Executive Summary
Planning in many mid-sized companies looks stable on the surface but often depends on a few key people, manual Excel logic, and assumptions that don’t adapt when the environment changes. When volatility hits (cost shocks, supply issues, customer changes), hidden weaknesses appear: delays, conflicting numbers, unclear assumptions, and a lack of alignment between Sales, Operations, and Finance.
This is not a tool problem. It’s a process resilience problem.
Key issues
– Planning depends on individuals, not standardized processes
– Annual budgeting locks the organization into outdated assumptions
– Sales, Operations, and Finance use different baselines
– Volatility exposes undocumented logic and inconsistent data
– New tools amplify old habits rather than fixing them
What pragmatic companies do differently?
The most resilient mid-sized firms modernize planning quietly and gradually. They:
– Strengthen ownership and clarify responsibility
– Document key assumptions and hidden logic
– Reduce dependency on one or two “Excel experts”
– Unify baselines across Sales, Operations, and Finance
– Shorten planning cycles and adjust more frequently
– Improve from inside the process, not through disconnected side projects
The goal
Not transformation for its own sake. But reliable planning that holds up when things change, producing forecasts leadership can trust under pressure.
Planning in Mid-Sized Companies: Stable on the Surface, Fragile Under Pressure
In many mid-sized, engineering-driven companies, the planning process appears stable. Reporting cycles run on time. Budgets are approved. Forecasts follow a familiar routine. Everything seems predictable and well controlled.
But beneath that surface lies a quiet paradox: planning works reliably only if the environment stays calm.
And in today’s markets where supply chains shift, costs move quickly, and customer demand becomes less predictable that assumption no longer holds. The gap between perceived stability and actual resilience has become one of the most overlooked risks in the Mittelstand and other mid-sized industrial firms.
This article explains why planning becomes fragile, how volatility exposes hidden weaknesses, and what pragmatic companies do differently when they modernize planning without unnecessary disruption.
Stability Built on People, Not Process
When you ask a mid-sized company, “Who understands our planning best?”, the answer is rarely “the process.” It’s usually a few names.
Behind almost every forecast are two or three individuals who know:
– Which drivers actually matter.
– The unwritten adjustment rules.
– The manual corrections that keep numbers consistent.
– The exceptions stored in memory rather than documentation.
This expertise doesn’t live in a shared system. It lives in:
– Personal Excel files
– Informal conversations
– Local workarounds
– Experience accumulated over years
As long as these people remain in their roles, the system looks stable. But this is not process stability, it’s personal stability masking process fragility.
The risk becomes real when someone:
– Changes departments
– Goes on parental leave
– Retires
– Or simply has less capacity during a critical month
Then delays appear, inconsistencies show up, and leadership starts questioning the numbers. The illusion of stability collapses.
Volatility Exposes Hidden Weaknesses
Planning processes in mid-sized companies were built for a slower, more predictable world. When volatility increases, these structures get tested. Common triggers:
– Sudden energy or material cost changes
– Unexpected customer order shifts
– Supplier delays or failures
– Production bottlenecks
– Major project slippages
When these occur, companies discover that their “stable” process cannot adjust quickly enough. Typical symptoms:
– Data takes too long to collect
– Assumptions are unclear or undocumented
– Sales, Operations, and Finance each present different numbers
– Finance shifts from planning to firefighting
– Leadership loses trust and requests manual fixes
Volatility doesn’t create planning weakness. It simply reveals it.
Annual Budget Thinking Amplifies Fragility
The annual budget is a tradition in many organizations: set targets → align stakeholders → lock the plan. The problem with that? The world no longer respects annual cycles. When markets shift every few weeks, annual budgeting becomes:
– A negotiation tool
– A static reference point
– An anchor that people hesitate to update
Mid-year updates feel heavy and disruptive, so outdated assumptions stay in place longer than they should. Planning begins to lag reality. Not because of incompetence, but because the process was not designed for continuous adjustment.
Misalignment Between Sales, Operations, and Finance
Most planning issues begin long before Finance builds a forecast. Each function uses a different lens:
– Sales → opportunity-based
– Operations → capacity-based
– Finance → target- and risk-based
None of these is wrong. But without a shared baseline, they drift apart. When the environment is calm, these differences remain hidden. Under pressure, they block decision-making. Some common signs are:
– Different departments bring different numbers
– Explanations take too long
– Meetings turn into alignment sessions rather than decision sessions
A planning process looks stable only when internal tensions remain small. Volatility brings those tensions into daylight.
Why New Tools Don’t Fix Old Planning Habits
When planning feels fragile, many companies jump to tools: “Maybe we need a new planning system.” Tools are valuable, however, only after the underlying logic is clear. But without the below factors, a new system won’t work and instead simply automate confusion:
– Consistent ownership
– Defined assumptions
– Aligned drivers
– A stable planning rhythm
This is why many ERP or planning-tool upgrades:
– Raise expectations
– Increase visibility
– But also increase the visibility of inconsistencies
Technology supports good processes. Technology cannot create them.
How Pragmatic Companies Modernize Planning
The most resilient mid-sized companies don’t chase hype or launch sweeping transformations. They modernize quietly, gradually, and with respect for what already works.
These companies consistently:
a) Strengthen ownership – Define who owns the planning process—not just the reports.
b) Document the real logic – Drivers, assumptions, manual adjustments, exception rules.
c) Reduce dependency on individuals – Standardize steps. Add backup capability. Move critical logic into shared systems.
d) Create one shared baseline – Sales, Operations, and Finance start from the same assumptions.
e) Shorten the planning rhythm – Shift from annual thinking to more frequent, lighter updates.
f) Improve from inside the cycle – Introduce new tools or models within the existing planning rhythm—not as side pilots that never integrate.
This approach builds reliability, not disruption. Which is exactly what pragmatic companies value.
Practical First Steps for Mid-Sized Companies
You don’t need a large program to begin modernizing. Start with three questions:
1. Where are we dependent on one or two key people? Document their logic and reduce single-point dependency.
2. Where do Sales, Operations, and Finance diverge? Create one shared baseline.
3. How often do we adjust assumptions? Add a simple monthly or quarterly review focused on key drivers.
From there, you can explore (Important: only once the planning behavior is stable).
– Integrated planning tools
– Writeback in Power BI
– Scenario models
– Automated data flows
– More robust data governance
Closing Thought: Planning Should Hold When Things Change
A planning process that works only under stable conditions is not truly a planning process. It’s a habit that has not yet been tested.
A resilient planning process:
– Adapts quickly
– Maintains clarity across departments
– Supports leadership with trustworthy numbers—even under pressure
For many mid-sized companies, this is the modernization they quietly need: not flashy tools or big transformations, but reliable processes that stay strong when it matters most.
Frequently Asked Questions: Planning in Mid-Sized Companies
Why planning looks stable in mid-sized companies
Q1: Why do planning processes in mid-sized companies appear stable but fail under pressure?
Answer: Because most planning stability comes from individual people, not standardized processes. Mid-sized companies often rely on a few experts who hold critical knowledge in personal files or memory. When conditions change or when those individuals are unavailable, the entire process becomes fragile.
In many engineering-driven firms, these individuals understand the real drivers, exceptions, and manual adjustments that keep numbers aligned. This creates an illusion of stability that disappears once volatility enters the system.
How dependency on individuals creates hidden risk
Q2: What risk is created when planning depends on a few key people?
Answer: The planning process becomes brittle, slow to adjust, and vulnerable to knowledge gaps. Key assumptions and logic aren’t documented, workflows aren’t standardized, and only a few employees understand why the output “looks right.”
This works in calm conditions but any disruption reveals the fragility. Even temporary absences can trigger delays, inconsistencies, and loss of trust in the numbers.
How volatility exposes planning weaknesses
Q3: How does volatility expose weaknesses in mid-sized planning processes?
Answer: Volatility forces companies to adapt quickly, and rigid processes cannot keep up. Sudden changes in material costs, customer demand, or supplier reliability highlight where planning depends on manual steps and outdated assumptions.
Common symptoms include slow data collection, conflicting numbers across departments, and last-minute firefighting. Volatility doesn’t cause the weakness—it simply makes it visible.
Why annual budgeting creates planning fragility
Q4: Why is annual budgeting a problem for mid-sized companies today?
Answer: Because modern markets change faster than annual budgets can adjust.
Annual budgeting locks assumptions for a full year, even when conditions shift monthly. Updating the plan mid-year is often avoided because it’s too heavy, political, or technically painful. The result: outdated assumptions stay in place, and leadership makes decisions with old information.
Misalignment between Sales, Operations, and Finance
Q5: Why do different departments often produce conflicting numbers?
Answer: Because Sales, Operations, and Finance use different baselines and planning logic. Sales plan around opportunity, Operations around capacity, and Finance around targets. Without one shared starting point, these perspectives drift apart—especially under pressure. Misalignment slows decisions and erodes confidence in forecasts.
Why new tools fail to fix old planning habits
Q6: Why don’t new planning tools solve underlying planning problems?
Answer: Tools automate existing logic; they cannot replace missing discipline or ownership. Without aligned assumptions, clear definitions, and process ownership, a new tool simply exposes inconsistencies faster.
Many ERP or planning upgrades fail because they amplify unclear processes instead of improving them.
What pragmatic companies do to modernize planning
Q7: How do pragmatic mid-sized companies successfully modernize planning?
Answer: They focus on small, practical improvements instead of big transformations. Successful companies do the following:
– Strengthen ownership
– Document real planning logic
– Reduce dependency on individuals
– Align baselines across functions
– Shorten planning cycles
– Integrate improvements into the actual process
This approach increases reliability without disrupting what already works.
First steps for companies that want more resilient planning.
Q8: What are the first practical steps to make planning more resilient?
Answer: Reduce single-person dependency, align baselines, and increase update frequency. Start by documenting key logic, defining shared assumptions, and introducing monthly or quarterly driver reviews. These small steps create immediate improvement and prepare the organisation for future tooling or integration efforts.
What defines a resilient planning process
Q9: What does resilient planning look like in mid-sized companies?
Answer: It adapts quickly, stays aligned across departments, and maintains trust even under pressure.
Resilient planning combines stability with flexibility. It avoids manual bottlenecks, reduces conflicting numbers, and ensures leadership can act confidently when conditions change. The goal is not a flashy transformation, it’s a planning process that holds up when things get difficult.