AI for insights and analytics
AI for FP&A is the analyst's two days of variance work answered in a sentence: what is driving the increase, how much of it is timing, which cost centres to talk to. The model chooses the measure and writes the explanation; a tool builds the bridge from the ledger, the budget and the headcount file, and the lines sum to the variance.
These are the questions FP&A teams ask. Each one maps to a measure our tools compute from your files. The AI model chooses the measure and explains the result; the arithmetic is done by our code, and every total is checked.
| The question | The measure behind it | What comes back |
|---|---|---|
| What is driving my cost increase? | Cost bridge | The change split into headcount, rates and pay, volume, timing, one-offs and other, summing exactly. |
| Which cost centres are over budget? | Cost centres over threshold | Cost centres over the threshold with the largest line and the owner. |
| How much of the variance is timing? | Timing in the variance | Items that landed in a different month and will reverse, kept separate from the real variance. |
| Where is headcount above plan? | Headcount against plan | Actual against planned FTE by cost centre and type, and whether it is numbers or rates. |
| Will the year land on current spend? | Run rate | Trailing run rate against the full-year budget, by function. |
| Where is the programme overrun coming from? | Programme position | Budget, committed, actual and EAC by workstream, with contingency drawn and the change requests behind the overrun. |
Every figure below was computed by a tool from the rows and checked before it was shown. The lines sum; the percentages match; each line opens to the rows that make it.
Where is the programme overrun coming from?
The estimate at completion is £4.3m over the 100 million budget, split across 3 workstreams that sum to the overrun. Data migration accounts for £2.3m, 53% of it.
| Data migration | £2.3m | 53% of the total |
| Core platform | £1.4m | 33% of the total |
| Integration | £600k | 14% of the total |
| The 3 lines sum to | £4.3m | 0 unexplained |
What is behind the data migration overrun?
3 items account for £2.1m of the £2.3m overrun on Data migration, 91% of it. Two are approved change requests; the third is contractor rates above the rate card.
| Change request CR-014, legacy data cleansing | £1.1m | approved; drew contingency |
| Change request CR-019, second migration wave | £700k | approved |
| Contractor rates above rate card | £300k | three vendors; 14% above |
| These 3 are | £2.1m | 91% of Data migration |
What does the programme finance lead put in the steering pack?
The bridge from budget to EAC with the change requests as their own lines, contingency drawn and remaining, and the rate card exceptions with the vendors named. The steering committee decides on the second wave; the pack makes the figures explicit.
| Programme finance lead | Put the budget-to-EAC bridge in the steering pack | Before steering |
| Workstream lead, Data migration | Challenge the three vendors on rate card | This fortnight |
| PMO | Report contingency drawn and remaining weekly | Weekly |
Each measure has one formula, one source and one meaning. They are computed per cost centre and account and in total, and every one carries an identity that must hold before it is shown.
| Measure | Formula | From | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variance to budget and forecast | Actual − budget; actual − latest forecast, by cost centre and account | Ledger actuals; budget; forecast | Where the month landed against both plans |
| Cost bridge | Change = headcount + rates and pay + volume-driven + timing + one-offs + other, summing exactly | Ledger; headcount; timing and one-off files | What is driving the cost increase |
| Headcount against plan | Actual FTE − planned FTE, by cost centre and type, with average cost | Headcount file | Where people cost is above plan, and whether it is numbers or rates |
| Timing in the variance | Sum of items landing in a different month from budget that reverse | Timing items file | How much of the variance is not real |
| One-off items | Sum of items finance has flagged as non-recurring | One-off items file | What will not repeat next month |
| Run rate | Trailing three-month actual × 4, against the full-year budget | Ledger actuals; budget | Whether the year will land, on current spend |
| Forecast accuracy and bias | Actual − forecast by month, signed and absolute, by cost centre | Forecast versions; ledger | Which cost centres forecast high or low, consistently |
| Cost centres over threshold | Cost centres more than x percent over budget, with the largest line | Ledger; budget | Who to talk to this month |
| Vendor variance | Actual − budget by vendor, with new and lost vendors | Ledger with vendor | Which suppliers drove the change |
| Programme position | Budget, committed, actual and estimate at completion by workstream | Programme budget; purchase orders; actuals; forecast | Whether a large programme will land, and where the overrun sits |
From your question and the measures declared for FP&A teams, the model picks the one that answers it, and the period and comparison the question implies.
Deterministic code reads the rows, computes the measure, and checks the identities below. The same question on the same data gives the same answer, every time.
The AI model writes the sentence around the result, naming the cost centre or account behind it. It states no figure that is not in the result, and every figure links to its rows.
| Bridge | End − start − Σ lines = 0; a residual is shown as its own line, never hidden |
| Variance | Actual − budget = real variance + timing + one-offs |
| Headcount | Actual FTE = planned FTE + variance; cost = FTE × average cost |
| Programme | EAC = actual + committed + estimate to complete; contingency drawn + remaining = contingency at start |
The exports FP&A teams already produce. Column names are mapped once and the mapping is reused. A file is the way in; scheduled delivery and connections to your systems come with the plan, and every source is listed here.
An answer is a list with an owner and a cadence, or it is a chart nobody works.
| Measures | Owner | Cadence |
|---|---|---|
| Variance and bridge | Head of FP&A; finance business partners | Monthly |
| Headcount against plan | Business partners with HR | Monthly |
| Programme position | Programme finance lead | Monthly, weekly near gates |
It removes the two days between the question and the bridge. The analyst still owns the definitions and the judgement; the tool builds the bridge from the files every month, the same way, and the model explains it in plain words with the cost centres named. The figures are the ones the analyst would have computed, because they are computed the same way.
The model never produces one. It chooses which measure answers the question and writes the sentence around a result a tool has already computed and checked. Every bridge asserts that its lines sum to the change before it is shown, and every figure links to the ledger rows it came from.
Ledger actuals by cost centre and account, the budget and latest forecast phased by month, the headcount file, and the timing and one-off items finance already tracks. For programme cost control, the budget by workstream, purchase orders, actuals and the estimate at completion.
Budget, committed, actual and estimate at completion are computed by workstream and work package, the bridge from budget to EAC shows change requests, rate variances and contingency as separate lines, and every figure reconciles to the purchase order and actuals files. A 100 million programme is a set of tables, not a special case.
Bridge · Forecast bias · Run rate · Control total · Identity · Change backlog
Bring a few thousand rows. The data map opens next, every column mapped once, and the first question is answered in minutes. Free, in your browser, no account.