EPM Reflections Series #7 – Integrated Business Planning

In a series of 6 blogs, Gary Cokins, founder of analytics-based performance management and frequent blogger on CFOKnowledge explores the importance, issues involved with, and reasons why IBP, integrated business planning, iis a critical topic and capability that finance needs to know and understand.


What is Integrated Business Planning?

IBP seamlessly integrates user interfaces and workflows. It links strategic, operational, and financial objectives and plans to improve employee alignment with the strategy and financial performance.

To begin with the issues, for many of us there may likely be a nagging question: “Is IBP such a big deal that if our organization is late to the party of deploying IBP, then will we never catch up to our competitors that have deployed it?”

Read more to find the answer.


Cokins continues to dive into the topic of IBP as he answers the following questions:

How does IBP support strategy execution?

How does IBP support profitability analysis?

How does IBP support process improvement?

How does IBP support driver-based driver-based budgeting?

How does IBP support change management?



EPM Reflections 2015 #6 – CFO Research

What is the next step in transforming finance operations?

During this year, a global survey was conducted to study the efficiency of finance operation functions where the results pointed to a need to advancing future finance operations through better information tools and simpler processes in order to unleash their full potential.

A well run finance operation is comprised of accounts payable and receivable, working capital, supplier management, expense management, and compliance all need to be harmonized and seamless to ensure optimal business execution.


The study shows that a majority of finance executives valued upgrading information systems in companies the most, followed by a close second in making process improvements.

Read the original blog post for more information on how making changes can transform and improve your finance operations. The research paper can also be found here.

Digitizing Governance Risk and Compliance

by Bruce McCuaig, Director, GRC Product Marketing


Most of our treasured concepts of control, and many of our accepted risk practices, will land in the digital boardroom with a thud and disappear, if they make it there at all.

The truth is, much of the information provided by GRC professionals is not digital and can’t be digitized usefully.

The outputs of most control and compliance assessments are subjective opinions on control effectiveness. Much of the output of risk professionals are informed guesses about the future. Insight is often lacking.

Why does this matter? It matters because digital Darwinism will not be kind to GRC if it does not evolve.

Understanding Control Ineffectiveness

I find it useful to step outside the business world and have a look at our practices through a real life lens. Some years ago my ophthalmologist prescribed eye drops to reduce the interocular pressure (IOP) in my eyes. He assured me the medication was “effective”. (Medical practitioners don’t make a distinction between “design” and “operating” effectiveness).

So I researched the medication and discovered the manufacturer, one of the words most distinguished pharmaceutical firms was so convinced of its “effectiveness” that in some jurisdictions they offered a money back guarantee if it did not deliver promised results.

I think in the world of GRC we would rate the design effectiveness of the eye drops as high.

Curious, I did some further research. It turns out that studies conducted by the manufacturer to secure regulatory approval revealed the following Issues:

  • Approximately 20% of patients stopped taking the medication because of its side effects.
  • Approximately 10% of patients studied forgot 20% of their doses.
  • A very small percent suffered severe and sometimes life threatening complications.

This kind of information provides insight, supports a risk acceptance decision, and should be reported in a digitized business environment.

No Control is 100% Effective all of the Time.

Control effectiveness decisions require knowledge of both a specific objective and related issues. In reality, there is no universal standard for the effectiveness of a control or for that matter a medication. The question is not “is the control effective” The question is how much risk does it leave us with and how is performance impacted?

Let’s digitize and report the data and let the effectiveness decision be made by the stakeholders.

What Does the Digital Boardroom Need to Know About Risks and Controls?

Frankly, boards are starving for useful information about GRC. Control effectiveness opinions aren’t digital, but the underlying data supporting control effectiveness and risk acceptance decisions can be digitized. Boards in my experience don’t find risk heat maps useful. They want digital data about key risk indicators, incidents, and issues.

Boards want visualization capabilities and analytical tools, and the data to feed those tools.

The Tools are Here Today

Tools exist now, and have existed for years, to digitize GRC. We have access to incredible technology that can monitor and report on almost any aspect of GRC. But, those tools are rarely used. The business case for using them, based on cost savings and extended coverage, has always been overwhelmingly compelling. Still they aren’t widely used.

The Case for Automating GRC

Here’s the real business case for automation in GRC. Automation produces digital information. Opinions must be supported by insightful data. Without the data GRC will have nothing useful to say to the digital board. Absent from the digital board room, GRC will not have a voice in performance, strategy, or resource allocation. GRC will not be managed strategically.

The real business case for digitizing GRC is survival. Fortunately, there is tremendous value to add by doing so. GRC won’t survive without digitizing.

Sorry, but Digital Darwinism is unkind.

Is GRC on your board’s agenda? What do you tell your board about GRC?

– See more at: http://blogs.sap.com/analytics/2015/11/24/grc-tuesdays-digitizing-governance-risk-and-compliance/#sthash.CqxPVVf9.dpuf

The Role of a Risk Committee

by Thomas Frenehard, GRC Solution Management

Young plant growing in sunshine(Shallow Dof)

Remember the dinosaurs from your history books? Extinct, right?

Well this is the way some companies are going because they focus all their efforts on looking backwards. And to me, this is precisely where Audit and Risk Committees  have a crucial role to play; not to focus on the same issues but have a different mind-set.

By nature, the Audit Committee will focus on the findings from the audit report, looking backwards at what’s already happened. I personally think that the Risk Committee should focus on forward-looking uncertainties… and how to best leverage potential opportunities.

This Risk Committee can then have a true advisory role to the Board. It should, of course, be able to discuss the most important threats that would prevent an organization from achieving its objectives and it should also be able to recommend a course of action to flip downsides into opportunities.

Most likely the Board is not the right instance to discuss and review the multiple risk scenarios, test new assumptions, and so on. But if it relies on a knowledgeable Risk Committee, it will be able to make the right decision for the business and increase value for the shareholders.

So, how can this work?

Last week I was lucky to attend a workshop on this specific topic, Risk Committees, that sparked many discussions and exchange of opinions amongst participants. Here are my summarized thoughts from the event.

  • A clearly defined mandate is needed

A Risk Committee can only be successful if it is given a clear mandate by the Board. Its roadmap and mission statement, if you wish. Here, I would suggest that the Board define expectations for the Risk Committee that would be relevant to supporting true business decision making.

In association with the mandate, and for the Risk Committee to be realistic in its assumptions, I would expect the Board to share its risk appetite and how it reached this conclusion, as this will guide most of the scenario work.

  •  On-board knowledge

To have an active Risk Committee, I think it has to embed a risk culture. This might happen because the committee is at least partially composed of risk experts or because it’s engrained in the DNA of its members.

I would also suggest involving industry experts in the Risk Committee as this is the only way to have realistic – and probable scenarios.

  • Sufficient tools and information

The role of this committee will be to review risks and to simulate potential negative and positive outcomes. If its participants are not given sufficient risk information, how can they do that?

In addition to providing risk information, I would also recommend authorizing this committee to interview Risk Owners when necessary, as they are the business experts that can shed light on business contexts.

  • Report to the Board and then, take action on their recommendations

To my mind, if such a process is defined, then the Board needs to set some time aside to debate on the recommendations from the Risk Committee. And here, it can’t be a passive presentation from the committee to the Board, it has to be a two-way street with some questioning. The Board needs to challenge the assumptions and needs to provide feedback on whether expectations have been met or the Risk Committee won’t be able to adjust its next reporting.

Also, the Board needs to take action on the recommendations. And keep in mind that deciding to wait until more information is gathered or that events start to unfold is already a decision, provided it is documented and agreed on.

How does this sound to you? Would you agree that immobility is a great threat to many of our organizations?

Are You Seeing the Signals? How Finance Analytics and KPIs Can Help CFOs Guide the Way

by Henner Schliebs, Head of Finance Audience Marketing 

Have you ever taken a close look at your dashboard when the car computer displays key performance indicators (KPIs)? No? Yes, but not really? I am confident in saying that 99.9% of you will answer with a “not really” type of response, as there are many misleading, so-called KPIs that don’t provide guidance to make the right decision. I can’t understand why customers/drivers of cars have not yet complained about being misled. And I’m surprised they haven’t sued manufacturers for astronomical amounts of money in countries like the U.S. where this is a practice that can get downright bizarre (like this case about a toilet paper injury). Here’s some rules to follow to keep your KPIs from going wrong.


Make Sure That Your KPI Is Sufficient to Guide a Decision

I recently took a look at the mileage on my truck and was surprised how the MPG rocketed up when I took my foot off the gas. So if I see MPG as a leading indicator to optimize my trip, I would never arrive at my desired destination, as I’d stop to max out on MPG. (See the picture of my car’s computer display showing above-average mileage – Italian Trucks rule!)

So, in financial taxonomy this would translate into something like a famous saying, “Zero budget is not an option.” Don’t focus on cost exclusively without having the broader goal (like margins improvement) in mind. You can’t cannibalize outcome with cost reduction—at least you’d have to achieve the same outcome at reduced costs.

Your analytics have to provide insight into the root cause for your indicators to optimize. In this case, it’s margins in the means of a decision tree, a value map, or the like so you can see the immediate outcome of any planned action. Simulation and prediction would be needed, combined with visualization of the context, in order to make it understandable for your executives and stakeholders.

Make Sure Your KPI Is Taking All Known Information into Consideration

To stick with the road trip example, I don’t understand the GPS producers being so ignorant of the value of including some kind of data mining into their offerings. The GPS knows the distance, the type of roads followed, the time of the day, and the season you’re in (like wintery conditions that might influence the trip).

It could know how many miles in which conditions you can go per gallon—or even pull this information from the car computer if it’s an integrated system. It could measure how much time you’d take to fill your car up at the gas station. Since it can measure how long you’re there, it can even deduce if your stop is for gas or just to pick up a six-pack on your way home from office.

So, assuming you want to go on a longer trip, say from San Francisco, CA to Austin, TX, why can’t the GPS guide you to the optimal speed to arrive at your next stop as soon as possible? This would take typical “bio breaks” into consideration (info available when you usually stop besides the freeway), gas stations to fill the car, projected traffic jams due to rush hour in metropolitan areas (Los Angeles!!!!) and the like. It could even run simulations like “If you go 70 mph instead of 85 mph you’d manage to get to your stop with this one tank…”

Sound familiar? So, let’s translate this into finance, using the planning process for example. You have all long-term planning information available, including the company’s strategic plan and the related KPIs (hopefully clear and leading ones as mentioned before), and all good information from any kind of ERP-like system. Also, you might have the plans from other areas like product sales plans, workforce plans, production plans (if applicable) and cost center plans. This would all be needed to arrive at an integrated business plan, driven by the long term financial plan.

You now would have almost all the ingredients to simulate outcomes based on different distributions of funds available for the current planning period. You won’t get trapped into pitfalls like having to pull additional funds into this planning period although served for later period use (having to stop at the gas station). You’d see how budgetary decisions would influence achievement of your company’s targets and would uncover potential correlations between driving indicators and outcomes (like HR development vs. hiring ofexternal people going through the value chain arriving at optimized investment in your workforce).


Don’t omit these factors, since they’re contributing to your KPIs. Even worse, there are correlations between factors that you can’t easily figure out but would have to use statistical algorithms. For example, what makes a certain customer pay on schedule vs. being an “overdue receivable”? This is not as easy to understand as the famous “There is a correlation between sales of ice cream and shark attacks” example. But to find a causation and guide the way, you need tens or even hundreds of dimensions correlated.

What Does this Mean for You?

Things that are obvious for you as a driver of a car and that you take into consideration when planning your road trip are not as easy to uncover in your professional life as a finance expert, as many more dimensions are affecting business performance. Given that the additional charter of any mature finance organization is to provide excellent service to the other business functions within your organization, it’s your duty to support the cost center manager, the sales executive, and last but not least, every employee by providing them with relevant and contextual finance data that enables better and fact-based decisions.triangle

In addition, sophisticated finance analytics uses the support of visualization and predictive functionality to guide the way through the core finance tasks around financial planning and analysis, accounting, treasury, operations, and even risk management, compliance and audit functions. It helps achieve more with less—operational excellence at reduced cost by supporting every finance function to deliver on the promise of simple data and intelligence provision for the whole organization.

This means that the finance function of tomorrow has a new credo: Be a partner to the company and support to differentiate from your peers, add value to the bottom line, and strategically consult the executive leadership team of your company to achieve sustainable growth.

Three Lines of Defense: Claiming a Seat in the Digital Boardroom

by Bruce McCuaig, Director, GRC Product Marketing

SAP recently announced SAP Cloud for Analytics, a planned software as a service (SaaS) offering that aims to bring all analytics capabilities into one solution for an unparalleled user experience (UX). The intent is for organizations to use this one solution to enable employees to track performance, analyze trends, predict, and collaborate to make informed decisions and improve business outcomes.

To me this sounds a lot like the mandate of governance, risk and compliance.

The Digital Boardroom

At SAP we’ve already begun to imagine a digital boardroom. As part of our Analytics business, my colleagues and I in governance risk and compliance (GRC) are keenly aware of the contribution our solutions can make to improving business decisions and business outcomes. But is the world of GRC ready for the digital boardroom?

And if the Three Lines of Defense is the framework we are advocating, what can we digitize for the digital boardroom? There is plenty of literature on implementing the Three Lines of Defense. I am basing much of this blog on the IIA’s guidance. However, this does not provide guidance on what to report or how to report it.

Five Requirements for Claiming a Seat at the Digital Board Room

  1. Reporting by the first line of defense – operating management

Operational management is responsible for maintaining effective internal controls and for executing risk and control procedures on a day-to-day basis. How can this be reported? One of my colleagues mocked up the report below. It illustrates a possible report on the management of controls in a particular area. It’s a useful beginning. But if the digital boardroom is supposed to drive better outcomes, we need to find a way to illustrate the impact of controls on performance.

Figure 1


  1. Reporting by the second line of defense – risk management and compliance

Management establishes various risk management and compliance functions to help build and/or monitor controls for the first line of defense. What would it take to understand the effectiveness of first line of defense controls? A few years ago, I mocked up a simple app that aggregated losses and incidents by risk category. The best way to understand control effectiveness is to understand the losses and incidents that occurred. If the second line of defense classifies the root cause of the issues and losses, the Board can make intelligent decisions and come to sound conclusions. Right now the Board gets subjective opinions on control effectiveness from assurance providers. Control effectiveness opinions are not comforting to me. They make sense only when objective information is not available. I would prefer the facts and I believe the Digital Board wants its facts digitized.

Figure 2


  1. Reporting by the third line of defense

Internal auditors provide the governing body and senior management with comprehensive assurance based on the highest level of independence and objectivity within the organization. So how do we digitize “assurance”? I have asked myself this question for years. In my view internal audit can add value by “painting a picture” of the world of governance, risk and compliance. One way to do this is by showing how the organization conforms to a set of criteria.

There are many criteria. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) provides one. The International Standards Organization (ISO) provides others. OCEG provides yet another, specifically the GRC Capability Model, a detailed set of criteria designed to help organizations achieve principled performance.Figure 3

The Role of Analytics

Reporting to the digital boardroom will require classifying and tagging information and then slicing, dicing, and visualization. That is what analytics tools and BI solutions do. It is close to the opposite of reporting on control and risk effectiveness. It is reporting on control and risk facts. Nothing less will do.

Uncharted Territory

The digital boardroom will take the Three Lines of Defense and GRC generally into uncharted territory. If we as GRC professionals have anything to say, it had better be digital and it had better be useful.

As always, I am interested in your comments. The Three Lines of Defense concept is far from perfect but as I have suggested in my earlier blogs it is a sound basis for collaboration and a fine starting point.

How do you report on GRC topics to your Board today? Do they read your reports? Are they visual? What do you see in the future?


The Integration of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and Enterprise Performance Management (EPM)

by Gary Cokins

Businessman analyzing pie chart on digital tablet

Governance and compliance awareness from government legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley in the US and Basel II is clearly on the minds of all executives. Accountability and responsibility can no longer be evaded. If executives err on weak compliance, they can go to jail. As a result internal audit controls have been enhanced. The popular acronym that addresses this is GRC for governance, risk, and compliance. From the perspective of enterprise performance management, one can consider governance (G) as the stewardship of executives to behave in a responsible way, such as providing a safe work environment or formulating an effective strategy; and consider compliance (C) as operating under laws and regulations. Risk management (R), the third element of GRC and often referred to as enterprise risk management (ERM), is the element more associated with enterprise performance management (EPM).

Some organizations are beginning to integrate ERM and EPM. In a little under two weeks’ time I will be presenting this topic as a keynote speaker on November 10 in Las Vegas at the SAP Conference for Financial Planning, Consolidation and Controls. I shared some of my thoughts about technology and reasons for speaking at this conference in an interview recently, but as I shall be covering a broad topic area in my conference presentation concerning the integration of ERM and EPM, I decided to write a little more about this now, before heading to Las Vegas, as a scene-setter in many ways for what I’ll speak about there.

You may think that this theme is a little out of step with the themes running through my recent blog series, as this blog is the final one of 8 blogs in the 2015 Summer/Fall series of my SAP blogs. I hope you’ll see however that there is merit for bringing this topic to the forefront of thought again, as to my mind there’s a very clear link between innovations in planning and analytics in the Cloud and how these might be integrated with an approach to risk management. A limitation to this integration to date has not necessarily been owing to a lack of interest, understanding or willingness to do this, but rather that the actual methods have been cumbersome and sometimes complex, especially when viewed from a technology standpoint. But that’s changing. Technology is becoming easier, simpler to use and the once distinct disparity between functional capabilities in Analytics, EPM and ERM are starting to blur and fade away, to be replaced by clear lines of vision, collaboration and unison. So if we can remove the “how” as a barrier to integration, let’s consider the “why”, because this is how we’ll stimulate businesses to invest serious time and energy in taking risk informed planning decisions as a part of their normal business processes. For this let’s go back to basics.

The integration of ERM and EPM

EPM is now more correctly being defined as a much broader umbrella concept of integrated methodologies – much broader than its previously misperceived narrow definition as simply being dashboards and better financial reporting. What could possibly be an even broader definition? My belief is the EPM methods are only a part – but a crucial, integral part – of how an organization realizes its strategy to maximize its value to stakeholders, both in commercial and public sector organizations. This means that enterprise EPM must be encompassed by a broader overarching concept – enterprise risk-based performance management – that integrates EPM methods with enterprise risk management (ERM).

The “R” in GRC has similar characteristics with EPM methods. The foundation for both ERM and EPM share two beliefs:

  1. The less uncertainty there is about the future, the better.
  2. If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it.

The premise here is to link risk performance to business performance. Whether EPM is defined narrowly or ideally more broadly, for most organizations it does not embrace risk governance. It should. Risk and uncertainty are too critical and influential to omit. For example, reputational risk caused by fraud (e.g., Tyco International), a terrifying product-related incident (e.g., Tylenol), or some other news headline grabbing event can substantially damage a company’s market value.

Is risk an opportunity or hazard?

ERM is not about minimizing an organization’s risk exposure. Quite the contrary, it is about exploiting risk for maximum competitive advantage. A risky business strategy and plan always carries high prices. For example, what investment analysts do not know about a company or they have uncertainty or concerns will result in adding a premium to capital costs and discounting of a company’s stock value. Uncertainty can include accuracy, completeness, compliance, and timeliness in addition to just being a prediction or estimate that can be applied to a target, baseline, historical actual (or average), or benchmark.

Effective risk management practices counter these examples by being comprehensive in recognizing and evaluating all potential risks. ERM’s goal is less volatility, greater predictability, fewer surprises, and arguably most important the ability to bounce back quickly after a risk event occurs.

A simple view of risk is that more things can happen than will happen. If we can devise probabilities of possible outcomes, then we can consider how we will deal with surprises – outcomes that are different from what we expect. We can evaluate the consequences of being wrong in our expectations. In short, ERM is about dealing in advance with the consequences of being wrong. Risk can be viewed as having an opportunity that can be beneficial in the future in addition to risks viewed as hazards. For example, a rain shower may be a disaster for artists at an outdoor art fair while being a huge break for an umbrella salesperson. What risk and opportunity both have in common is they are concerned with future events that may or may not happen, their events can be identified but the magnitude of their effect uncertain, and the outcome of the event can be influenced with actions.

Problems quantifying risk and its consequences

Risk is usually associated with new risk mitigation expenses because they may turn into problems. In contrast, opportunity can be associated with new economic value creation, such as increased revenues, because they may turn into benefits.

Most organizations cannot quantify their risk exposure and have no common basis to evaluate their risk appetite relative to their risk exposure. Risk appetite is the amount of risk an organization is willing to absorb to generate the returns it expects to gain. The objective is not to eliminate all risk, but rather to match risk exposure to risk appetite.

ERM is not simply contingency planning. That is too vague. It begins with a systematic way of recognizing sources of uncertainty. It then applies quantitative methods to measure and assess three factors:

  1. The probability of an event occurring
  2. The severity impact of the event
  3. Management’s capability and effectiveness to respond to the event

Based on these factors for various risks, ERM identifies the triggers and drivers of risk (measured as key risk indicators or KRIs), and then it evaluates alternative actions and associated expenses to potentially mitigate or take advantage of each identified risk. These actions should ideally be included during the strategy formulation and re-planning process and reflected in financial projection scenarios – commonly called “what if” analysis.

The three types of risk

There are three categories of risk. EPM is involved the second category as described next.

Preventable Risks – These are unauthorized employee actions or breakdowns in standard operating procedures. This category of risk can be reduced by:

  • Communication of “Codes of Conduct” and mission and vision statements
  • Strong compliance practices (e.g., internal controls like “segregation of duties,” internal audit, standard operating procedures, whistle blowing promotion)

Strategy Execution Risks – In this category risks are taken to execute the CXO executive team’s strategy to generate superior returns. Examples are: credit risk, R&D programs, and hazardous environments. These types of risk cannot be reduced to zero. Their likelihood of occurring can be reduced or effectively contained should they occur.

External Risks – This category of risk is caused from uncertain, uncontrollable external events that cannot easily be predicted or influenced. Managers often “don’t know that they don’t know.” Scenario exercises can identify risks. However, if these types of risks can be envisioned, then risk mitigation actions can be taken. Examples are: building earthquake or flood-proof structures; backup data centers in distant locations; and insurance, hedging, and diversification.

Risk managers – friend or foe to profit growth?

Unfortunately this topic has a dark edge. A report of The Economist Intelligence Unit sponsored by ACE, a global insurance company, and KPMG is titled, “Fall guys: Risk management in the front line.”[1] In the report, a risk manager claims he was fired for telling his company’s board of directors that too much risk was being taken. Did management want to ignore a red flag of caution to pursue higher profits? The broader question involves how strategy planners view risk managers. Are they profit optimizers or detractors?

The Economist report was a result of extensive surveys and interviews. The impact of the 2009 global financial sector meltdown was clearly top of mind for the respondents. The report highlighted that risk management and governance policies and structures require increased authority, visibility and independence. However, planned increases in investment and spending for them are typically modest, if any. This is not a good sign. The reality is that the natural tension and conflict between the risk functions and a business’ aspirations for higher profit growth remains present.

Invulnerable today but aimless tomorrow

Will increasing interest in including to integrate ERM with EPM methods continue or be a temporary phase? Hopefully, the interest will be permanent, but there are impediments. Business line managers may continue to view the risk function as a mechanical brake slowing the gas pedal of sales and profit growth. Also, technical knowledge and experience by boards of directors and executives may be inadequate to fully understand how to integrate ERM with EPM.

On a positive note, risk management is gaining influence and using more structured modeling and analytics software. Managers are creating a richer organizational culture for metrics and risk awareness that considers opportunities, not just threats.

I continue to be intrigued by the fact that almost half of the roughly 25 companies that passed the rigorous tests listed in the once-famous book written in 1982 by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, In Search of Excellence, today either no longer exist, are in bankruptcy, or have performed poorly. What happened in the 32 years since the book was published? My theory is that once an organization becomes quite successful, it becomes averse to risk taking. Taking risks, albeit calculated risks, is essential for organizations to change and be innovative.

Is the today’s risk manager going to continue to be the fall guy? Not if those responsible for strategic planning appreciate that they are not gamblers using investors’ money, but rather stewards of the company’s – and investors’ – financial futures.



[1]  http://www.businessresearch.eiu.com/fall-guys.html


Join us at the SAP Conference for Financial Planning, Consolidation and Controls in Las Vegas 10-11 November, where I’ll be delivering a presentation on performance and risk management. I hope to see you there!  

SAP Conference for Financial Planning, Consolidation and Controls_Twitter

About the Author: Gary Cokins, CPIM


Gary Cokins (Cornell University BS IE/OR, 1971; Northwestern University Kellogg MBA 1974) is an internationally recognized expert, speaker, and author in enterprise and corporate performance management (EPM/CPM) systems. He is the founder of Analytics-Based Performance Management LLC www.garycokins.com . He began his career in industry with a Fortune 100 company in CFO and operations roles. Then 15 years in consulting with Deloitte, KPMG, and EDS (now part of HP). From 1997 until 2013 Gary was a Principal Consultant with SAS, a business analytics software vendor. His most recent books are Performance Management: Integrating Strategy Execution, Methods, Risk, and Analytics and Predictive Business Analytics.

Linkedin contact: