep the demonstration tied to your process rather than a generic tour.
Assess both capability and delivery implications. A requirement might be supported in principle but depend on data cleanup, process standardization, integration work, or a new governance decision. Record the dependency and who owns it. This creates a more realistic view than marking a feature simply âavailableâ or âunavailable.â
Use a scoring method that fits your decision. A straightforward rating scale can help compare options, but scores should not replace discussion of critical requirements, risks, or trade-offs. For major needs, record the evidence behind the score: a demonstrated scenario, a documented answer, or an assumption that still needs validation.
If Pigment is among the options your organization is considering, a buyer-focused overview of what finance leaders should know about Pigment can help frame relevant questions. The requirements baseline remains your own; it should reflect your processes and constraints, not any platform's standard narrative.
What common mistakes weaken requirements gathering?
Starting with a product demo: features can shape the conversation before stakeholders agree on the actual problem. First define decisions and scenarios, then use demonstrations to test fit.
Collecting an unranked wish list: this hides trade-offs and makes it difficult to focus on the needs that matter most. Require rationale and consequences for each priority.
Documenting only the current process: automating every workaround can preserve unnecessary complexity. Capture pain points and desired outcomes alongside current steps.
Writing requirements as technical features: a preferred solution may exclude valid alternatives. Keep business need separate from potential design.
Leaving out data and operational stakeholders: plans may rely on inputs, ownership, and timing outside finance. Bring in the people who manage those dependencies.
Ignoring end users: a requirements list written only by sponsors may overlook practical tasks and adoption needs. Validate with the people who will contribute and use the plans.
Trying to solve every future use case immediately: broad ambition can obscure the first useful scope. Distinguish initial needs from opportunities to expand later.
Failing to maintain decisions: without an owner and a record of changes, priorities can shift without explanation. Version the baseline and document approvals.
A disciplined process does not require perfect certainty before the team moves forward. It requires visibility into what is known, what remains an assumption, and who will resolve open decisions. That makes the next evaluation step more transparent and less dependent on memory or individual preference.
Implementation planning can then build from validated needs into process design, data work, testing, and user readiness. For context on how an initial project is organized, read what to expect from a Pigment implementation kickoff and the overview of Amvent's Pigment implementation methodology. The purpose is not to lock every future design decision during requirements gathering, but to enter delivery with agreed priorities and clear ownership.
Get in touch to talk through your EPM requirements
Frequently Asked Questions
When should finance start gathering EPM requirements?
Start before formal platform comparisons or vendor demonstrations shape expectations. You do not need to know every future-state detail, but you should have a clear scope, the main planning decisions and processes, stakeholder input, and an initial priority baseline before comparing options.
How long does EPM requirements gathering take?
There is no single duration that fits every organization. The work depends on the number of planning processes and stakeholders in scope, the quality of existing documentation, and how quickly decision-makers can resolve open questions. A focused first scope can be defined without attempting to document every future planning use case.
Should we include requirements for every department?
Include departments whose processes, inputs, or decisions are part of the defined scope or directly affect it. Document relevant connections to other teams, but do not expand the initial baseline into a company-wide redesign unless that is an intentional decision. Clearly separate current-scope requirements from later opportunities.
What is the difference between a requirement and a feature?
A requirement states what the organization needs to accomplish and why; a feature describes one possible product capability or method. Keeping them distinct makes it easier to compare options fairly and consider different ways to meet the same business need.
Can we use an EPM requirements template?
A template can help capture owners, priorities, dependencies, and acceptance evidence consistently. It should be adapted to your planning processes and used to prompt stakeholder conversations, not treated as a substitute for them. The requirements are useful only when the right people validate them.
Plan your requirements conversation
Amvent Consulting is a Toronto-based boutique EPM consulting firm and official Pigment Delivery Partner. Its practitioner-led perspective includes a founder who led Gusto's 250-plus-user Anaplan-to-Pigment migration as an end-customer before founding the firm. If you are defining requirements for an EPM transformation, a conversation can help clarify scope, priorities, and the path from requirements into implementation planning.
Get in touch to discuss your EPM requirements
Get in touch with Amvent Consulting
Get in touch about your planning transformation
A clear, prioritized requirements baseline gives your team a practical foundation for selecting and implementing a planning approach that supports the decisions your organization needs to make.
