Case Study: FictoCorp Industries
The fictional company used in every lab — profile, hierarchy, and your role
Getting StartedCase Study10 min
Company Profile
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Industry | Global Manufacturing |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, CA |
| Revenue | $450M annually |
| Employees | ~500 (job-based headcount planning) |
| Entities | FictoCorp USA · FictoCorp EMEA |
| Departments | Sales & Marketing · Operations · G&A |
| Products | Hardware (H1, H2) · Software (S1, S2) |
| Customers | Enterprise · Commercial |
| Base Currency | USD |
| Reporting Currencies | USD · EUR · GBP |
| Planning Scope | Full 3-statement: Revenue/COGS + OpEx + HC + CapEx + BS/CF |
Planning Challenges
FictoCorp is migrating to Anaplan IFP v2.0. Their pain points:
- Manual, disconnected P&L and headcount planning — Finance and HR use separate spreadsheets
- No unified balance sheet view — cash flow is done in Excel after close
- CapEx tracked in a separate system with no P&L linkage
- Multi-currency consolidation takes 3 days per cycle due to manual rate lookups
- Cannot model scenarios quickly enough for CFO weekly review
Hierarchy Structure
Entity Hierarchy (2 levels)
- Total FictoCorp
- FictoCorp USA
- FictoCorp EMEA
Department Hierarchy (3 levels)
- All Departments
- Sales & Marketing → Direct Sales · Marketing · Partner Sales
- Operations → Manufacturing · Supply Chain · Quality
- G&A → Finance · HR · IT · Legal
Product Hierarchy (2 levels)
- All Products
- Hardware → H1 Industrial · H2 Commercial
- Software → S1 Platform License · S2 SaaS
Your Role
You are an Anaplan implementation consultant engaged to deploy IFP v2.0 for FictoCorp. You will configure the Application Framework, set up ADO pipelines, and walk the FictoCorp finance team through their new planning environment.
ℹ Lab A vs Lab B
Lab A deploys Revenue/COGS + OpEx + HC only — no CapEx, no Balance Sheet. Lab B adds full 3-statement scope. Start with Lab A to learn the core configuration flow before adding complexity.