If you are searching for Pigment Academy, you may be looking for a way to help your finance team learn the platform before making an evaluation decision. Treat learning as preparation, then test the skills against a real planning workflow: course progress alone cannot show whether your requirements, data, controls, and operating model will work for your organization.

Get in touch to discuss your evaluation

What should a finance team expect from Pigment Academy?

Use platform learning to build familiarity and a shared vocabulary. It can help participants understand concepts, follow a product discussion, and arrive at a hands-on session with better questions. It is not a substitute for validating your own planning process or deciding how the work will be configured and governed.

The distinction matters because finance leaders are often trying to answer several different questions at once. A new planner may want to know how to find and update an input. A model owner may need to reason about planning logic and structure. A finance executive may want confidence that the resulting forecast supports decisions and review. A single course or demonstration cannot establish all of those outcomes.

Do not assume that a particular course, curriculum, credential, or feature is available unless you have confirmed it directly with Pigment. Instead, start with the learning resources that are available to your team and map each resource to an outcome you can observe. The useful question is not simply, “Did everyone complete the content?” It is, “Can the people who will own the process perform and explain their part?”

For leaders still defining what to assess, Amvent’s EPM selection criteria guide offers a framework for turning broad platform questions into evaluation criteria. Keep the criteria grounded in the planning decisions your organization actually makes.

How should you use learning during a Pigment evaluation?

Begin with a decision, not a course checklist. Are you deciding whether to shortlist a platform, whether a use case can be modeled, or whether your team can own a solution after implementation? Each decision calls for different evidence. Learning can make the team more prepared to collect that evidence, but the evaluation still needs a task tied to a written requirement.

1. Define the decision and scope. Write down what the evaluation must establish and what is outside scope. A limited forecast workflow is easier to test than every department’s planning process at once.

2. Select a representative scenario. Choose a workflow with meaningful assumptions, calculations, handoffs, and review points. Include enough detail to surface the decisions that matter without turning the exercise into a full implementation.

3. Set role-specific learning goals. Identify what a planner, reviewer, model or system owner, and executive sponsor each need to understand. One power user’s comfort should not stand in for the entire team’s readiness.

4. Complete relevant learning before the session. Ask each participant to note concepts they understand, tasks that remain unfamiliar, and questions that need to be validated against your process.

5. Run a hands-on task. Give participants a clearly bounded scenario and observe what they do, where they need help, and whether they can explain the outcome in business terms.

6. Record evidence and assign follow-up. Capture the result, the evidence behind it, the open question, and the owner responsible for resolving it. Separate a practice need from a process or design decision.

This sequence avoids two opposite mistakes. A first-session difficulty is not automatically evidence of a platform limitation; unfamiliarity may be the cause. A smooth demonstration is not proof that the future process is solved either; it may omit your data, exceptions, review rules, and ownership needs.

What can learning answer, and what needs a separate test?

Training can prepare people to participate and help the team ask more precise questions. It cannot by itself establish that a planning model reflects your rules, that data can be reconciled, or that access and approvals match your controls. Use the table to separate preparation from validation.

Evaluation checks

Can planners follow the workflow? Learning can contribute: familiarity with concepts and common tasks. Validate separately: Have representative users complete a role-based scenario and explain each handoff.

Does the model support our planning logic? Learning can contribute: vocabulary to discuss model structure. Validate separately: Test an actual calculation, assumption, dimension, and output against a written requirement.

Can reviewers make decisions from the result? Learning can contribute: preparation to navigate the evaluation. Validate separately: Check whether reviewers can identify changes, understand their impact, and record a decision.

Will our data support the use case? Learning can contribute: awareness of data inputs to discuss. Validate separately: Assess source ownership, quality, mappings, refresh expectations, reconciliation, and exceptions.

Can the organization govern access? Learning can contribute: awareness of roles and permissions to ask about. Validate separately: Map actual users to data, actions, approvals, and administration responsibilities.

Can the team sustain the process? Learning can contribute: initial user orientation. Validate separately: Define support, documentation, change practices, and ongoing model ownership.

For example, a participant may understand the intended workflow but still be unable to validate a consolidated forecast because the test data do not include an agreed mapping. That is a data or design dependency, not necessarily a training problem. Conversely, if the requirement and expected result are clear but the planner cannot find the task, more guided practice may be appropriate.

Access governance is another area to test rather than infer from course completion. The ISACA professional association provides resources related to information-systems governance and control; your own access design still needs to be assessed against your organization’s users, data, and responsibilities.

How do you design a useful finance-team exercise?

Keep the exercise narrow, realistic, and repeatable. A monthly forecast slice can be a useful example: a department owner updates an assumption, a planner reviews the change against the prior forecast, finance checks the consolidated impact, and a reviewer asks for an explanation before the result is shared. This scenario is small enough to complete but includes real work beyond entering a number.

Before the session, prepare a one-page scenario. Include the objective, the roles involved, the starting information, the assumptions participants may change, and the result to review. State what is intentionally excluded, such as other departments or a full-year budget. If a policy or approval rule has not been decided, label it as an open question rather than improvising a rule during the test.

Use approved, controlled information. If representative figures are not suitable for a learning session, use synthetic or appropriately masked inputs. Confirm who may access the material and how it should be handled. The exercise should reveal workflow needs without creating avoidable exposure of sensitive business information.

Decide how observations will be collected. For each task, record:

• Expected result: What should happen if the participant completes the task correctly?

• Observed result: What actually happened, including any help or workaround?

• Business reasoning: Can the participant explain what changed and why it matters?

• Point of friction: Where did the user pause, misunderstand a term, or need a decision?

• Next action: Is the issue a learning need, a requirement, a data dependency, or an operating decision, and who owns it?

Ask participants to think aloud when practical. Their explanations can show whether a problem comes from unfamiliarity, an unclear business rule, or a mismatch between the task and the intended process. A short debrief immediately after the exercise is more useful than relying on memory several days later. Capture disagreements too: different assumptions among finance and operations may indicate that the process itself needs alignment.

Keep the session comparable across roles. Give participants the same scenario and success criteria, but assess them against responsibilities they would actually hold. A planner should not be judged on an administrator’s task. A reviewer should not be expected to repair a data mapping. Role boundaries make the findings more meaningful.

How can finance leaders assess readiness without overreading completion?

Track individual capability and organizational readiness as separate questions. A confident user cannot compensate for missing source-data ownership, unclear approvals, or an undefined planning calendar. At the same time, a well-defined process may still require practice in a new environment. Separate these dimensions so a training need is not mislabeled as a technology failure and an unresolved business decision is not blamed on the user.

Use a simple task status rather than a single pass/fail score:

• Not attempted: The task has not been observed.

• Completed with guidance: The participant succeeded with prompts or assistance.

• Completed independently: The participant completed the task and explained the business result.

• Requires a decision or design: The task cannot be assessed until a rule, model behavior, or data dependency is resolved.

This is a working evaluation log, not a certification measure. Record the scenario, role, expected result, observed result, supporting evidence, and follow-up owner. Make notes specific. “Reviewer could not identify which assumption changed” gives the team a next question; “the workflow was confusing” does not.

Do not compare new users by raw speed alone. Prior experience and job responsibilities affect how quickly someone navigates an unfamiliar process. Look instead at whether participants understand the business meaning of their actions, follow the intended review path, and recognize when an exception needs escalation.

For broader context on what happens after evaluation, Amvent’s practical UAT plan describes the importance of testing against expected outcomes. Its guide to EPM change management can help connect early learning with role-specific adoption and ongoing support.

What should you verify beyond Pigment Academy?

Build a separate evidence plan for the questions that depend on your organization’s requirements. Start with one use case and trace it from inputs to decisions. This makes the evaluation concrete and helps the team distinguish a learning question from a design or readiness gap.

• Planning fit: Name the decisions, planning cycles, business dimensions, scenarios, and outputs in scope. Define what a satisfactory result looks like before the exercise.

• Model behavior: Select representative assumptions and calculations. Check how changes flow to the outputs, how scenarios are compared, and what a reviewer needs to understand.

• Data fit: Identify source systems, owners, data quality concerns, refresh needs, mappings, and reconciliation checks. Record dependencies that cannot be resolved during a learning session.

• Workflow fit: Map who prepares, reviews, approves, and communicates changes. Decide how late inputs, exceptions, and corrections should be handled.

• Access and governance: Determine which roles need access to which data and actions. Confirm who is accountable for maintaining permissions and handling changes.

• Integration and operation: Establish how information moves into and out of the planning environment and who monitors those steps.

• Adoption and support: Plan role-specific practice, documentation, escalation, and ongoing ownership after initial rollout.

These are connected checks, not separate boxes to tick. A model may produce the intended calculation while remaining hard to operate if nobody owns the input. A team may complete learning and still lack a decision about who approves a forecast change. A well-run workshop can expose those dependencies before they become delivery surprises.

Use written requirements to make the tests repeatable. Amvent’s requirements gathering guidance can help turn stakeholder needs into testable statements. For questions about structure and scale, see Pigment model design and its guide to multidimensionality. Those resources complement hands-on learning; they do not replace validation with your own requirements.

If your evaluation includes data movement, Amvent’s overview of Pigment integrations can help frame questions about sources and connected processes. When you are planning the transition from project work to ongoing ownership, review EPM go-live handover.

What mistakes should teams avoid?

Do not make completion the outcome. Finishing learning activities is a participation measure. It does not prove that requirements, data, ownership, or approvals are ready. Define the decision and observed task first.

Do not make one experienced user represent every role. Planners, reviewers, administrators, and executives encounter different responsibilities. Invite representative participants and assess each against the work they would actually own.

Do not treat every stumble as a product limitation. Check whether the participant understood the task, whether the process rule was decided, and whether the exercise used suitable data. Record the cause as an open question if there is not enough evidence.

Do not treat a polished demonstration as your validation. A demonstration can show a possibility. Your evaluation should test written requirements and representative scenarios, with assumptions stated clearly.

Do not teach around unresolved process choices. If stakeholders disagree about who approves a change or which result is authoritative, record the decision and take it to the accountable owner. More training will not settle a business rule.

Do not stop at go-live preparation. Real planning cycles can surface new questions and exceptions. Include ongoing knowledge transfer, support, and model ownership in your readiness discussion.

Get in touch to plan a focused evaluation

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Pigment Academy enough to evaluate Pigment?

No. Learning can prepare your team to participate and ask better questions. You still need to test requirements, data, model behavior, workflows, access, and ownership against your own planning work.

Who should take part in a finance-team learning exercise?

Include representative planners, reviewers, model or system owners, and decision-makers whose responsibilities shape the use case. Match participation to the roles expected to use, review, or govern the process.

How do we distinguish a learning need from a design gap?

Ask what the participant expected to happen and what rule they were trying to apply. If the rule is clear but they need practice carrying out the task, record a learning need. If the rule, data, or expected model behavior is undecided, record a requirement or design question and assign it to an owner.

Should we assess users with a quiz?

A quiz can check familiarity with concepts, but practical tasks provide stronger evidence about role readiness. Observe whether participants can complete the work, explain the business meaning, and follow the intended review or escalation path.

When should we involve an implementation partner?

Involve implementation expertise when your team needs help turning business requirements into a testable model and workflow, assessing dependencies, or planning delivery and ownership. Keep finance stakeholders responsible for business decisions and use the evaluation to clarify where support is needed.

Build your evaluation around finance work

Pigment Academy can help your team prepare, but the decision should rest on evidence tied to your organization’s planning process. Define the use case, learn what is relevant, test real tasks, and document what remains unresolved before moving into implementation.

Get in touch to discuss your planning requirements

Get in touch to shape a practical evaluation

Get in touch with Amvent Consulting

With a clear scenario and assigned owners, your team can use learning as the start of a disciplined evaluation rather than its conclusion.