Choosing the Perfect EPM Solution for Your Finance Team

The Enterprise Performance Management market has never offered more choice. From established players like Anaplan and IBM Planning Analytics to newer entrants like Pigment, finance leaders face a bewildering array of options. Each vendor claims superiority, and each platform genuinely excels in certain scenarios. The challenge lies in determining which solution best matches your specific requirements.

This decision carries significant consequences. EPM platforms typically require substantial investment in licensing, implementation, and ongoing maintenance. More importantly, they shape how your finance function operates for years to come. A poor choice creates friction, limits capability, and may ultimately require costly replacement.

Beyond the Demo

Vendor demonstrations showcase platforms at their best, with polished presentations designed to impress. The models are clean, the data flows smoothly, and everything works exactly as intended. Real-world implementations rarely enjoy such favourable conditions.

Effective evaluation requires looking beyond demonstrations to understand how platforms perform with messy data, complex business rules, and demanding users. Reference calls with existing customers-particularly those in similar industries or with comparable requirements-provide insights that no demo can match.

Consider the total cost of ownership, not just licensing fees. Implementation costs, training requirements, ongoing administration burden, and future upgrade paths all contribute to the true investment required. Some platforms with attractive licensing prove expensive to implement and maintain, while others with higher upfront costs deliver better long-term value.

Understanding Your Requirements

Before evaluating platforms, invest time in understanding what you actually need. This seems obvious but frequently receives insufficient attention. Organisations often approach selection with vague goals like "better planning" or "improved forecasting" without specifying what that means in practice.

Document your current pain points in detail. Where do existing processes break down? What questions can't you answer with current tools? Which manual workarounds consume disproportionate effort? These specifics guide platform evaluation far more effectively than generic capability checklists.

Consider future requirements alongside current needs. Your organisation will evolve, and your EPM platform should accommodate that evolution. However, avoid over-engineering for hypothetical future scenarios-focus on genuine strategic direction rather than speculative possibilities.

Platform Strengths and Considerations

Each major EPM platform brings distinct characteristics. Anaplan offers exceptional flexibility and a robust modelling engine, making it suitable for complex, multi-dimensional planning scenarios. However, this flexibility demands skilled model builders and can create governance challenges if not properly managed.

Pigment has emerged as a compelling alternative, particularly for organisations prioritising user experience and rapid deployment. Its modern interface reduces training requirements, though it may lack some advanced capabilities that power users require.

Planful provides strong financial planning functionality with relatively straightforward implementation, appealing to mid-market organisations seeking proven capability without enterprise complexity. IBM Planning Analytics continues to serve organisations with heavy analytical requirements, particularly those already invested in the IBM ecosystem.

These generalisations inevitably oversimplify. Each platform's suitability depends on your specific context, requirements, and constraints.

The Value of Independent Guidance

Platform vendors naturally advocate for their own solutions. System integrators often have commercial relationships that influence their recommendations. In this environment, genuinely independent guidance becomes invaluable.

Consultants who work across multiple platforms can provide objective assessment based on your requirements rather than their partnerships. They've seen what works in practice, understand each platform's limitations, and can match capabilities to needs without commercial bias.

This independence extends to implementation approach. Platform-agnostic consultants recommend the delivery methodology that suits your organisation rather than a standardised approach designed around a specific technology.

Structured Selection Process

A rigorous selection process reduces the risk of poor decisions. Begin with requirements documentation that captures both functional needs and non-functional considerations like performance, security, and integration requirements.

Develop evaluation criteria weighted according to your priorities. Not all requirements carry equal importance-distinguish between essential capabilities and desirable features. This framework enables objective comparison rather than subjective impression.

Include hands-on evaluation where possible. Proof of concept exercises using your actual data and scenarios reveal platform behaviour far more effectively than vendor demonstrations. The investment in this evaluation pays dividends through better decisions.

Making the Decision

Ultimately, platform selection involves judgement as well as analysis. The "best" platform doesn't exist in absolute terms-only the best platform for your organisation at this point in its journey.

Consider implementation risk alongside platform capability. A slightly less capable platform that your team can implement successfully may deliver more value than a theoretically superior solution that proves too complex for your organisation to deploy effectively.

Trust your evaluation process. If you've invested properly in understanding requirements, assessing options, and gathering evidence, the decision should be defensible even if it proves imperfect. Perfect foresight doesn't exist; informed decision-making does.