Multi dimensional planning systems have been around for a while, but how can organizations identify the appropriate dimensions to plan against? What if the dimensions that seem obvious or most common are leading to missed insights? In this blog, we cover some frameworks businesses can use to understand the key dimension set that is most suited to track business performance and insights.

Organizations need plans in order to determine which direction they are headed in and how they will get there. In essence, plans serve as a compass for businesses guiding teams in the right direction and course-correcting when needed. However, plans need to be set and tracked against at the right level. Planning across too many dimensions can lead to confusion while planning across too few can lead to the risk of missing levers that truly shape business performance. Striking the right balance is key.

We recommend a 3 step framework to identify core dimensionality for business planning:

Step 1: Work backwards from desired reporting and end-state

We often see different stakeholders answering this question differently - after all, they are each looking after their ‘sections’ of the business. Alignment on end-state reporting should come as a result of tops-down discussions among business leaders and operators. A few examples of this include: 

Regulatory & Compliance Reporting

• GAAP Financials

• SEC-Compliant Filings

• IFRS Reports (for global operations)

• Tax Filings & Deferred Tax Reports

Management & Performance Reports

• Budget vs. Actuals (BvA)

• Department and / or Product P&L

• Cash Flow Forecast & Burn Rate Analysis

• Workforce Planning, Hiring Analysis and other Headcount Trends

• Key Operational & Business Metrics (CAC, LTV, Churn, ARR/MRR etc.)

Investor & Board Reporting

• Board Packages (typically include GAAP P&L, BvA, operating KPIs, hiring plans, and strategic initiatives)

• ARR & Unit Economics Reports (revenue retention, payback period, gross margin by product line etc)

Working backwards from these end-state reports allows organizations to identify and document the relevant cuts of data across each as well as any overlaps. Additionally, these discussions help identify the ‘roll-ups’ or groups of dimensions required for flexible reporting. Some examples of business dimensions are included in the graphic below. 

Step 2: Align internally on ownership and accountability of targets (topline, expenses, other metrics)

Targets are only useful if there is alignment on who owns them and how accountability is tracked. When every target has a defined owner, it becomes clear which dimensions are critical. Without ownership, organizations risk spreading effort across too many variables or overlooking the ones that matter.

Each budget line item should have a single accountable owner, usually a department or product lead. Ownership should be explicit, documented, and tied to decision rights (e.g., who can approve spend, reallocate, or escalate). Finance plays the role of controller and enabler, but accountability must sit with the business owner who benefits from the spend.

Budget accountability becomes powerful when tied directly to performance targets:

• Marketing spend tied to pipeline contribution, CAC efficiency etc.

• Sales spend tied to bookings growth, cost per rep productivity etc.

• Product & Engineering spend tied to roadmap delivery, uptime, feature adoption etc.
  
  

This alignment ensures spend is not just tracked, but justified. In the case of Operating Expenses, here are a few ways in which spend accountability might be assigned:

• Department Expenses: Owned by Department Leader (Finance, Accounting, HR, Tooling etc.)

• Department Group Expenses: Owned by Department Group Leader (eg. Engineering, Sales, Marketing etc.)

• Functional Expenses: Owned by Function Leader (eg. R&D, G&A, S&M, COS)

• Product Expenses: Owned by Product Leader (this can vary by organization depending on the business model)

• Vendor-specific Expenses: Owned by the teams managing that vendor relationship and / or leveraging a specific vendor the most. These should only be tracked at the vendor level if a certain materiality threshold is met otherwise, the ROI is not justified. Eg. AWS spend for hosting fees, Health Insurance carriers for Employee Benefits etc.

Determining ownership of plans is more of an art than science and can vary based on some factors including:

• The organization’s flying formation (org structure).

• Varying degrees of accountability for different metrics, eg. if topline growth is the main focus, then plan ownership would be skewed towards Sales, Marketing, and maybe some R&D depending on revenue-generation potential.

• Varying degrees of visibility required depending on past performance, company objectives and regulatory requirements if any. Eg. if hiring has been missing plan consistently, there would be a bigger focus on tracking headcount at a more granular level.

Step 3: Identify Level of Accuracy Required Across Different Grains of Data

In business planning and forecasting, leaders often push for maximum accuracy everywhere. But not every dimension requires the same level of precision. In fact, insisting on “perfect” accuracy across the board can waste time, slow decisions, and distract from what truly drives performance.

Not All Dimensions Are Equal

Some dimensions demand near-perfect accuracy like subsidiary and FSLI because compliance and investor trust are at stake. Others, such as project, segment etc. can at times have broader estimates depending on business priorities as discussed in Steps 1 & 2 above.

Accuracy Comes at a Cost

The pursuit of accuracy requires time, resources, and data. By defining the required accuracy upfront, businesses avoid over-investing in low value detail and focus energy where precision matters most.

Essentially, this means having an accuracy matrix that helps identify the level of fidelity required across different dimensions. This then determines how the planning mechanism should be set for each of those dimensions.

If certain dimensions require low levels of accuracy, they can be planned for in an easier way eg. growth rates however, if other dimensions require more precision, they can be planned for using customized drivers or calculations. This allows for simplification of model architecture where possible enabling the team to spend their time on what matters most. 

Across each of these steps, the common denominator is flexibility. That’s where Pigment excels. With Pigment, you are not tied to a standard set of dimensions which remain rigid and require weeks or months of rearchitecture due to the slightest change. Your business processes should not have to adapt to the tool, instead, the tool should adapt to your business needs. With Pigment, planning is easier, flexible and ever-evolving, just like your business. For more information on how Pigment can help your team, contact us or check out some of our other blogs here.