IBCS Standards 2.0 (clean draft)

It is important to distinguish between slides used exclusively during a live presentation and slides that are also intended for offline reading or later distribution.

Slides that are meant to support a live presentation should contain only minimal text and serve as a visual guide for the spoken explanation. Slides that are also intended to function as a standalone document for reading may contain more extensive text, explanations, or lists. Such text-heavy slides, however, should not be used during the live presentation, but reserved exclusively for offline consumption.

I don't fully understand what "conceptual representations" mean. There is no definition.

I suggest this extended text, where my definition of conceptual representation may be wrong:

EX 3.1 PREFER QUANTITATIVE REPRESENTATIONS

Due to the time constraints usually involved with presentations, conceptual representations are often less suitable than quantitative representations such as charts, tables, photos, or maps.

In this context, conceptual representations refer to diagrams or illustrations that explain structures, relationships, or processes (e.g. box-and-arrow diagrams, process flows, conceptual models), but do not encode quantitative values in a visually comparable way.

For a one-hour presentation, do not use more than three or four conceptual representations. Use them only if they are essential for comprehension, for example to explain a system, a process, or a logical relationship that cannot be understood from numbers alone.

Whenever quantitative information needs to be communicated, the audience will understand quantitative representations such as charts or pictures (photos, drawings, etc.) better and faster, see Figure EX 3.1.

Extended text is suggested:

EX 2.5 REPLACE TRAFFIC LIGHTS
“Traffic lights” with green, red, and yellow areas are a popular form of visualization but usually contain little information relative to the space they occupy. They reduce complex situations to coarse categories and do not support quantitative comparison.

In most business reporting situations, traffic lights should therefore be replaced with more informative means of (analog) representation such as bar charts, variance indicators, or other visualizations that show magnitude and direction of deviations.

However, traffic lights can be a valid representation in specific situations, provided that their use is aligned with the analytical purpose. Their use may be appropriate under the following conditions:
- The primary objective is to indicate compliance or non-compliance with a defined target or threshold, and the magnitude of the deviation is not relevant for the decision to be made.
- The visualization is used for real-time or near real-time monitoring, where rapid status recognition is more important than detailed analysis.
- The colour yellow (or amber) is used to indicate a state close to a threshold of non-compliance, signalling the need for attention before a violation occurs.

In such cases, traffic lights function as status indicators, not as analytical charts. They should be applied consistently, based on clearly defined thresholds, and used sparingly. Whenever the magnitude, trend, or comparison of values matters, traffic lights should be replaced by more suitable visual representations.

Suggested new paragraph:

In addition, a radar chart can be a valid representation in a very limited number of cases, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
- There is an inherent and non-arbitrary order between the categories (i.e. the sequence of categories carries meaning and is not freely interchangeable).
- The chart is used to compare the dispersion or shape of values, rather than precise magnitudes.
- Several radar charts with identical structure and scale are compared side by side, allowing the reader to recognize differences in patterns across charts.

In such cases, the radar chart is used as a pattern comparison tool, not as a precise quantitative chart. Even then, its use should be limited to situations where alternative representations (such as bar charts or small multiples) would not support the intended comparison equally well.

EX 2.2 AVOID GAUGES AND SPEEDOMETERS

Gauges and speedometers are generally not suitable for business reporting because they make accurate visual comparison difficult, require excessive space for a single value, and often emphasize design over information.

In most reporting situations, values can be communicated more clearly and efficiently using simpler visual forms such as bars, columns, or variance indicators.

However, gauges or speedometers can be a valid representation under very specific conditions.

Their use may be appropriate only when all of the following characteristics are met:
- The visualization is used to display real-time or near real-time data, where the primary purpose is monitoring rather than analysis or comparison.
- The needle is used to indicate a deviation from a defined reference value, not merely an absolute value.
- The deviation is clearly encoded as a variance, using semantic colouring (e.g. green for desirable deviations and red for undesirable deviations), with the magnitude of the coloured area proportional to the deviation.
- The reference value and the meaning of the deviation are immediately clear to the audience.

In such cases, the gauge does not serve as a decorative element but as a compact deviation indicator for operational monitoring. Even then, its use should be limited to situations where alternative representations would not communicate the deviation as effectively.

The work of Stephen Few is much more important here than Zelansky

I would use "authors" instead of "writers"

Proposed extended text for CH 1.2

CH 1.2 AVOID LOGARITHMIC AXES
Avoid logarithmic scales because they do not allow a direct visual comparison of absolute values, see Figure CH 1.2.

In business reporting, the primary purpose of charts is to compare values visually and to assess differences in magnitude. Logarithmic or exponential axes distort this comparison because equal visual distances no longer represent equal absolute differences.

For this reason, logarithmic axes should generally be avoided in business charts.

The use of logarithmic or exponential axes can be justified only in specific cases where the purpose is not to compare absolute values, but to show the relative development of growth or expansion over time, especially when values span several orders of magnitude.

Typical examples include:
• comparing growth rates of different entities expressed in relative terms,
• illustrating exponential growth or decay patterns,
• showing proportional change over time rather than absolute differences.

Even in these cases, logarithmic axes should be used with caution and only when the intended audience is familiar with their interpretation. The use of such axes must be clearly indicated and aligned with the specific analytical purpose of the chart.

Extended version of SI 2.3 is provided:

SI 2.3 AVOID DECORATIVE FONTS

A normal typeface and clear fonts increase legibility. Save bold and cursive fonts for making distinctions.

Fonts used in business reporting should be simple, neutral, and easy to read, even at small sizes and on different devices. Decorative fonts reduce readability, slow down perception, and distract from the content.

Decorative fonts include, for example:
• serif fonts with pronounced strokes or ornaments,
• handwritten or playful fonts,
• display fonts designed for headlines or marketing purposes,
• fonts with visual effects, shadows, outlines, or unusual proportions.

Such fonts should be avoided in reports, dashboards, and presentations. Typical examples of fonts that are not suitable for business reporting include Times New Roman, Comic Sans, script fonts, or effect fonts.

As a general rule, use straight, sans-serif fonts without ornaments. Sans-serif fonts have a clear and uniform stroke width, no decorative endings, and support fast reading, especially on screens.

For practical reasons, fonts used in business reporting should also be:
• widely available across operating systems and tools,
• reliably rendered in different environments,
• legible at small font sizes in charts, tables, and annotations.

Commonly available fonts that typically meet these requirements include, for example:
• Arial
• Calibri
• Segoe UI
• Tahoma
• Verdana
• Roboto
• Helvetica (where available)

The list above is not exhaustive and not normative. Organizations may define their own corporate fonts, provided they meet the same criteria regarding simplicity, legibility, and availability.

Bold, italic, or other font styles should not be used decoratively but reserved exclusively for semantic distinctions, such as highlighting totals, variances, or key elements.

Suggested new paragraph:

As a consequence, IBCS Version 2.0 reflects this development by structuring its notation principles in close alignment with ISO 24896. While ISO 24896 defines normative requirements for notation, IBCS provides additional explanations, design rules, and examples to support consistent application in real-world business reporting.

New paragraph here:

With the publication of ISO 24896, the notation-related parts of IBCS are no longer presented as an alternative proposal, but as an aligned application of an international standard. In particular, the UNIFY section follows the structure and intent of ISO 24896, referring to its clauses and complementing them where additional guidance is required for practical application.

In terms of notation, the original semantic notation principles developed within IBCS have been incorporated into the international standard ISO 24896 “Notation for business reporting”. With the publication of ISO 24896, these principles have evolved from a community-driven proposal into a normative reference.

IBCS Version 2.0 therefore aligns its notation guidance with ISO 24896, using the standard as the authoritative foundation (most notably in the UNIFY section) while continuing to provide practical explanations, examples, and extensions beyond the scope of the standard.

Updated intro:

UN 5.3 UNIFY OUTLIER MARKERS
(ISO 24896, 4.3 Charts and 4.7 Highlighting markers)

ISO 24896 allows the use of markers to indicate outliers in order to avoid misleading visualizations when extreme values would otherwise distort the scale of charts.

New paragraph at the end:
Outlier markers clearly indicate that the displayed value exceeds the visible scale and that the full value is not shown. They should be used consistently across all reports to ensure correct interpretation.

Suggested intro, replacing existing paragraph:

UN 5.2 UNIFY SCALING MARKERS
(ISO 24896, 4.6 Comparisons and 4.7 Highlighting markers)

ISO 24896 requires clear and consistent notation when different scales are used or when reference values need to be made explicit in order to avoid misinterpretation.

Scaling markers help readers correctly interpret values, scales, and reference levels in charts and tables.

Scaling markers are used to indicate reference values, scaling factors, and differences in scale.

Include reference:

UN 5.1 UNIFY HIGHLIGHTING MARKERS
(ISO 24896, 4.7 Highlighting markers)

Updated intro

UNIFY 5 – UNIFY MARKERS
(Based on ISO 24896, 4.7 Highlighting markers)

ISO 24896 defines requirements for the consistent use of highlighting markers to support the understanding of differences, trends, and references in charts and tables.

Markers serve different purposes in reporting, e.g. highlighting and scaling.

(next paragraph can be removed as it is redundant with this new intro)

Updated intro:

UN 4.4 UNIFY ADJUSTMENT ANALYSES
(ISO 24896, 4.6 Comparisons – adjustment-related analyses)

ISO 24896 allows the use of comparisons that explain differences by neutralizing specific effects in order to better understand the reasons behind observed deviations.

Suggested rewording:
SELECTING
Selecting is a form of structure analysis related to ranking and is used to determine maximal or minimal categories.

STRUCTURAL AVERAGING
Structural averaging refers to the calculation of average values across structure categories.

Updated intro:

UN 4.3 UNIFY STRUCTURE ANALYSES
(ISO 24896, 4.6.3 Category comparisons)

ISO 24896 defines requirements for category comparisons in order to support the analysis of structural data such as regions, products, customers, or channels using a consistent notation.

Structure analyses are used to analyze structural data, for example comparing regions, product groups, or customer segments.

Typical structure analyses include averaging, ranking, selecting, indexing, and normalizing.

Add reference:

UN 4.2 UNIFY TIME SERIES ANALYSES
(ISO 24896, 4.6.2 Time comparisons)

Include reference:

UN 4.1 UNIFY SCENARIO ANALYSES
(ISO 24896, 4.6.1 Variances between scenarios)

Updated intro:

UNIFY 4 – UNIFY ANALYSES
(Based on ISO 24896, 4.6 Comparisons)

ISO 24896 defines requirements for the consistent notation of comparisons in business reporting in order to support the understanding of business situations such as deviations, trends, and structural relationships.

New introduction:

UN 3.4 UNIFY STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS, USE VERTICAL AXES
(ISO 24896, 4.5 Business dimensions – structure dimensions)

ISO 24896 requires the consistent notation of structure dimensions in order to support clear recognition of categorical data such as regions, products, or organizational units.

New introduction:

UN 3.3 UNIFY TIME PERIODS, USE HORIZONTAL AXES
(ISO 24896, 4.5.2 Time periods)

ISO 24896 defines requirements for the consistent notation of time periods, including the visual direction of time and the representation of different period types. Time reference is essential for understanding business information.

There are three main types of scenarios: actual scenarios, planned scenarios, and forecasted scenarios.

Proposed introduction:

UN 3.2 UNIFY SCENARIOS
(ISO 24896, 4.5.3 Scenario types)

ISO 24896 defines scenario types to allow readers to quickly recognize whether data represents measured, planned, or expected values. Consistent notation of scenarios supports correct interpretation and comparison.

IBCS maintains its original scenario notation and aligns it with ISO 24896 by defining consistent visual patterns for different scenario types.

Suggested new text

Relative measures
Relative measures such as ratios and percentages are quotients of two absolute measures.

Absolute measures

Suggested new text:

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE MEASURES
(ISO 24896, 4.5.1 Measure types)

Business measures can be classified into absolute measures and relative measures. This distinction helps readers understand the nature of the values shown and supports correct interpretation.

Absolute measures represent measured quantities expressed in absolute units such as currency units, physical units, or number of elements. Relative measures represent ratios or percentages derived from two absolute measures and express a relationship between them.

Change to absolute and relative measures, to align with ISO 24896

Add reference to ISO 24896:

UN 3.1 UNIFY MEASURES
(ISO 24896, 4.5.1 Measure types)

Add intro:
UNIFY 3 – UNIFY DIMENSIONS
(Based on ISO 24896, 4.5 Business dimensions)

ISO 24896 defines requirements for the consistent notation of business dimensions in order to enable readers to recognize different types of information without relying solely on labels.

Add intro:
UN 2.5 UNIFY FOOTNOTES
(ISO 24896, 4.2 Explanatory text elements)

ISO 24896 allows the use of explanatory text elements to provide additional information that supports understanding and credibility.

Add an intro:
UN 2.4 UNIFY ANNOTATIONS
(ISO 24896, 4.2.2 Annotations)

ISO 24896 defines annotations as explanatory text elements that provide additional context or explanations related to visuals or visual components.

Change the intro:
UN 2.3 UNIFY THE POSITION OF LEGENDS AND LABELS

(ISO 24896, 4.1.3 Legends and category labels; 4.1.4 Data labels)

ISO 24896 defines requirements for the consistent notation and placement of legends, category labels, and data labels in order to reduce unnecessary eye movement and support fast and accurate reading of charts and tables.

IBCS applies these requirements by specifying where and how legends and labels should be positioned in relation to visual components.

Simplify this last paragraph:
If more than one visual is shown on a page, aspects that apply to the whole page are placed in the page title, while aspects that apply only to a specific visual are placed in the visual title.

Subtitles may be used to add information such as scenarios or variances when this information is required for understanding.

Proposal to extend the content:

UN 2.2 UNIFY TITLES AND SUBTITLES
(ISO 24896, 4.1.2 Titles)

Titles identify the content of a report, page, slide, screen, or visual. They describe what is shown and provide the information necessary for understanding.

Titles do not contain any evaluation, interpretation, or conclusion. These aspects are reserved for key messages and annotations.

Titles typically describe:
• the reporting entity (who),
• the business measure including its unit (what),
• the time period (when).

The layout and position of titles should be unified. A common structure is to arrange “who”, “what”, and “when” on separate lines.

Add at the end:
Key messages contain explanations, interpretations, or conclusions. They do not repeat what is already visible in charts or tables.

I suggest to slightly modify this paragraph to make it less normative:
The position of the key message should be unified across all reports. A common solution is to place the key message at the top of a page, either above the title or to the right of the title in order to save vertical space, especially in landscape layouts.

I suggest to include the reference to ISO 24896 subclause under the title and rephrase slightly the first paragraph:

UN 2.1 UNIFY KEY MESSAGES
(ISO 24896, 4.2.1 Key messages)

Key messages describe the main insight or conclusion of a report, page, slide, or screen. They explain what the author wants to convey and what the reader should understand from the presented information.

Add an introduction to UN2

UNIFY 2 - UNIFY TEXT COMPONENTS
(Based on ISO 24896, 4.1 Descriptive text elements and 4.2 Explanatory text elements)

ISO 24896 defines requirements for descriptive and explanatory text elements to ensure that reports can be read and understood quickly and consistently. These requirements cover titles, key messages, legends, labels, annotations, and footnotes.

IBCS applies these requirements by defining consistent layouts and usage rules for all recurring text components used in business reporting.

Add an introduction to UN 1.2
ISO 24896 requires the consistent use of number formats, units, and date notations in all descriptive text elements. This supports legibility and avoids unnecessary cognitive effort for readers

I suggest to add an introduction to UN1
UN1 - UNIFY TERMINOLOGY
(Based on ISO 24896, 4.1 Descriptive text elements)

ISO 24896 requires organizations to standardize descriptive text elements in business reporting in order to support clarity and speed of understanding. This includes the consistent use of technical terms, abbreviations, number formats, units, and date formats across reports, dashboards, and presentations.

IBCS applies and extends these requirements by providing detailed guidance on how to unify terminology and related conventions in practice.

I suggest to add the following paragraphs at the end of the introduction:
These rules correspond to the content that has been incorporated into ISO 24896 and continue to reflect the original IBCS guidance, updated to align with the structure, terminology, and requirements of the international standard.

As a consequence, the normative foundation for semantic notation is now provided by ISO 24896. In this version of the IBCS Standards, UNIFY remains the practical guide for applying semantic notation, while explicitly referring to ISO 24896 as the authoritative normative reference. Where appropriate, IBCS complements the standard with additional explanations, examples, and established practices that support effective and consistent application in real reporting environments.

Accordingly, the content of this chapter is organized in line with Clause 4 of ISO 24896. Each section first reflects the requirements defined in the standard and then, where applicable, describes how IBCS explains, applies, or extends them in practice.

I suggest to add a new paragraph here:
With the publication of ISO 24896, Notation for business reporting, semantic notation in business communication has now been formally established as an international standard. ISO 24896 defines requirements for consistent notation across text elements, charts, tables, business dimensions, comparisons, and highlighting markers. The standard is based on long-standing IBCS principles and has been developed with active participation of the IBCS Association as an A-liaison to ISO/TC 37.

Clear differentiation: What is new? What has been clarified? What remains unchanged?

It would be helpful to:

>clearly label each rule as follows:
• New
• Substantively clarified
• Unchanged (editorial revisions only).

Why this matters:
Authors and responsible stakeholders must be able to quickly assess where genuine action is required, since not every change necessitates an operational adjustment.

Proposed comment on SUCCESS wording (IBCS v2.0)
Summary (core recommendation)

To strengthen clarity, internal consistency, and normative precision, the SUCCESS statements should be reformulated in a structurally unified, non-overlapping, and ISO-conform “shall-only” style. This ensures that the SUCCESS acronym applies its own UNIFY principle to itself, thereby improving usability, teachability, and credibility of the standard.

Rationale
1. Internal consistency and credibility

The SUCCESS framework promotes consistency (“Things that mean the same should look the same”). However, the current SUCCESS statements do not follow a uniform grammatical or structural pattern. Aligning their syntax and modality reinforces the standard’s internal coherence and demonstrates methodological integrity.

2. Conceptual clarity and separation of concerns

Some SUCCESS principles partially overlap in scope (e.g., message vs. visualization, simplification vs. condensation, consistency vs. structure). A revised wording improves conceptual separation, making each principle distinct, easier to interpret, and more consistently applicable.

3. ISO-normative language and enforceability

The current wording mixes narrative, advisory, and explanatory styles. Replacing this with a consistent “shall”-based normative formulation:
- reduces ambiguity
- increases legal and auditability robustness
- improves suitability for training, certification, and governance contexts

Proposed “shall-only” SUCCESS wording

SAY — Convey a message
Business communication shall convey a clear and explicit message rather than merely presenting data.

UNIFY — Apply semantic notation
Elements with the same meaning shall be represented consistently to enable reliable pattern recognition.

CONDENSE — Increase information density
All information required to understand the content shall, where feasible, be presented within a single page or view.

CHECK — Ensure visual integrity
Information shall be presented accurately and shall not be distorted by misleading scales, representations, or visual emphasis.

EXPRESS — Choose appropriate visualization
Visualizations shall be selected to communicate both the intended message and the underlying facts clearly and efficiently.

SIMPLIFY — Avoid clutter
Redundant, distracting, or non-informative elements shall be avoided to maintain clarity and focus.

STRUCTURE — Organize content
Content shall follow a logical structure that is consistent, mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive.

Expected benefits

This revision would:
- increase clarity and readability of the SUCCESS framework
- improve internal consistency in line with the UNIFY principle
- strengthen normative precision and enforceability
- enhance adoption, training effectiveness, and global applicability
- reinforce IBCS’s position as a methodologically rigorous international standard

I would suggest to call it "Business Reporting" to be consistent with the description of ISO 24896. "Reporting" on it's own could be too ambiguous.