Many organizations agree on the goal: one platform, one data model, one set of numbers. Then quarter-end arrives, a forecast update is due, and the “single source of truth” quietly becomes a chain of exports, manual reconciliations, and spreadsheet patches.
The BARC Score Integrated Planning & Analytics (IP&A) 2026 describes this gap clearly: many organizations present integrated planning and analytics as the target state, but few achieve it consistently in practice. Important analyses and checks on target achievement still require time-consuming data transfers between planning and analytics. Excel often becomes the bridge. That bridge comes at a cost: inconsistent logic, inconsistent data, and ultimately inconsistent trust.
Thesis
Most IP&A initiatives do not fail for lack of commitment. They fail because a “single source of truth” is not a tool decision. It is a decision about the data model, governance, and operating model.
What breaks first when the “single source of truth” does not hold
When IP&A does not work in practice, the same patterns show up again and again.
1) Master data remains fragmented
A unified platform cannot repair a fragmented foundation. If cost centers, product hierarchies, legal entity structures, and charts of accounts are not harmonized, planning and analytics drift apart. Business units then make local corrections. In practice, “local” often means a spreadsheet.
2) The planning model and the analytics model are not the same model
Many organizations may use one platform, but in effect they create two semantic layers:
- a planning model, optimized for write-back and workflow
- an analytics model, optimized for slice-and-dice, drill-down, and dashboards
If those layers are not managed together, one platform effectively becomes two systems.
3) Governance is treated as a document, not as a design
Governance becomes a set of documents instead of an operating system. The key questions are operational:
- Who is allowed to change driver logic?
- Who is allowed to change mappings?
- How are changes tested?
- How are changes rolled out?
- How are changes communicated?
If the answers are unclear, teams fall back on side calculations.
4) Performance problems create workarounds
Performance matters greatly for usability and adoption. If screens load slowly, calculations take too long, or reports are slow to refresh, work moves out of the platform. This is not “resistance to change.” It is rational behavior.
5) The organization remains siloed
IP&A requires integration across planning, analytics, and often other CPM processes. If planning sits in finance, analytics in IT or BI, and data management somewhere in between, the “single source of truth” becomes a coordination problem. Coordination problems create delays. Delays create shadow processes.
A pragmatic fix: coherence before coverage
Many organizations try to cover too much at once: strategy planning, FP&A, operational planning, analytics, dashboards, simulations, AI features. A more robust sequence is to build coherence first, then breadth.
Start with three priorities:
1) A centrally managed master data backbone
Ownership for master data must be clear. Stabilize hierarchies and definitions first, then expand scope.
2) A shared actuals/plan model for the most important management views
If actuals and plan are not represented in one consistent model, the most important comparison in management reporting becomes a permanent debate.
3) A change process that business users accept
The market is pushing toward self-service. Self-service only works when changes are safe. Safe changes mean:
- clear roles
- workflow
- test environments
- audit trails
One takeaway
If the “single source of truth” still consists mainly of exports and reconciliations in practice, the bottleneck is rarely the frontend.
The leverage point is the data model, governance, and clear accountability. Tools matter, but the operating model determines whether IP&A works in practice.
