×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

IBCS Standards 2.0 (draft with tracked changes)

Please add your comments until Jan 31, 2026

Use this version of IBCS 2.0 if you want to see the changes compared with IBCS 1.2.

Powered by Konveio

Comments

Cancel

Commenting is closed for this document.

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:52PM on page 38

Answer

thanks for your suggestion. As this is bar is showing the plan we will remove this discracting bar.

in reply to Phoebe's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:47PM on page 41

Answer

There is currently no proposal for this—we are open to suggestions for future versions of the standard

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:46PM on page 57

Answer

We understand the idea well, but we start with the meaning and assign a format to it—not the other way around. This change would reverse the structure of the standards, which is something we want to avoid.

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:44PM on page 33

Answer

thanks for your suggestion. We corrected it.

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:43PM on page 8

Answer

thanks for your suggestion. We corrected it.

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:42PM on page 7

Answer

Thank you for your suggestion; however, we prefer to avoid passive constructions, which is why we are using "we."

in reply to Marc Spiel's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:41PM on page 8

Answer

Thank you for your recommendation. your are right. The description has been updated as part of the ISO definition revision of the concept.

in reply to Marc Spiel's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:37PM on page 4

Answer

thanks for your suggestion, we changed it

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:35PM on page 48

Answer

thanks for your suggestion, we reworked it - we would prefer predicted

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:31PM on page 44

Answer

Thank you for your suggestion; you are right. We had previously identified this issue through additional feedback and have updated the explanation accordingly.

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:30PM on page 25

Answer

thanks for your suggestion, we reworked it

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:30PM on page 21

Answer

thanks a lot for your correction. we changed it.

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:28PM on page 11

Answer

Thank you for your suggestion; you are right. We had previously identified this issue, which was not consistently and clearly explained, based on additional feedback and have updated the chapter to address it.

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:27PM on page 11

Answer

Thank you for your suggestion; you are right. We had previously identified this issue, which was not consistently and clearly explained, based on additional feedback and have updated the chapter to address it.

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Apr 8 2026 at 5:24PM on page 7

Answer

Thank you for your suggestion. We had previously identified this issue through additional feedback and have updated the explanations of this chapter.

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Juergen Faisst Mar 31 2026 at 6:51PM on page 93

Answer

Interesting comment. You actually claim, that reports (or parts of it) created by AI should follow exactly the same rules as if they had been created by humans. I fully agree, but this means, that AI output is not another type of reporting element, but AI is an alternative author. I'll think about it and will probably add AI in the definition of authors, claiming that AI should apply the same principles as human authors.

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Juergen Faisst Mar 31 2026 at 6:35PM on page 51

Answer

Please find the answer to you comment a little later in the document, when the idea of using different category widths for different period types is explained in more detail.
We hope to convince software vendors to no longer use horizontal category widths that depend on the space available and the number of data points, but category widths that remain consistent and indicate the period type.

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 31 2026 at 10:42AM on page 32

Resolution

thanks for your suggestion. we changed the sentence.

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 31 2026 at 10:28AM on page 23

Resolution

Thanks for your suggestion. we changed the text.

in reply to Marcus Bitterlich's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 31 2026 at 10:26AM on page 144

Resolution

Thanks for your suggestion. We changed the text according it.

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 31 2026 at 10:21AM on page 74

Resolution

Thanks for your suggestion.In fact a good idea. We put it on our list for the next version.

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 31 2026 at 10:18AM on page 52

Answer

pls find answer in comment to your first question from Jürgen

in reply to Kate Hayward's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:29PM on page 7

Resolution

Thank you for your suggestion; you are right. We had previously identified this issue, which was not consistently and clearly explained, based on additional feedback and have updated the chapter to address it.

in reply to Di Lecce Francesca's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:25PM on page 26

Resolution

you are right and we already updated a lot of the examples and we will change also this one

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:22PM on page 52

Resolution

thanks for your suggestion. We reworked it.

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:20PM on page 48

Answer

Thank you for your suggestion; however, we prefer to avoid passive constructions, which is why we are using "we."

in reply to Michael Gill's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:20PM on page 48

Answer

Thank you for your suggestion; however, we prefer to avoid passive constructions, which is why we are using "we."

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:17PM on page 26

Resolution

thanks for your suggestion, we will change the word extra into "comprementary words".

in reply to Di Lecce Francesca's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:14PM on page 11

Answer

thanks for your suggestions, but the word dimensions is bounded in other contexts and would not fit here from our point of view

in reply to Di Lecce Francesca's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:13PM on page 7

Resolution

thanks for your suggestion, we will take out this sentence of this chapter as it more distracting then helping

in reply to Di Lecce Francesca's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:13PM on page 7

Resolution

Thank you for your suggestion; you are right. We had previously identified this issue through additional feedback and have updated the description accordingly.

in reply to Di Lecce Francesca's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:11PM on page 3

Resolution

thanks for your suggestion, but we would like avoid to work with nested sentences and work with short, memorable sentences

in reply to Di Lecce Francesca's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:10PM on page 3

Resolution

thanks for your suggestion, introduction was rephrased

in reply to xavier subirats's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:08PM on page 4

Resolution

Thank you for your suggestion; you are right. We had previously identified this issue through additional feedback and have updated the description accordingly. we stay with "visualizations"

in reply to Tobias Guggemos 3's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 8:06PM on page 53

Resolution

Thank you for your recommendation. The description has already been updated as part of the ISO definition revision of the concept.

in reply to Tobias Guggemos's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 7:45PM on page 30

Resolution

Thank you for your message. Please refer to our sample list of abbreviations located beneath Figure UN1.1.

in reply to Sabina Rako 1's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 7:34PM on page 29

Resolution

Thank you for your suggestion; you are right. We had previously identified this issue, which was not consistently and clearly explained, based on additional feedback and have updated the chapter to address it

in reply to Sabina Rako 1's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 7:29PM on page 22

Resolution

Thank you for your suggestion; you are right. We had previously identified this issue through additional feedback and have updated the explanation accordingly.

in reply to Sabina Rako 1's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 7:22PM on page 21

Resolution

Thank you for your suggestion; you are correct. We had already recognized this through other feedback and have revised the chapter and the description of the SUCCESS structure, including its wording and explanation.

in reply to Sabina Rako 1's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 7:18PM on page 7

Resolution

Thank you for your recommendation; you are correct. We had already recognized this issue, which was not clearly described, through further feedback and have revised the chapter accordingly

in reply to Raphael Branger's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 7:07PM on page 7

Resolution

Thank you for your suggestion; you are right. We had previously identified this issue based on additional feedback and have updated the chapter.

in reply to Phoebe's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 6:59PM on page 11

Resolution

Thank you for your suggestion; you are correct. We had already recognized this through other feedback and have revised the chapter.

in reply to Philipp Egger's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 30 2026 at 6:52PM on page 3

Resolution

Thank you for your suggestion; you are correct. We had already recognized this through other feedback and have revised the chapter and the description of the SUCCESS structure, including its wording and explanation.

in reply to Christian Niedermaier's comment

Cornelia Neeser Mar 13 2026 at 10:44AM on page 6

Resolution

thanks for your suggestion, already realized and inserted

in reply to Ronald 5's comment

Juergen Faisst Mar 6 2026 at 12:09PM on page 64

Resolution

Rejected. Structural indexing has nothing to do with structural averaging. However, ths misunderstanding probably occurs because the charts look so similar. This is why I changed the chart for structural indexing by adding % signs and setting one of the bars to 100%.

in reply to Ronald 5's comment

Juergen Faisst Mar 6 2026 at 11:59AM on page 63

Resolution

This is under discussion for long time. Unfortunately, neither the Greek letter \(\mu \) (mu) nor the \(\overline{x}\) (x-bar) are common in business, too. However, we shouldn't require the application of a specific average sign but reduce the rule to the level of using a consistent notation (whatever it is) throughout an organization. I've changed the sentence accordingly.

in reply to Ronald 5's comment

Juergen Faisst Mar 6 2026 at 11:51AM on page 60

Resolution

Sure. All dates in the document have been updated.

in reply to Ronald 5's comment

Juergen Faisst Mar 6 2026 at 11:50AM on page 60

Resolution

Accepted. All poster pictures will be updated.

in reply to Ronald 5's comment

Juergen Faisst Mar 6 2026 at 11:49AM on page 59

Resolution

While I see your point, this would require adding titles to all these more illustrative charts. In order to keep the focus on the specific details the charts should illustrate, I would prefer not doing this.

in reply to Ronald 5's comment

Juergen Faisst Mar 6 2026 at 11:45AM on page 58

Resolution

Correct. Changed.