Ariane Martineau 0:00:04.3: 

[Recording begins abruptly] …or not slight French accent. I am based in Montreal covering our clients in the Quebec Province but I'm also very happy to be Coca-Cola's account executive. Kathy is actually one of the very first customers that I met - started at Anaplan and so I'm very happy to be here hosting this session on Bubbles to Balance Sheets. Over the last couple of years I think we've seen an acceleration in companies/organizations fast-tracking their financial planning transformation and embracing new technologies like Anaplan, new processes, new methodologies. All of this to really adapt to a changing world. It's always been changing, right, but I think the pace of change has been accelerating tremendously since COVID. I think Coca-Cola is one of the best examples of harnessing that change and making sure that they can adapt rapidly. 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:01:08.2: 

Yes, Coca-Cola Canada not only has changed their entire financial planning and analysis processes, but they've also established a thriving Anaplan Centre of Excellence, or COE as we will call it today. Why don't we start with you, Kathy, if you can tell us a bit more about your journey with Anaplan, and your role at Coca-Cola?

 

Kathy Do 0:01:30.3: 

Thank you, Ariane. Can you guys hear me? I just want to make sure. Great. As Ariane introduced me, I'm Kathy Do, the Centre of Excellence Lead at Coke Canada. I've been doing this role for two and a half years, now. Started with the Coke system 15 years ago as a database coordinator out in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympic Games activation. I like to think of that as a foreshadowing to my career today. I'm a database coordinator now in a sense. Through the years, I've worked in frontline sales and operational finance, initially managing the Vancouver P&L and then the entire province of British Columbia, and finally moving to Toronto to take care of HQ Opex. From there, varying projects, and things going on at the Coke company - I had a role in reporting and analytics which turned into a business transformation role. We were moving from legacy reporting systems to, at the time, SAP HANA. I led that strategy change and have worked in the IT finance cross-section for the last few years. 

 

Kathy Do 0:02:35.2:

I was part of the inaugural business solutions team, and my former manager is here from that. Basically, becoming the functional and process optimization expert for the business and really being the bridge between a function - for myself, it was finance - and the IT team. That was a great segway into being appointed the COE Lead when our Anaplan implementation came into the project in the second year of when we launched and have been leading a team since then. I have two model builders, Shubham who's here today - he's actually just been certified Solutions Architect as of last week, so very proud of him. We have another model-builder as well, but that's us in a nutshell. 

Ariane Martineau 0:03:16.9: 

Thank you. We have new friends. Great. There is some room here in the front if you're not too shy. Come in. Come in. Actually, everyone that's arriving now, you're getting in at the perfect time because I think Kathy has a little surprise for us, I think. As we were prepping for this session one of the questions I wanted to ask Kathy was, 'Well, why don't you tell us about Coca-Cola's mission.' She said, 'Well, I have something even better,' so, let's hope it works. 

 

Kathy Do 0:03:43.9: 

For sure. You've heard of the Coke brand, I'm sure. Working for one of the most recognizable brands in the world is certainly a privilege. You may know that we make, distribute, merchandise and sell the most loved beverages that Canadians enjoy. You may be surprised but we are actually a family-owned business with a mission to deliver optimism, create a better future, delivering sustainable value to our employees, customers, to consumers and communities. I can talk to you a little bit more about the company but we have this very nifty video that our [?PAC 0:04:14.8] team put together, so let's roll the video. 

[Video shown 0:04:18.7 to 0:06:48.7]

 

 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:06:50.9:

How about we start with you telling us about your journey with Anaplan at Coke Canada. Maybe tell us a bit about why Anaplan was selected, what [?about 0:07:01.5] the initial use cases that you guys focus on and where you are today and where you want to go. 

 

Kathy Do 0:07:05.8:

Absolutely. A little bit before the time that I joined the Anaplan Centre of Excellence, our FP&A team was looking for a solution to really automate our budgeting and rolling forecast processes. I'm sure this is a familiar use case to many, just moving off of desperate spreadsheets into some sort of integrated planning system and automation. Many platforms were evaluated and, at the end of 2020, Anaplan was selected and we began our implementation journey with Anaplan company and our partners [unclear word 0:07:44.0] at the time. One thing, off the bat, is our team was really looking for an end-to-end FP&A solution. Think about P&L. They wanted every single line item to have a bottoms-up model. You can imagine that that is a lot of work. Our initial one-year journey that we thought it would take to go from spreadsheets to a full system, ended up taking three years. 

 

Kathy Do 0:08:12.1:

We took a hard look at what we wanted to do and said, 'You know what, we really need to phase this out to give our business teams time to actually provide user stories, tests, adapt to the system, trust it.' We ended up spreading out our Anaplan journey into three years. You can see from the honeycombs, in the first few years, we really focused on supply chain planning; that is a huge part of our business. We really need to know how much our cost of goods are. We had models that did things like converting demand plan into production plan; layering on things like capacity, labor assumptions, transportation costs, everything it takes to deliver our products to our customers. The amount of detail that took was very intensive on the users to provide user stories and tests while they're still doing their day job. Year 1 was difficult in our implementation journey. 

Kathy Do 0:09:17.0:

That's why, when we came to Year 2, it was needed to establish a COE to really stabilize what we had already built and, also, just continue building trust in the system. You can imagine that a team of finance users who are very accustomed to their own spreadsheets and their way of doing things has a hard time of adopting to a new system; so, we had a lot of resistance off on the first year and that's really why we needed to have a COE. Another focus of our COE is to make sure that we were staged to take over the models. We had a lot of support, obviously, from our partners building the architecture and the initial use cases, but we knew that our goal was to be 100 per cent independent at some point and eliminate, really, our reliance on partners. Summer of 2022, I was asked to run the COE. I sadly left Gina's team and then joined the Anaplan team. I remember actually going to the Anaplan conference, having no idea what Anaplan was. It was my first week on the role that I'm learning about this platform. 

Kathy Do 0:10:23.7:

Then, coming back and putting the team together. We hired two model builders of the bat and then continued our journey. I'll talk about the make-up of the team in a little bit. You could see from some of our use cases as we go along, we're really focusing on every single model that builds the P&L. As we entered 2022, the focus there was stabilize and just create trust. My team took that year to learn what was built, dive into the formulas ourselves, understand what was going on, but we didn't really model-build that year. We were really partner-reliant. As we headed into Year 2, as an established COE, we did a focus shift. That was the year that anything new, any new models, my team would build. That way, they could leave their mark on the models. We can have full ownership of what's new and we can be there to fix them and enhance them as needed. We would understand what we built. Then, our partners switched their focus from new builds to stabilization. 

Kathy Do 0:11:25.3:

Anything they had built before, they were responsible for making sure they work and, if we had enhancements on those, they would take care of those. Then, into this year, 2024, we shifted our focus again to pretty well become 100 per cent reliant. Sorry, 100 per cent independent. We don't use partners anymore. Everything that we build is in-house, even the enhancements from initial builds, we do that. This year, we've changed a little bit. We've established a governance routine to make sure anything new has a proper ROI and we've prioritized it with the business needs. We've also taken time to survey our users, now that we're in Year 3, to really ask them how they feel about Anaplan. There are some models, we've realized, that they still didn't trust or like, or just found annoying to use. We took an honest look at all of that and we said, 'You know what, let's just rebuild them. We have the skill set now.' We actually scrapped two of the established models and just rebuilt them. 

 

Kathy Do 0:12:29.3:

From start to finish, now that we have the skill set in-house, we rebuilt our operating expensive model in maybe six or seven weeks and put it out into production. It's being utilized, actually, right now for our business plan. Some of our other models, complex models, people didn't trust the numbers so instead of just patching and patching, we're just, scrap and rebuild. Lots of work happening this year and we'll continue to do that because we just want to continue improving and making the experience the best for our employees as possible.

 

Ariane Martineau 0:13:00.6:

Yes, keeping busy. 

 

Kathy Do 0:13:01.8: 

Yes. 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:13:04.5:

One thing you said to me the first time we met, and that really resonated with me because I was new to the Anaplan ecosystem, was that at Coca-Cola Canada, Anaplan was a finance tool but, first and foremost, it was a business tool. Can you, perhaps, expand on that? What do you mean by it and…? 

 

Kathy Do 0:13:22.0:

For sure. This is something that's taken a little bit of time for me to really convince the business about; about when we embarked on this journey of Anaplan, it was really there to be an FP&A tool, so, for the finance team to help them with their processes. Me, coming from an IT background, what I realized is we need to position the tool as just another solution in our overall toolkit. That means, you know what, if Anaplan isn't going to be adopted by the business, let's say, for reporting - because our business is very accustomed to PowerBI - let's not force that conversation. Let's make sure that all of our data can be integrated back into our PowerBI models and reporting visualizations. Let's make sure that we're using Anaplan as part of an end-to-end solution. For me, when we have a business problem to solve, I don't think, I need to solve all of it in Anaplan; it's just part of the toolkit. 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:14:19.4:

Thank you. I think you've told us a bit about it throughout this timeline here, but I think COE and the establishment of a thriving COE like you have at Coca-Cola is on many of our customers' minds and even potential new Anaplan customers. Can you tell us a bit more about how you've built that team, found your model-builders and just established that COE?

 

Kathy Do 0:14:46.2:

For sure. As I mentioned before, when I was appointed the COE lead, I didn't really have any Anaplan background or really knew much about the company. Of course, I had to spend time learning about its functionality and what it can offer our company. I did come with a data and reporting systems background at Coke Canada, so my superpower was coming in, understanding our datasets and what systems talked to what and how our data structures work. Then, we purposefully wanted to hire somebody very technical. Maybe doesn't have Coke business knowledge but has all of the Anaplan knowledge. Luckily, we landed on Shubham here. He came to us as a Level 3 Certified, so it was fantastic to have him on board. He immediately took a look at some of our models and worked on data stabilization with us. You'd probably be surprised to know that even in June of 2022, when our COE was established, a year after we launched, some of our data was in updating. 

 

Kathy Do 0:15:44.2:

Shubham took care of that, right off the bat, as someone who could just look at our systems and figure out what needed to be done. We also hired somebody from the business; so, somebody who came from a finance supply chain who had knowledge of providing user stories, of understanding and working with the Anaplan partner. We scooped him up and brought him on to the team so that we would have both sides of our skill set for our three-person COE. We had somebody very technical. We had someone who had been working in the business for a while. Then, we had myself. The three of us, we've worked today now almost three years. Just lots of good interaction, sharing knowledge and coaching each other and building our COE in that way. If you can do something like that, that's a big recommendation from me to really make sure you have both sides, technical and business. They don't have to be the same person because that's a unicorn that's hard to find sometimes but putting that team together. 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:16:42.0:

Any other advice from a COE-establishment perspective? 

 

Kathy Do 0:16:46.7: 

I think one thing that I realized when we started is we had to just humble ourselves that our implementation, off the bat, was very stressful for our business; it really was. If you can imagine trying to write user stories for a full P&L bottoms-up, trying to do the budget at the same time, trying to do their day jobs. Our finance team was completely overwhelmed when we launched Anaplan. I came into the team, and it was a lot of, 'Why did you take this job? It's very… Why?' Anyway, so my thing right off the bat is, 'We're going to be as if we're in hyper-care all the time. We're going to treat all of our end-users like high-touch customer service all the time,' and we're still like that. If someone has a question, they have an idea, we're going to listen and we're going to act on it right away. 

 

Kathy Do 0:17:39.5:

At the end of the day, I needed to rebuild trust in our systems, in our Anaplan implementation, and just show our users that, if you trust and we take your feedback and we act on it - and it's a two-way process - we're going to enhance these models for you. We're going to make it better. It might be a little tough now but it's going to get better. Over the years, users who have worked with us, they are now more willing to trust the system. Also, now that they know this platform way better, give us suggestions that we can enable pretty quickly. They're more part of the process. In the past, it maybe felt like it was a system being handed down. Now, our finance team feels like they're part of the journey to helping us create better models.

 

Ariane Martineau 0:18:29.5: 

Thank you. Do we have…? 

 

Kathy Do 0:18:32.8:

Do you want me to go to the next slide? 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:18:34.7: 

Sure. I think that's the - anything you wanted to highlight, here, Kathy?

 

Kathy Do 0:18:45.2:

Yes, I think that first point is something I just talked about. It's just really building users' trust and adoption. This year, we introduced governance and, as part of that, we made sure we're gathering feedback on a timely basis. After every forecast cycle, after every BP we ask, 'How did it feel? Just how did you feel? Was it better or worse than last time?' If someone says, 'It felt the same, or worse,' then we go and talk to them and say, 'Why? What can we do to alleviate that?' We want the budgeting and planning process to be as seamless as possible, as automated as possible, and just not annoying to use. I think if you were a finance person in the past and you've had to deal with just that annoying system, it's really hard to disengage and go back to your old spreadsheets and then load in the numbers. We want to make sure people feel that they're being heard and we're acting on it. Then, one thing that we're really focusing on this year is, for all the models that were built years ago, let's maybe reevaluate them and maybe simplify not just the models, but their planning process. 

 

Kathy Do 0:19:48.2:

Does it need to be that detailed? Does it need to be so complicated now that we're three years down the line? Are we okay with saying, 'Let's just not do it like that. Let's just simplify and really use the power of automation and Anaplan to rebuild things.' That's okay. We don't have to feel any attachment or loyalty to what was there. The beauty of the platform is you can just change it and do it again. 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:20:12.3: 

Thank you. Any questions from the audience? 

 

Audience 0:20:15.9:

Hi, my name is Leo, in Scotiabank. I'm very impressed what you have done. My question, and probably leveraging from your background in the technology side, how easy is it to integrate Anaplan with the rest of the ecosystem? I understand you have other systems, ERPs, etc. How has been that your main integrations…? 

 

Kathy Do 0:20:40.1:

To be honest, one thing we made sure, and this was a little bit before my time, and I thank the IT team before that for making this established is, we have one source of truth of data. Whether it comes from different systems, it needs to go to Snowflake, and that's our data warehouse. Whether it's coming from SAP, some of our other tools, we need to land that data in Snowflake. I'm sure you guys are familiar with people who have their own set of master data. Sometimes you have to create lots of mapping tables to use that. What we say is, 'If you're going to have non-system master data, at least load it in Snowflake so it starts at the same spot.' In that way, we build all of our data intake via Snowflake, so I can always go back and pinpoint exactly when the point of data went wrong. Is it something Anaplan did? Did our datahub fail or was it actually wrong in Snowflake? Then, we can go back to what provided that data. We try to do that pretty well with everything. 

 

Audience 0:21:46.5:

Hello. I'm Dan from Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The question I have for you is - you mentioned you have a team of three, right? What's your experience regarding change management? You know you develop a model and then you throw it out to the finance team, right? They work in a different world to yours. You are technology and you want to implement that. I would like to hear from you what kinds of challenges did you face there and, eventually, what kind of penetration do you have in the organization from a technology perspective? I would be assuming that Coca-Cola has different business units and stuff so you might not get buy-in right away with all the teams, especially the teams which are strategic in nature. They are more resistant to new changes. They have their targets, budgeting and things like that. I would like to hear from you.

 

Kathy Do 0:22:43.5: 

To be honest, it was very challenging the first year. The change management was difficult. Even though our finance users were the ones writing the user stories and our partners built the models, for some models, when they got the end product, I think users were like, 'Oh, that's not better than my Excel file, and that didn't feel good to actually do the plan.' It has been challenging. What I would say is, 'That's why we do the surveys every single forecast cycle,' just to be like, 'Would you just change it if you could?' I realize some of the things people found annoying were just layout issues. They were like, 'Why do I have to scroll up and down? Can you just not make it separate pages? Why is this so complicated? There is too much clutter on the UX page.' Things like that, we tackle right away. You just don't want someone to feel like they're just touching things more than they really need to. For some of our models so, for example, supply chain, we actually do have supply chain demand planners and supply planners entering their inputs by themselves. 

 

 

Kathy Do 0:23:52.0:

While we're trying to cost out our supply-chain cost, some of the assumptions - for example, line capacity - we need the end users who come from our business to do that. They interact with our system. They're the ones preventing and vetting the numbers and then it spits out the financials on the other side. So, making sure that our end users - whether they're finance or not - feel good about their experience in using the model. Then, as I mentioned before, if there is resistance… For example, we had an operating expense model that just everyone didn't like. They just really disliked it. They were like, 'It works. It does the trick.' That's it. No better feedback than that. We were just like, 'Let's just scrap it.' When I went about redesigning it, I took my skills from my previous roles and said, 'How would I want to plan operating expense?' I mocked up what we thought should happen, showed it, made sure the users feel good about that and just built, iterate, show them again. 'What else do you need?' Keep building. We were able to create adoption that way. 

 

Kathy Do 0:24:58.6:

When we launched the operating expense model this last forecast cycle, everyone was like, 'Woah, that saves me a lot of time,' and they were very used to the layout because we mimicked some of the processes they had before. That's nice about Anaplan is we can just make it kind of look like your Excel if that's what you really want. Then, you're getting the gains of all the data automation and the calculations and the huge datasets, and your Excel not crashing. In the end, they ended up really liking that model. 

 

Audience 0:25:27.3:

You guys mentioned that you guys started your journey in 2020 and by 2022, you folks were self-sufficient. Looking back, what would you guys do? Are there any lessons learned where you could be self-sufficient sooner? 

 

Kathy Do 0:25:41.7:

I think one of the biggest things is I think the original implementation team really needed someone who could understand how the data systems worked, the data sources, where it came from, what does it mean? We had a finance team very focused on what they need to get done. We had an IT team supporting the technical wiring that needed to happen, but I don't think there is anyone who could say, 'Well, if we use this data source, these are the fields you need to bring in to make sure everything works. This is where you actually should get this set of data from.' That stuff we've had to redo over the years, just layering on some of the new knowledge that we have or my past knowledge to make things more stable. If possible, making sure you have some systems and data expert. Maybe not on the team full off at the start but a big integral part of the implementation team. It should really be someone in-house who really understands the data the organization uses.

 

Ariane Martineau 0:26:49.4:

Any other questions? Are we on time? Ten minutes. All right, so you guys think of another question. Can you go back one slide? Oh, sorry, Dave, go ahead. 

 

Audience 0:27:04.6:

Thank you so much. This has been great. These models, how do you prioritize the order? How do you come about, okay, this is the next one we're going to do? I'm just curious. 

 

Kathy Do 0:27:13.6: 

Yes, so to be honest, before this year we just had a working list of the original three-year journey. As I mentioned before, we wanted to do the full P&L. Every single model needed a bottoms-up. Then, by the time we ended 2023, we realized maybe some of those models don't need to be built. Do you really need a bottoms-up model for every single line item? Some things are easier to plan than others. In 2024, we established a governance routine. We have our finance directors; our CFOs sit together. We look at the use cases pitched by our business, and we say, 'What is going to give us the best ROI?' That's now how we prioritize. Then, on top of that, if for example, I feel very passionate about a project, I'll pitch for it too. One of my personal goals, and the goal for the COE is to get out of just finance use cases. This year, I pitched really hard to have Anaplan be part of a sales forecasting process that needed to be built. You'll see it in blue here. 

 

Kathy Do 0:28:23.3:

It was really important for me, just for my own development, to see this tool come out of finance. In our business, we have forecasting processes, but we don't necessarily have detailed processes for just a segment of our customers. We rolled them up and just called it a forecast. What our sales director needed was to really have a planning tool for that segment of the business. I said, 'Anaplan could do that. We could build you a bottoms-up tool.' I had Shubham build out this model. This was the first time we built an Anaplan model without a process in our business that existed already. As the process was being built for forecasting this segment of our customers, Anaplan was already at the front of the solution. It's been challenging because requirements change. We're learning things all the time, but it's been great to build trust with our sales team, which is not something we had before. They didn't even know what Anaplan did but now they do, and they mentioned it in their meetings; they're grateful for our team. 

 

Kathy Do 0:29:25.4:

We're about to roll out this tool by the end of the year. It's been an awful lot of work but I'm really glad to now have just another section of our business feel like Anaplan could be part of my toolkit. Next time I have a business problem, maybe Anaplan could solve it. It was a big marketing exercise for us and I'm really proud of the work that's been done so far. 

 

Audience 0:29:48.3:

How long did it take from the moment where you said, 'Well, Anaplan can do it,' to launching at the end of the year?

 

Kathy Do 0:29:55.5:

This particular project, because it is building off of processes that don't exist, it's been, I think, model-building, we'll say from April until now. We're still doing some tweaks. To be honest, from bottoms-up, from nothing, was it eight months? To me, that's faster than maybe the business thought we could do it. To be honest, the core model-building has been done for a while. It's tweaks we're doing but the business process, and the data validation, those are still going on and that's why it's extended for so long. I would say the other example that I mentioned, the operating expense model, the one we scrapped because users didn't like it, from start to finish that was six weeks; just because we were like, 'Just scrap old. Let's start new. Here are some new requirements. We are simplifying everything.' We put it into production in six weeks. It really depends on the complexity. 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:30:53.7:

One more. Oh, two. 

 

Audience 0:30:57.4:

Hi, I'm [?Anjin 0:30:57.8] from [?Canadian Tire 0:30:58.9], part of [?FP&A - signal breaks up 0:31:01.3]. You mentioned ROI a few minutes ago and, looking back at how the processes were in 2021, and how do the FP&A team do the planning and forecasting in 2024, what would you say are the biggest advantages in terms of forecasting accuracy, timing, reactiveness? What changed for FP&A?

 

Kathy Do 0:31:23.8:

Great question because I get asked that one. Just one more recommendation I would say, if you had a COE off the bat is you really should record what you think the gains of automation will be. We actually didn't do that. When people asked me what was the return on investment or did we meet our original goals, we didn't have anything to look back at. What we ended up doing is doing post-mortem evaluations of our models and determining, is it better than it was before? Are you saving time? That's, in the end, how we measured our ROI. This past year, we really deep-dived four of our models. Two of them came back, it's better than before. I'm saving, on average, depending on the model, whether it's two to ten hours per planning cycle, multiplied by the number of users. We didn't really touch those models but some people were like, 'This is much worse. I'm not saving time. I don't like it.' Those are the comments where we said, 'Scrap and rebuild.' I don't have a beautiful number because it's so model-to-model specific. 

 

Kathy Do 0:32:25.8:

That's why the governance process forces us to, right off the bat, say, 'If we achieve this model, what are you going to gain, in terms of whether it's time savings, any accuracy?' We record that right away. We call it a charter, but we have it right off the bat, 'This is what we're expecting.' My two new big models this year, Opex and sales forecasting, they both have dollars assigned to them. Once we evaluate the end of our BP cycle, we'll know, did we actually achieve what we sought out to do. That's something we're still working on, making sure we record all of these things. If you are starting out your journey, if you can evaluate before you begin what you think the gain will be please do so. It will help later on with some conversations. 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:33:14.3:

You had a question, right? 

 

Audience 0:33:16.4:

I know you mentioned you guys use Snowflake as your source of truth, is that also the case for your various taxonomies that might drive your hierarchies, so sales territory, regen, customer segment, things like that. 

 

 

Kathy Do 0:33:32.1:

Yes, all of that is actually managed in our enterprise system. We use SAP. We have a master data governance team that really controls that, all of our hierarchies. If there is anything on top of that, so something that deviates from the core product, hierarchies, customer hierarchies and call center, I think, are the main three that we have. If anything deviates from that, we ask our users to make sure they lead those, let's call them 'mappings', into Snowflake so that we can use it from there. For us, it's all maintained in our master data and SAP with the governance team. That replicates the Snowflake pretty well every day and then that goes into Anaplan pretty well every day. For sure. If people want things changed in master data, they're like, 'Can't we just have a mapping table and Anaplan?' 'No, way, don't do that. It's going to cause so many problems.' We are still finding user maintain mapping tables in our UXs that our users forgot were there. 

 

Kathy Do 0:34:33.5:

They ask us all the time, 'Why didn't this number update?' 'Well, there's a table back in this page over here that you forgot you need to maintain.' We want to get rid of those because those are annoying - or, I use it to remember to do that. If you have turnover in your company and you have to remember, I have to do this setting every year, we're trying to eliminate all of that little work that our finance team does and push all of our master data into our system so we know when and how it gets refreshed. 

 

Audience 0:35:00.8: 

This question is related to your experience across the deployment. I understand you have different offices across Canada, so you need to deal with the different groups across the different offices. The first question, with that, is how do you manage, the timing, the closing, the reporting, etc., with different expectations? Even with the time zone differences, and so on. Connected to that, did you get what Anaplan is promising in terms of faster closing and speed-up decision-making?

 

Kathy Do 0:35:42.6: 

Let me answer the first part. The good thing about, even though we are spread across country, a good chunk of our users are actually here in Toronto or the GTA. We don't necessarily deal with too many issues from a finance perspective with time zones. We do have users out in Western Canada. During some of our more critical seasons, like the end of the rolling forecast, or certain periods/deadlines of the BP, we will offer, my team will offer, just after-hours service; so that if anything happens they know that they feel supported during that time. The second part of your question was… Sorry. Right, closing… In terms of our BP, our BP takes a long time. I'm not sure if that's the experience all of you have with your business planning process. It takes a long time. I don't think that's a system thing. I think that's really still alignment and meetings and… Mm? It's definitely a cultural thing. What we can offer in that regard is, 'Hey, by the time you get your assumptions, how fast was it for you to enter those in and go?' 

 

Kathy Do 0:36:58.4:

That's one of the features we're offering this year in our model is, if the guidance from the C-suite changes or any of our models, for any operating expense line item, I change it on the master table, it flows to all the models. Nobody has to do that anymore. I'm hoping, once we hear about some of the changes that are going to happen in the next few weeks - we're in our BP cycle now - people will realize, 'Oh, wow, I didn't have to do anything about that.' I think this year particularly they're going to see some of that ROI from just how fast we're going to do our BP. Then, I would say, for our rolling estimates, that's certainly way more automated than it used to be. All of that is done in Anaplan, a couple of assumptions here and there. It all spits out and loads back into SAP and we're good to go. Our rolling estimate takes a few days. That's across the entire business, the finance sections of our business, so…

 

Ariane Martineau 0:37:53.2: 

Any closing words?

 

Kathy Do 0:37:57.0:

Oh, now I'm speechless. I just want to thank you for attending this session today. Thank you, Ariane, and Tamina for inviting me to speak. I was very honored to be selected. I've really had a great time with our Anaplan journey for the last few years and working with you all. I'm looking forward to the next few years. We have some big ideas for the future of Anaplan with Coke Canada. I have use cases in my brain that I hope that our team lets us do. Yes, thank you so much. Looking forward to chatting with all of you after, but thank you for the time. 

 

Ariane Martineau 0:38:34.7:

Thank you.