MA.6 - Separate Forecasts, Targets and Resource Requests
Type: Architectural
Status: Stable
MA.6:0 - Use this when
Use this pattern when one number is expected to predict demand, express ambition and secure resources at the same time. Negotiation can then make the expected outlook hard to see.
The pattern governs the connected meanings and uses of forecasts, targets and requested or authorized resources. It returns distinguishable accounts and the gap or decision they expose.
Keep an adequate existing separation. This method does not require replacing every organizational budgeting arrangement.
MA.6:1 - Problem frame
A team may expect demand of 100, aspire to serve 120 and seek resources adequate for 130 under a higher-demand scenario. Its approved provision may support only 110. Each number can be legitimate under its own assumptions.
Their differences help people decide whether to change an action, ambition or resource arrangement. Requiring the values to agree before showing them can erase that useful information.
MA.6:2 - Problem
When a forecast is also a bargaining position, its author has reasons to bias it. A ceiling can then be mistaken for an expectation, or an ambitious target for a feasible operating plan.
The task is to distinguish the meanings and keep their consequential relationships visible.
MA.6:3 - Forces
Management needs coordination and legitimate resource control. Forecasters need to report an unwelcome expectation without automatically changing a target or losing needed options.
These accounts can use different horizons and revision rules. Their comparison requires an adequate common basis where the difference matters.
MA.6:4 - Solution
MA.6:4.1 - Recover each number’s actual use
Ask what the number is meant to do: describe an expectation, set an ambition, request resources or record an authorization. Identify the relevant participant, period, quantity and assumptions.
Use the actual meaning rather than the file’s label. A document called “forecast” can contain a negotiated spending envelope; a budget can legitimately contain several distinct accounts.
MA.6:4.2 - Give the meanings their own revision and decision rules
Construct the forecast from adequate evidence and assumptions through MA.5. Use OPS.21 when the responsible management practice needs to construct the operating aim, target or comparison; reuse a sufficient supplied basis. Obtain actual resource decisions from their holders, with OPS.13 for supported service commitments and OPS.19 when contributions compete for shared provision. State how each result is revised and who can make the relevant decision.
Separate a request from a granted resource amount and from actual usable provision. A forecast revision does not itself authorize spending.
The distinction can be made in one small table.
MA.6:4.3 - Explain the consequential gaps
Put comparable quantities on an adequate common basis. Use MA.1–2 when a workload target must be translated into resource capability and payments.
Ask what each gap means. Expected demand below a target can call for a different action or revised ambition. Required capacity above authorized provision can call for a resource decision, changed scope or an explicit adverse scenario. Preserve uncertainty and the conditions under which an apparent gap exists.
Do not close the gap by editing the expectation to equal the authorized number. Change the relevant action or decision, then forecast its warranted consequence.
MA.6:4.4 - Return the connected accounts and required decision
Show the expectation, ambition, request and authorization at enough detail to locate the next decision. Preserve the forecast’s original assumptions when a later choice changes them.
Observe whether people can now report an unwelcome expectation and whether decisions about resources take that expectation into account. MA.9 examines persistent behavioral effects; the responsible organizational practice supplies a wider change in management arrangements.
MA.6:5 - Archetypal Grounding
For one period and a supplied service mix, the team expects demand of 100 units and has an ambition to serve 120. Its resource request would provide capability for 130, to meet a possible demand surge to that level within the same period and service mix. The authorized resource arrangement supports 110, under supplied scheduling and conversion assumptions.
| Account | Meaning | Question exposed |
|---|---|---|
| 100 expected | The present demand outlook. | What action or new evidence could change it? |
| 120 targeted | The intended ambition. | Is the action plan adequate, or should the ambition be reconsidered? |
| Resources for 130 requested | Provision sought for the stated scenario. | Is that protection worth its cost under the applicable decision criteria? |
| Resources for 110 authorized | The current authorized arrangement. | What can be promised and what additional decision is needed? |
The granted 110 does not make demand 110. It also does not establish that the ambition of 120 is feasible. The team returns the resource gap to the competent decision maker while keeping the 100 forecast available.
If a changed market action warrants a new demand expectation of 115, update the forecast and explain its new assumptions. The gap against authorized capability is now five units under the supplied comparison basis. The target remains 120 and authorized capability remains 110 until the responsible people revise them under their applicable rules.
MA.6:6 - Bias-Annotation
A reformer may assume that removing a budget label removes the incentive to bias numbers. Observe the actual uses and consequences; old bargaining behavior can persist in a newly named forecast.
A controller may interpret separation as loss of control. Distinguishing an expectation from authorization makes the existing control more explicit.
MA.6:7 - Conformance Checklist
Examine whether each number’s use, period and assumptions are clear; forecasts, ambitions, requests and authorizations remain distinguishable; their comparison uses an adequate common basis; revision and authority rules are explicit where needed; and the gap leads to a meaningful decision.
Different labels alone do not establish the separation in practice. Actual use and incentives can combine the meanings.
MA.6:8 - Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them
Making the forecast equal the approved ceiling. Preserve the expectation and decide what to do about the resource difference.
Replacing one confused number with disconnected accounts. Retain the comparison and the decision each gap needs.
Treating separation as a spending grant. Obtain the authorization and usable provision required by the actual action.
MA.6:9 - Consequences
The user can see an adverse expectation, ambitious target and resource constraint together. This can improve the next decision without forcing all quantities to agree.
The change can expose previously hidden conflicts and requires people to use the numbers consistently. A wider management change may be needed if incentives continue to penalize accurate reporting.
MA.6:10 - Architectural Rationale
The meanings are separated because expectation, aspiration and authorization have different truth and decision conditions. Their relationships show which management or resource decision is needed.
A conventional budget remains usable when it preserves those distinctions for the required work. A broader Beyond Budgeting arrangement can be appropriate when its organizational and management changes address the actual problem; it is not a prerequisite for clarifying four numbers.
MA.6:11 - SoTA-Echoing
The selected line adopts the purpose separation explained by Bogsnes (2016), printed pp.139–142, and retained in the Beyond Budgeting principles. It changes §§4.1–4.3 by allowing different numbers with connected uses and decision rules.
The pattern adapts the wider organizational proposal to a small first result: a forecast, target and resource account can be distinguished before redesigning the whole management system. At that effort, the 100/120/130/110 case reveals decisions a single negotiated figure conceals. Reopen the arrangement when actual use again merges the meanings or a changed organizational context requires a wider method.
MA.6:12 - Relations
MA.5 constructs the expectation. MA.1–2 translate workload into adequate resource quantities. MA.9 examines behavioral effects. OPS.21 constructs operating aims and comparisons; OPS.22 interprets later performance. OPS.13 and OPS.19 establish supported promises and compatible provision with the actual holders of the decisions. Organization Change Engineering supplies a needed change in authority or consequences and its realization.