When embarking on a digital FP&A transformation, one of the first questions that gets asked is—Should we build Group models or the Local Market models first?
It’s a natural question—but it’s also the wrong one.
The question itself shows a missing part of the process, which is to establish the new process, and new outcomes, targeted at unlocking the full value of connected planning. The question suggests thinking about old-fashioned, siloed models, which work independently of each other as separate stages of a planning process. If you do the same in a faster tool, you will get faster outcomes, not better ones.
This isn’t a sequencing issue. It’s a strategy issue. If you’re asking this question, you're focusing on delivery tactics before defining the project’s purpose, having either skipped or cut short the definition phase. That’s where many planning platform projects start to go wrong—see my previous blog Slow Start—Fast Finish, for more about the Definition phase of a project.
Ultimately, what matters is not whether Group or Local goes first—
what matters is how you bring both together into one coherent, aligned approach.
For me, the push should always be for a single strategy, and as close to a single model as possible. Remember all the reasons you invested in a digital Connected Planning tool. I’ve listed a few of these reasons below.
Scenario Planning – Why would you limit investment decisions to individual local models.
Real-time Insights – Why build in the same blockages you have today by mirroring your current processes, likely powered by Excel.
Transparency – The very notion of a Group vs. Local suggests a level of hidden granularity and detail in local models not passed to Group.
Let’s step back. What is your business really trying to achieve with this project?
At Group level, the need is usually clear:
These needs are not in conflict, but they are not the same. And yet, too often, the project design starts with only one perspective in mind—usually the Group’s.
The result? Local teams feel the solution is being done to them, not built for them. The new tool feels like a reporting system, not a planning system. Engagement drops. Adoption falters. And Group ends up chasing data just like before.
Early on, we should be engaging with all users represented and asking—what is our business trying to achieve with this project? This needs to be done on a strategic level. Forget the data, the current set-up (except for the current pain points), and don’t go into solution mode. Instead ask—what do I need to know to make the best decisions to run the business better?
The real issue is not whether Group orLlocal goes first.
The real issue is alignment.
Alignment on:
Without this, you’re just building models. You’re not building a capability.
We can help you with this. Our dedicated value workshops facilitate these conversations, by establishing value, and turning value into an actionable design and roadmap.
Often it takes some dedicated hard thinking to work this through. This not because the answers are rocket science—we want to reduce costs, increase revenue, better match customer demand, and unlock cash through reducing stock. This is hard because the noise from today’s set-up can be deafening, and it's tough to silence it and think differently.
Before you build anything—before you even debate priorities—you need to get the right people in the room to answer strategic questions:
This is not a technical design phase. It’s a strategic alignment phase. It’s where Finance, Operations, and Technologists come together and commit to a shared vision. It sets the foundation for everything that follows.
Too often, organisations assume that every business unit does things entirely differently—so they either design wildly bespoke models for each, or try to force-fit everything into a rigid global template.
Neither works.
A better starting point is to listen. Build and compare user stories—real, narrative descriptions of how different users in the business plan today:
This process often uncovers that what seems like structural difference is actually just Excel-driven behaviour—workarounds, habits, and shortcuts that evolved over years of planning in tools not built for collaboration or scale.
And here’s the crux—business units rarely understand up front what’s truly possible with a digital planning platform. Their processes and assumptions are shaped by the limits of Excel—and that limits how they frame requirements. They can only ask for what they know.
That’s why discovery isn’t just about collecting inputs—it’s about helping the business shift its mindset from spreadsheet-based thinking to possibility-based design. That takes exposure, iteration, and trust.
You won’t define perfect requirements on day one. You’ll uncover them by exploring together.
The very best models we have designed and built have been digital copies of the business, able to be updated frequently and cast forward fluctuations and variations as soon as actual data is available.
Now that you have a shared understanding of purpose, variation, and user needs, you’re ready to plan.
That plan may still involve starting with a local pilot, or building out a consolidation model to unlock Group benefits quickly. That’s fine. The point is—now your tactics serve the strategy, not the other way around.
Key planning principles to lock in:
If you’re treating the rollout of Anaplan, Jedox, or any digital planning platform as a linear IT implementation, you’ve already missed the point.
This is a chance to reset how your business plans, adapts, and collaborates.
But that only happens if the project strategy reflects the business strategy. This should not be several strategies, but one unified strategy. Again, if Marketing drive volume regardless of profit, and Operations must drive costs down regardless of volume, you’ve not unlocked the full value of connected planning. Instead, let’s talk about one profitability strategy where Marketing and Operations collaborate and identify oppourtunities for each other.
Part of your strategy must include making space for discovery. Not just of what processes exist today, but what better could look like—because digital planning isn’t just about faster Excel. It’s about freeing your business from Excel thinking altogether.
You don’t need to choose between Group or Local Markets.
You need a project strategy that unites Group and Local Markets.
You need leadership that builds alignment.
You need a solution designed from real user insight at all levels.
And you need to stop asking the wrong question!
I’d love to hear how you’ve approached Integrated Business Planning across Group and Local Markets. What worked? What trade-offs did you face? And how did you build alignment along the way?
If you're about to kick off your own Integrated Business Planning journey and want to avoid common pitfalls, I’m happy to share more on how to set up a project that delivers real, lasting value.
Get in touch. Let’s build the right strategy before the Gantt chart.