Engagement Path

Clarity over rebuilds. Fix what matters first.

Engagements follow a structured progression based on the complexity and constraints of your environment.

Most engagements begin with Phase 1 — Diagnostic.

Diagram showing the F5 Logic Group engagement path for stabilizing financial planning systems, including diagnostic, optimization, architecture alignment, and ongoing system governance.

  • Clarify the Real Constraint

    Most planning systems don’t fail overnight — they accumulate drag.

    The Diagnostic is a short, focused engagement designed to identify structural constraints, performance bottlenecks, workflow friction, and cross-system inefficiencies before corrective work begins.

    Deliverables:

    • Root causes (not symptoms)

    • Immediate quick wins

    • A prioritized Fix-It-First roadmap

    This phase ensures effort is directed where it matters most.

    Most engagements begin with Phase 1 — Diagnostic. Book an intro call to determine fit.

  • Correct Logic & Workflow Friction

    Once root causes are identified, targeted corrections resolve logic breakdowns, usability friction, and workflow inefficiencies.

    This is not a rebuild. It is disciplined correction based on impact.

    Outcome:

    • Reduced manual work

    • Cleaner workflows

    • Improved reliability under pressure

  • Realign System Architecture

    When constraints are systemic — not tactical — architectural correction becomes necessary.

    This work addresses:

    • Model dimensionality

    • Data flow

    • Calculation structure

    • Cross-system boundaries

    Outcome:

    • Improved performance at scale

    • Reduced technical debt

    • Systems aligned to real operating cycles

    This phase is appropriate when incremental fixes no longer produce meaningful improvement.

  • For business-critical systems, structure degrades without active oversight.

    This phase provides ongoing structural oversight through:

    • Continuous performance tuning

    • Architectural guardrails for new enhancements

    • Priority response to emerging structural risk

    • Ongoing architectural direction and governance

    This is not reactive support. It is structural stewardship.

 
 

When This May Not Be the Right Fit

 

This approach is designed for live, business-critical planning environments.

If you are looking for:

  • A full greenfield implementation

  • A pure technical staff augmentation model

  • A large consulting team

There may be providers better aligned to those needs.

 

How Engagements Typically Progress

 

Example:

  1. Intro Call

  2. Focused Diagnostic (1–2 weeks)

  3. Targeted Correction

  4. Architecture Alignment (if needed)

  5. Ongoing Oversight (optional)

 

What Improves

 

Engagements are measured by outcomes, not activity.

  • Reduced forecast cycle time

  • Improved model performance at scale

  • Increased user trust and adoption

  • Reduced manual reconciliation effort

  • Cleaner reporting and handoffs

Most engagements begin with a focused Diagnostic.

Book an intro call to determine fit.

 

Engagement Outcomes

Engagements typically result in:

• Model size reductions and more efficient structures
• Faster calculation performance and improved responsiveness
• Simplified model architecture that is easier to maintain and extend
• Reduced complexity across planning and reporting workflows
• Systems that remain stable during critical planning and reporting cycles

Selected Engagement Examples

 

  • National Consulting Firm — Post-Implementation Reporting Rescue

    Situation:
    A redesigned Excel reporting process met formal requirements but failed under full operating scale. Consolidation was manual, reporting files exceeded 300MB, and refresh cycles required manual calculation mode.

    Action:
    Introduced automated VBA-based consolidation and rebuilt the reporting model with performance as a primary design constraint.

    Impact:
    • Manual consolidation eliminated
    • Reporting file size reduced dramatically
    • Refresh times stabilized
    • Reporting usable at full data volume

  • $4B Manufacturer — Anaplan Performance Rescue

    Situation:
    Post-implementation, the Anaplan model slowed under peak forecast cycles. Excel workarounds increased, reporting became rigid, and adoption declined.

    Action:
    Redefined system roles. Refocused Anaplan on consolidation and transformation. Replaced embedded reporting logic with structured source sheets feeding Excel and BI tools.

    Impact:
    • Model size reduced by ~50%
    • Forecast cycle time reduced from multi-week turnaround to days
    • Manual exports eliminated
    • Performance stabilized under quarter-end pressure
    • User adoption increased without retraining

  • Multi-Entity Healthcare Platform — Excel + Anaplan Architecture Realignment

    Situation:
    Excel-based reporting had been stabilized but remained difficult to scale and validate across entities.

    Action:
    Maintained Excel as the user interface while moving validation, consolidation, and governance into Anaplan. Introduced standardized templates and automated BI refresh.

    Impact:
    • Reporting refresh time cut by more than half
    • Data validation embedded at load
    • Excel file complexity reduced again
    • Automated Power BI reporting for leadership
    • Scalable architecture without forcing tool migration

All engagements are led directly by Dan Schenk, an Anaplan Certified Solutions Architect with more than two decades of experience designing and optimizing complex financial planning systems.

Learn more about the experience behind the approach.

  • Begin with clarity.

    Determine where intervention will have the greatest impact.

    Book an Intro Call