Awarded Best EPM Implementation Partner – MCA region at BOARD Global Partner Summit 2026
Didn’t find what you’re looking for? Let us know your needs, and we’ll tailor a solution just for you.
When working with clients on Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) implementations, one of the most common questions finance leaders ask is:
“Should we use a top-down or bottom-up planning approach?”
It’s a great question—and one that reveals a lot about how organizations balance strategy and execution.
Each method has its strengths, weaknesses, and ideal use cases. But the real power lies in knowing when to use which, and ultimately, how to combine both to create a more effective and adaptive planning framework.
In this blog, we’ll break down the two approaches with examples, compare them across key factors, and explain why high-performing finance teams are increasingly turning to hybrid planning models.
Let’s start with a quick comparison:
| Planning Factor | Top-Down Planning | Bottom-Up Planning |
| Who Drives It? | Senior executives (CFOs, CEOs) | Functional leaders and operational teams |
| How It Works | Leadership sets high-level targets; teams align accordingly | Teams build detailed plans based on actual data and forecasts |
| Speed | Fast – ideal for tight deadlines and quick reforecasts | Slower – requires cross-functional input |
| Accuracy | May miss operational nuances | High – based on real-world assumptions and data |
| Team Involvement | Limited engagement | High collaboration and ownership |
| Best Suited For | Strategic planning, board reporting | Budgeting, forecasting, cost control, operational execution |
To make this tangible, let’s compare the two approaches using a hotel revenue planning scenario:
Assumes revenue based on external market data:
Expected Revenue = Total Market Size × Target Market Share
For example, if the national market is $500M and your goal is to capture 2% of it, your expected revenue is $10M.
Builds revenue based on actual operational metrics:
Expected Revenue = Rooms Sold × Average Revenue per Room
Rooms Sold = Number of Rooms × Occupancy Rate
For example:
100 rooms × 75% occupancy × $150 per room × 365 days = ~$4.1M
Here’s the truth: Both approaches are essential—and neither is sufficient on its own.
Think of them as yin and yang—interdependent forces that, when integrated, create a more complete and effective planning system.
More and more finance teams are moving away from rigid, single-style planning and embracing hybrid models that combine both approaches. Here’s why:
Hybrid planning allows you to set ambitious top-level goals while ensuring that they are grounded in operational feasibility.
Example: A CEO may set a revenue growth target of 15%. Finance and operations teams can then model what that growth requires—be it increased headcount, better conversion rates, or expanded capacity.
By blending top-down and bottom-up inputs, you stress-test your assumptions from multiple angles. This helps:
Involving both senior leaders and departmental teams leads to stronger ownership, increased transparency, and better execution of the plan.
When top-down and bottom-up planning work together, your finance team gains:
Whether you’re budgeting for next quarter or building a long-term financial model, hybrid planning offers the flexibility and accuracy modern finance teams need.
Want to plan smarter for FY25 and beyond?
Let PPN Solutions show you how hybrid planning can transform your finance strategy