OVG

When Avik Ghosh first introduced me to the concept of low-code platforms, my mind was blown. I imagine it was how software engineers felt using Cursor for the first time. I could build whatever enterprise application I wanted, and I could do it super fast.    I built my first app (below), a simple CRM + Operations + Finance app after taking one Udemy course. I started here so we didn’t need to rely on Anaplan, which we have access to as a partner but obviously can’t really afford (I still wish they made an SMB play!).    When I showed it to my network, their minds were blown - ‘this time tracking app is better than what we had at [insert Big 4]!’. It wasn’t better because it had more features or a flashier UI, but because it was exactly what we needed as operators, nothing more and nothing less.    When I talked to folks who were previously at FAANG and moved to lead Finance teams at smaller companies, they were surprised to hear that low-code was available to them. ‘We built all our own apps and workflows at Meta/Amazon, etc., I had no idea there was a commercial low-code platform available to us.’ Our main observation has been that not many people outside of IT either don't know that low-code platforms exist or don't have access to them, though they may use them every day. Some folks don't realize that tools like Power BI, Power Pivot, or Power Query now have a much bigger platform supporting them. Therefore, we are trying to spread the word, starting with Finance and planning teams.   Low-code isn’t just buzz or hype, it’s already here and ready for mainstream adoption. Microsoft Power Platform has more than 30 million active users, is rated toe-to-toe with ServiceNow, and costs $20 per person per month. Microsoft already uses it to plan its $80B commercial sales org: https://lnkd.in/gFXkxm2K Combined with data foundations like Microsoft Fabric (which also includes Power BI) and generative AI turning low-code to no-code, low-code platforms can provide immense value to not only IT and Fortune 100 companies but entire organizations of all shapes and sizes. Cross-functional planning is particularly addressable.   Similar to finding a place to live, for many companies, ‘renting’ enterprise SaaS software for planning will still make sense. However, with the cost to build falling, those who are '1-of-1' category leaders or differentiated in terms of scale (whether big or small), business model, or org structure may benefit long-term from adopting an approach where everything from the UX to the data model can be customized to their specific needs. If you have used a low-code platform to improve your planning processes, we'd love to hear from you! #FPA #businessplanning #lowcode #buildvsbuy

"𝗜 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝗧 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻." Over the years we've heard this statement in various forms from Finance teams looking for technology independence. When cloud solutions like Anaplan came into play, many teams effectively went rogue, tired of waiting for IT teams to update their planning systems in Oracle, SAP, etc. Those teams took ownership of their technology, which also came with more responsibility, requiring more technical resources and increased reliance on outside consultants. These costs have intensified over time as Finance teams are forced to do more with less. 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗧? 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗻. Low-code platforms provide a common arena where both technical and functional resources can work together. IT gets access to the governance, visibility, and automation they require, while Finance gets the customizability, scalability, and data integrations that they need. Low-code platforms allow IT to be more of a strategic partner with Finance, in the same way that cloud solutions have allowed Finance to partner more closely with their business partners. We've felt this benefit first-hand collaborating closely with IT teams on Platform Planning use cases, designing truly end-to-end solutions from real-time data ingestion to management reporting. After many years trying to explain yet another unfamiliar cloud software with IT or going around IT completely, it's refreshing to feel the 1+1=3 dynamic working again when both sides are on common ground. This is the definition of breaking down functional siloes - when all teams are working together, the organization can run on all cylinders.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗙𝗣&𝗔 𝘀𝗼𝗳𝘁𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗺𝘆. You see this mindset everywhere in FP&A. - Constant software marketing that pits spreadsheets against [insert tool here] and calling teams that use spreadsheets 'laggards'. - Teams asking 'when do I stop using spreadsheets and move to FP&A software'? - Spreadsheet usage being used as an overall success indicator. I also used to drink the Kool-Aid that spreadsheets are the root of all FP&A problems and that adopting FP&A software will solve everything. The reality is that neither spreadsheets nor FP&A software are a cure-all, neither are inherently good or bad, and both have significant upsides and downsides. They can actually be quite complementary. Finance leaders should not think in absolutes, but in terms of how to utilize ALL the technology options available to them, not forcing only one. This equation now includes not only spreadsheets and FP&A software but low-code platforms, BI tools, LLMs, AI agents, full-code ML models, and more. This holistic mindset is enabled with a platform-based approach.

I didn't fully understand what it means to 'think like an owner' before bootstrapping OVG. My internal priorities shifted from: - How are we performing vs. our annual plan? - What needs to happen to hit our quarterly sales goal? - How do we expand our margins? - How do I get my preferred team and tech stack and build influence? To: - How do we devote as close to 100% of our resources on delivering maximum value directly to clients as possible? - What operating model is most scalable in this new AI-enabled paradigm? - How do we propagate this level of ownership across our team? Once I started feeling true ownership over our clients, product, and vision, my perspective was changed permanently. Having not only upside but downside risk changes a lot! Some may have this innately, but for me I had to experience it first-hand. This mentality drives everything from our hiring decisions to our technology to how we advise our clients. With so much change and uncertainty today, there is massive opportunity now for those that are most focused on what's important. Organizations where an ownership mindset prevails over traditional roles, responsibilities, and playbooks will thrive.

Every FP&A software or consulting demo will show you beautiful dashboards, but how often do see an actual working model structure for a planning solution before you get to the end? Here we are sharing the 3-statement model structure that we leverage at OVG to build solutions that scale long-term for clients regardless of what software you use.

𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆. Best/worst/base-case and top-down/bottom-up are often mentioned as approaches for scenario planning. 𝗪𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆: 🎯 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼: an estimate or range of where the business is most likely to land based on bottom-up data, business inputs, and finance judgment to keep the business focused on executing to the business strategy. This is the core scenario to start with and leverage on a rolling basis. 🏦 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼: a more conservative estimate or range with a high degree of confidence for guidance to wall street or sponsors. This view is usually a version of the bottom-up plan with top-side hedges. 📈 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼: an aggressive estimate or range to set as internal targets for business leaders to motivate everyone to beat expectations. This view is bottom-up with amped up assumptions on b͟u͟s͟i͟n͟e͟s͟s͟-͟c͟o͟n͟t͟r͟o͟l͟l͟e͟d͟ drivers. 🎛️ 𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼: an estimate or range that is likely to happen if everything stays status quo. This view is bottom-up with trended assumptions. This view is nice-to-have as a 'control' to better understand business impact and sensitivities, if possible. ⚖️ 𝗥&𝗢 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼: a range of outcomes based on layering on opportunities and risks related to initiatives or external factors. This view is usually separate and a combination of the baseline view and top-down estimates, since it’s more probabilistic and it is usually not possible to effectively model a new acquisition, for example, in the primary forecast. This scenario is important to pressure test all the other scenarios.  🚀 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼: this is an estimate or range stretched out along a longer time horizon. It can leverage the bottom- up projections out to a limited timeframe but then needs to switch to higher-level assumptions such as market share, margins, etc. This scenario is needed for long-term strategic planning, M&A, etc. 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼𝗽-𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺-𝘂𝗽, 𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲. They also do not leverage one forecasting model with different versions, but a 𝗺𝗶𝘅 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀. These concepts are merged together in the right way to produce ranges of outcomes that cover all business needs while still being traceable back to assumptions and data and bridgeable across each scenario.