Dynamic Plan Fact analysis in Microsoft Excel. Factor and variance analysis in Excel with automated calculations Factor analysis plan fact example

Economists use this type of analysis in their work as plan-actual analysis. Otherwise it is called plan-factorial. Using this tool, you can calculate how close the planned values ​​are to implementation, whether employees actually deviate from the given goal, and if so, why.

The tool is used in cases where it is necessary to monitor the implementation of the organization’s production and financial indicators by its management team. Any enterprise uses a software method of housekeeping; activities are not carried out by touch, at random. Planned values ​​are sent to the structural unit or branch of the organization. They must conduct their activities in such a way as to fulfill the plan or exceed it. Thus, the forecast may reflect the following characteristics:

• quantity (weight) of goods produced;
• volume of services provided, work performed.

The extent to which a department or branch was able to achieve the specified values ​​can be determined by analyzing the reporting documents.

There are annual reports on the income and expenses of the enterprise. It indicates how much of the product was actually sold during the specified period. Information about how much product and what type of product was produced during the same time is in the statistical reporting on the production of products and in accounting documentation, in particular in Form No. 16. It reflects the path of the product from release to sale. Information from the acquisitions book can also serve as a source of information.

The main way to determine the results of work is the comparative method. To do this, you need to take planned data and actual results. The formulas below will allow you to calculate two main indicators:

• how far the structural unit/branch has deviated from the plan: Δ = F-P, where F is the indicator of the actual deviation, and P is the plan;
• percentage indicator of achieving planned indicators: % = F/P*100.

Don't forget to take price inflation into account. In this case, the data on the cost of the actual goods produced must be adjusted. Then the above formulas will become a little more complicated and will look like this:

• Δi = Ф/I-П, where I is the price index. The formula will allow you to calculate how much the actual result deviated from the plan, taking into account the indexation of product costs.
• %i = (F/I)/P × 100- the formula allows you to calculate the percentage, taking into account the cost adjustment for inflation data.

In conditions of inflation, the cost indicator of the actual volume of production or sales is, as a rule, adjusted taking into account the price index.

Once it has been determined how well the plan and the fact correspond to each other, it is necessary to determine why this happened. This may be a consequence of the following circumstances:

• a batch of goods remained in the warehouse areas;
• low labor efficiency of workers;
• fulfillment of contract clauses;
• product range, etc.

This method of analytical work, such as plan-actual, is necessary for the main items of expenses and income. If you need to study why inconsistencies arose, then you need to analyze the operational and functional articles separately. It is possible to organize analysis for the entire enterprise and for its structural divisions. Be that as it may, the management of the organization independently determines what and when to analyze.

When using the plan-fact methodology, you must remember to format the indicators of the work result and the plan in the same form, otherwise it will not be entirely correct to compare information.

If any inconsistencies are identified, you can evaluate the performance of each link in the chain (supply department, production, logistics, personnel, etc.) in order to draw objective conclusions and take measures to correct the situation.

When analyzing, attention is paid to data that differs markedly from the planned numbers. There are external factors that structural divisions cannot influence:

• demand has fallen;
• Organizations owned by partners are closing.

In such cases, it is necessary to urgently adjust budget indicators so that they do not lead to the collapse of the enterprise. It is possible that we will have to refuse to purchase additional units and transfer employees to a different operating mode.

Once the deviations have been identified, the next step can be taken to evaluate the performance of the company as a whole or its joint venture.

An indicator for determining the justification of certain expenses is the final data of the budget, such as the size of the net cash flow. For example, inconsistencies in budget items can be analyzed in terms of how events will develop. If you calculate how this or that indicator that deviates from the plan will affect the amount of financial resources, it is possible to conclude that it is necessary to change the plan for the next quarter, half-year or year.

08.02.2015 02:54

The definition of “plan-actual analysis” is contained in its name - this is a comparison and study of planned and actual values ​​of indicators, an explanation of deviations between them, and the formulation of conclusions. Simply put, it answers the question “why is there a difference and what to do about it?”

Obviously, for such an analysis you need to have at least three components: a) planned data; b) actual values; c) a subject who can explain everything. It is also obvious that the enterprise must have a budgeting system (or at least planning in its simplest form) and an accounting system. Those. It turns out that for such a seemingly simple task as plan-fact analysis, you already need to have a lot of things. The question is, is this necessary?

If the reader has the opinion that we want to convince of the uselessness of plan-fact analysis, then this is not so. Not at all like that! And this article is dedicated specifically to the importance of this kind of reporting. Plan-fact analysis is perhaps the simplest, but also one of the most useful.

Answering the question “why?”, the analyst analyzes the problem in detail. Deeply explores the causes and circumstances of “plan-fact” deviations, finds out the factors that led to them. This provides the basis for the main thing: to draw a conclusion and correct the situation if it is negative, and strengthen it if a positive effect is observed. This is the goal.

With a correctly constructed plan-fact analysis, dynamics are added to the static picture, i.e. changes in the indicators themselves and their deviations over time, from period to period. This is additional information, new ground for conclusions, enhancing their reliability.

Basically, the analysis under consideration relates to the management accounting system (since for preparation and analysis it is necessary to properly organize the collection and recording of information), but it can also be part of the budgeting system (since it is designed to analyze budgets, otherwise working with them will be not completed). We will not now delve into the issue of ownership and consider in detail the accounting and budgeting systems. We will describe the main steps of organizing a plan-fact analysis, assuming that the company already has accounting and budgets.

1. First of all, we define what we are analyzing. Those. What budget indicators do we need to look at deviations from and draw conclusions? These can be individual indicators (for example, KPI), and entire budget forms (for example, PL and CF).
2. It is necessary to analyze the accounting system and determine what primary information will be useful for preparing a “fact” for the selected indicators. If the company does not have such information, then you need to start collecting it, or ask programmers to select it from databases, etc. sources. It is also important to identify the performers who will prepare the primary information.
3. It is necessary to develop tables to fill out, come up with an algorithm and write down calculation formulas that will either help collect information or prepare its intermediate auxiliary form. Most likely, you will also have to prepare formulas for converting primary (and/or intermediate) information into actual information for budget indicators (i.e., consider the fact directly).
4. It is important not to forget about the rules of interaction between participants in the process. This is a documentary confirmation of those responsible for the preparation of information, for the preparation of final actual indicators, in what form the information is transmitted, the timing of preparation and transmission, the deadlines for the readiness of all plan-fact reports, those responsible for writing comments on deviations, and end consumers. The regulations will become the document that will serve as the basis for the operation of the system.
5. Testing. It is best to conduct testing in what is called “combat mode”, using real data. In this case, it will be possible to track not only “arithmetic” errors, but also logical and semantic ones. If for some reason this is not possible, then it would not be superfluous to test it on fictitious information - track down calculation errors, and the rest will be done during real operation.
6. It is necessary to document the plan-fact analysis system just like any other system. This will give it a finished look and prevent the loss of the work done.

If you get the impression that we are overcomplicating “such a simple” question, then this is only to systematize it and give it a clear outline. In fact, even if in your company everything is done much simpler, this means that you are doing some issues without notice to yourself, as they say “in your mind.” This is possible as long as the volume of information being processed is not large. As your business grows, accounting can get confusing.

As mentioned above, plan-fact analysis occupies a borderline position between the budgeting and management accounting systems. Therefore, a natural desire would be to become familiar with the rules for constructing these systems. On the organization of the budgeting system And management accounting system articles have already been discussed earlier.

The terms “plan-actual control” and “plan-actual analysis” began to be used relatively recently, although the method of analyzing the results of economic activity by comparing the planned values ​​of indicators with the actual ones has always been used in enterprise management practice.

Planned values ​​of indicators of financial and economic activity are contained in budgets, their actual values ​​are in reports on budget execution, which are generated in the enterprise's accounting system.

There are two ideological schemes for budget management at an enterprise. According to the first scheme, budgets (plans) and reports on their implementation are compiled with equal frequency. In this case, plan-fact control and analysis represent a direct comparison of “fact” and plan with the identification and assessment of deviations.

According to the second scheme, actual data is recorded in more fractional periods (compared to the budgeting period). In this case, the possibility of plan-factorial control becomes possible, and the analysis is performed on an accrual basis.

Plan-fact analysis has two goals: planning and control-stimulating. The planned goal is implemented on the basis of the conclusions of the plan-fact analysis for the past (reporting) period when drawing up budgets for the upcoming (planning) period. In this case, the principle of “continuing activity” is used, which, in relation to budgeting, in particular, means the following. The enterprise's budget for the upcoming budget (planning) period should be developed based on an analysis of the reasons for the deviation of the actual values ​​of indicators from their planned values ​​(for the previous budget period), as well as the identification and use of internal reserves for increasing efficiency and improving the financial condition of the company.

The control and incentive goal of plan-fact analysis is realized with the help of information about deviations of the “fact” from the plan when assessing the performance of a particular structural unit of the enterprise, a particular service, as well as for assessing the heads of these departments and services.

So, let's conduct a plan-fact analysis of the budgets of Siberian Commercial Center LLC, using reporting data for 2005. We will conduct the analysis based on data for the year, and not quarterly. A comparison of planned and actual sales budget indicators is given in table. 3.1.

Thus, from table. Table 3.1 shows that the plan for revenue received from the sale of goods was exceeded in 2005. At the same time, for the first group of goods, the sales budget was underfulfilled, while for the second group, the plan was overfulfilled, which resulted in an overfulfillment of the revenue plan by 0.5%. It cannot be said that the indicator is very significant, but at the same time it reflects a positive trend in the activities of the enterprise.

Table 3.1 - Plan-actual analysis of the sales budget for products of Siberian Commercial Center LLC for 2005

Let's analyze the budget of distribution costs (Table 3.2).

From the table 3.2 shows that most of the expenses that make up distribution costs are higher than planned. Among these components are the following: packaging, travel expenses, and other expenses. At the same time, transportation costs turned out to be less than planned. The remaining expense items coincided with the planned ones. In general, distribution costs turned out to be higher than planned by 1.2%, which is an unfavorable moment in the enterprise’s activities. At the same time, this discrepancy can be explained by an increase in the sales volume of goods of the second group. But the revenue from the sale of these goods exceeded the planned indicators to a lesser extent than the indicators of commercial expenses. From this we can conclude that the costs were not very effective, or the plan was inaccurate.

Table 3.2 - Plan-actual analysis of the distribution cost budget for Siberian Commercial Center LLC for 2005

Let's analyze the cash flow budget indicators (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 - Plan-fact analysis of the cash flow budget for the Siberian Commercial Center for 2005, rubles.

From the table 3.3 shows that actual indicators differ greatly from planned ones. This is due, first of all, to the fact that less funds were received than planned. The reason for this negative factor may be that the customer did not pay the amount for the goods received on time, which led to an increase in accounts receivable and a decrease in cash receipts. At the same time, expenses for all items turned out to be higher than planned, which also led to the fact that at the end of the year the cash flow was significantly less than planned.

Let's consider the implementation of the salary cost budget (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4 - Plan-actual analysis of the wage cost budget for Siberian Commercial Center LLC for 2005, rub.

From the table 3.4 shows that wage costs turned out to be slightly higher than planned, but this cannot be considered a negative point, since this is due to the fact that more product B was sold, which means additional labor costs were required.

Let's consider the indicators of the forecast balance, comparing it with actual indicators (Table 3.5).

As a result of the plan-fact analysis of the forecast balance, we can conclude that most of the actual indicators did not coincide with the planned ones. Perhaps the forecast was too optimistic. Even the organization’s performance indicators calculated based on the actual and forecast balance data differ, and not in favor of the first.

Table 3.5 - Plan-fact analysis of the forecast balance for Siberian Commercial Center LLC for 2005, thousand rubles.

In general, based on the results of the analysis, we can conclude that most of the indicators were predicted quite correctly, and some of the predicted parameters characterizing the efficiency of the activities of Siberian Commercial Center LLC were even exceeded. Although some planned indicators were not achieved.

The company's divisions are carried out on the basis of coordination of activities at the horizontal level. At the same time, a single direction of planned activities, the commonality of goals of all elements of the company become possible within the framework of the vertical unity of divisions, i.e. unity within the management hierarchy (for example, the organization as a whole => product division shop O team), their integration.

The concept of an experiment with a model. Extreme and factor experiment with the model. Testing and modification of the investment project based on the results of modeling and experiment. Optimal experimental designs.

These indicators are also used to assess the progressiveness of equipment. Park structure indicators are measured in fractions of a unit or as a percentage. In long-term planning, such indicators are calculated using a combination of the extrapolation method and the factorial method, as well as direct calculation based on the industry development plan.

Factorial - factors influencing a particular plan indicator are studied, and then the change due to each factor in the final indicator is calculated, for example, labor productivity depending on changes in production volume and the number of employees.

Index method - calculation of the influence of certain factors on plan indicators, but unlike the factor method, it operates with relative values.

The functioning of this block is based on the principle of dynamic addition. Specifically, it is embodied in the consistent enrichment of the system of accumulated knowledge about the mechanism of action of factors influencing product quality, based on production and research experience, generalization of the content of scientific publications, patents, projects, etc. In practical terms, the principle of dynamic addition means that there is always some (sometimes very large) gap between the achieved and potentially achievable level of quality. Gradually enriching the system of factor analysis of the quality level with experience, it is possible to achieve its systematic increase.

As another parameter of integration efficiency, it is necessary to use the following indicator - the relative economic effect, obtained as the ratio of the growth rate of profit to the growth rate of total costs of production and sales of products. Methods of a factorial approach to assessing the socio-economic efficiency of the formation of IHS are also proposed; here, social efficiency is determined taking into account factors of employment, growth in living standards, etc. A number of sources also consider parameters associated with savings on investments and inputs as integration effects. Thus, they believe that after the merger of capital there is no need to create new production facilities and develop infrastructure. Without disputing the importance of these parameters, it should be noted that the effects of the budget plan are strategic, such as, for example, the increase in national income and its attribution to the increase in the costs of living and materialized labor.

After this, you need to analyze the implementation of the plan according to the level of this indicator and establish the factors of its change (Fig. 11.2), for which the following factor model is used

The algorithm is based on the principle of decomposing the total deviation of the actual volume of production from the plan or the previous period into the sum of factor deviations

Method of splitting factor increments. In the analysis of economic activity, the most common problems are direct deterministic factor analysis. From an economic point of view, such tasks include analyzing the implementation of the plan or the dynamics of economic indicators, in which the quantitative value of the factors that influenced the change in the performance indicator is calculated. From a mathematical point of view, problems of direct deterministic factor analysis represent the study of the function of several variables.

Given in table. 13.27 calculations clearly show that the decrease in actual profit compared to the expected one was due to failure to fulfill the plan for the production of finished medicines, the occurrence of defects, and an increase in the share of general business expenses. However, significant reserves for increasing profits are hidden in improving the structure of products and the costs of their production, as well as in reducing the costs of servicing this production and administrative workshop costs. Similarly, a factor analysis of the profit received from the production of medicines in the ampoule workshop should be carried out, upon completion of which the calculation results should be summarized in the form of a set of reserves for increasing production profit (Table 13.28).

The advantage of this method is that when using it it is not necessary to calculate the level of factor indicators. It is enough to have data on the percentage of plan fulfillment for gross output, the number of workers and the number of days and hours they worked for the analyzed period.

The study of correlation relationships is of great importance in ACD. This is manifested in the fact that factor analysis is significantly deepened, the place and role of each factor in the formation of the level of the indicators under study is established, knowledge about the phenomena being studied is deepened, the patterns of their development are determined and, as a result, plans and management decisions are more accurately justified, the results of enterprises’ activities are assessed more objectively and on-farm reserves are more fully determined.

Due to the fact that the plan was underfulfilled for all factor indicators (Table 7.11), the level of profitability decreased by 2.09%.

A full factorial design assumes that experiments are carried out with all possible combinations of factors. For example, let us study the impact on sales of prices of two levels - 100 and 120 rubles. and advertising costs of two levels - 1000 and 2000 rubles. in a day. Then the plan should include four experiments with the following combinations of price and expenses 1) 100 rubles. and 1000 rub. per day 2) 100 rub. and 2000 rub. per day 3) 120 rub. and 1000 rub. per day 4) 120 rub. and 2000 rub. in a day. Each experiment can be repeated the number of times necessary for a reliable assessment.

From the point of view of the characteristics of the enterprise for external users, as well as its top managers and functional managers, it is of greatest interest. Its definition is easiest to give by formulating the content of this scientific and practical direction. In terms of content, the analysis of the financial and economic activities of an enterprise is the purposeful activity of the analyst, which consists of identifying indicators, factors and algorithms and allowing, firstly, to give a certain formalized characteristic, factor explanation and/or justification of the facts of economic life as having taken place in the past, and those expected or planned for implementation in the future, and, secondly, systematize possible options for action. Let us give a brief description of the key terms of this definition.

Methods of elementary mathematics are used in ordinary traditional economic calculations when justifying resource needs, accounting for production costs, developing plans, projects, balance sheet calculations, etc. The selection of methods of classical higher mathematics is due to the fact that they are used not only within the framework of other methods, for example, methods of mathematical statistics and mathematical programming, but also independently. Thus, factor analysis of changes in many economic indicators can be carried out using differentiation and integration.

It should be taken into account that the factor analysis technique is applicable both when analyzing profit indicators for the reporting period and when justifying the plan.

With the additive type of factor system, the influence of factor indicators on the resultant one is determined by direct calculation - by comparing the corresponding actual indicators with their basic value (in our example, with the plan).

Mathematically, the above block diagram of factor analysis of the deviation of the total value of ODA from the plan can be represented as follows. Let's say we are considering such an item of overhead costs as wages for service personnel. In this case, the distribution base is the wage fund of the main production personnel. Based on the results of the budget period, the enterprise’s accounting data for conducting a plan-fact analysis of the deviation of the ODA are as follows (see Table 28).

Scheme 38. Vertical factorial design-fact analysis of activity

As noted in paragraph 5.6 of Chapter 5, the adequacy of the choice of the distribution base for individual RPC items determines not only the reliability of the accounting data itself in terms of determining the full variable costs in the sale of certain types of products, but also the quality of the results and regulatory conclusions of the plan-fact analysis based on the results of the completed ( reporting) budget period. To illustrate this thesis, we will conduct a factor analysis for various variants of indicators chosen as the distribution base and compare the results obtained.

From the table 67 it follows that for all three products the deviation of the PKR for the reporting budget period was favorable (savings), and for product A there is both a deviation due to the distribution base and a deviation due to the distribution rate (both factor deviations are favorable). For products B and C, the favorable deviation of the PKR was achieved entirely due to the intensive factor (distribution rate) - the same sales volume as planned is ensured due to a smaller amount of direct selling expenses.

| Downloads: 356

Annotation:

Any company strives to ensure that the financial performance of its activities corresponds to the planned parameters. To identify deviations, their significance and causes, plan-fact analysis (PFA) is used, which will be discussed in the article.

JEL classification:

The center of financial responsibility (FRC) is “a structural unit (or group of units) responsible, in accordance with the approved motivation scheme, for certain financial and economic indicators recorded in the budget of the FRC, for example, a cost center, an income center, an expense center, an investment center.”

By conducting a plan-fact analysis (PFA) for financial responsibility centers, a rationale for assessing the performance of the CFOs themselves is formed in terms of fulfilling planned indicators and improving the quality of the information provided. Control is also exercised over the status and changes in key financial indicators for the company as a whole.

Goals and objectives of plan-factual analysis

Plan-actual analysis is a periodic comparison of indicators planned in the budget (compiled and approved forecasts for the budget period) with actual indicators (data from budget execution reports for past periods), assessment and analysis of identified deviations (in absolute or relative terms). In this case, it is important to analyze the identified deviations by level of materiality.

Thus, in our opinion, the main goal of the PFA is to identify the factors that influenced the deviation of actual values ​​from planned indicators. And based on the set goal, PFA solves the following tasks:

– a reasonable assessment of the results of the Central Federal District’s activities in achieving planned indicators;

– generation of proposals for their adjustment;

– improving the quality of analytical materials for analyzing deviations of actual values ​​from planned indicators;

– identifying trends in these deviations.

Thus, the PFA process has the following steps:

– collection, processing and analysis of actual data received;

– identifying deviations of actual indicators from planned ones, as well as the reasons for these deviations;

– ranking deviations by degree of significance;

– making decisions on possible adjustments to budgets within acceptable limits.

Planned indicators, assessment of deviations

Plan-actual analysis should be carried out at the end of each budget period, and its results should be taken into account in the upcoming period. In this regard, it would be objective to conduct it based on the results of the quarter and year on an accrual basis. In this case, the PFA must include:

– analysis of the implementation of planned indicators for the reporting period;

– analysis of the dynamics of the actual values ​​of indicators of the reporting period, compared with the actual values ​​of indicators of the period preceding the reporting period.

In our opinion, it is advisable for the PFA to include an analysis of the implementation of the following types of planned indicators:

1) planned and control indicators, for example, the total amount of income and expenses of the company, investment program;

2) expenses of the current period;

3) revenue and cost of the main activity;

4) revenue and cost from other types of activities;

5) other income and expenses.

It is also important here that PFA is carried out by financial responsibility centers for supervised divisions on the basis of allocated limits for counterparties. This will allow you to control expenses for one or another cost item within the allocated limit.

A plan-fact analysis of the execution of the allocated limits by the Central Federal District should reveal the main factors that caused the deviation of actual values ​​from planned indicators.

Therefore, it is advisable to carry it out based on the criteria for the significance of deviations. The levels of materiality of deviations establish the gradation of the degree of violation of established limits by items of income and expenses of the Central Federal District, as well as by the total amount of expenses of the company, which is a planned control indicator. Deviation materiality levels can be of 2 types:

– “insignificant” – the violation is insignificant and does not require analysis;

– “significant”, “serious” and “gross” - violations require analysis.

In this case, the level of materiality of deviations for items of income and expenses for each financial district is calculated in proportion to the share of expenses of each financial district in the total expenses of the company. And the limit of deviation of the actual value from the planned indicator is based on the specific weight of a particular budget item as a percentage of all company costs. If a particular cost item is under the jurisdiction of several central financial districts, then the level of materiality of deviations should be distributed across the central federal district depending on the share of supervised cost limits in total expenses.

In our opinion, in order to obtain reliable information about changes in actual indicators over planned ones, it is enough to assess deviations taking into account absolute and relative indicators.

Results of plan-factual analysis

In our opinion, it is important that, as part of the analysis of the implementation of planned indicators by levels of materiality of deviations, the financial reporting center indicates the reasons for deviations of actual values ​​from planned indicators, indicating the factors that caused this deviation. To do this, for each deviation that requires comment in accordance with the level of significance, the reasons that caused it must be determined, taking into account changes in the volume factor (amount of resources consumed, number of personnel, number of repaired facilities, etc.) and changes in the cost factor (average wages, price for materials and services, tax rate, cost of internal services).

After all the stages of conducting a PFA are completed, in our opinion, it is worth thinking about the form of presenting the received information to the company’s management. In our opinion, information on the results of a plan-fact analysis can be presented in the form of an explanatory note of a developed sample, with the attachment of analytical tables, including comments on the reasons for the identified deviations for the reporting period.

The structure of the explanatory note may include the following elements:

1) deviations of actual values ​​of indicators from planned ones and the main complex reasons that caused them, including measures to reduce costs;

2) change in planning and accounting methodology.

Analytical tables must contain the following information: plan for the reporting period, fact for the reporting period, fact for the period preceding the reporting period.

At the same time, all information that is generated on the basis of an analysis of the Central Federal District’s implementation of allocated limits for items of income and expenditure of the budget by counterparties must be presented to management within the following time frames:

– PFA of execution of annual budget indicators - within the period determined annually in the prescribed manner;

– PFA of execution of quarterly indicators – before the established date of the month following the reporting quarter.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can say that conducting a plan-fact analysis is necessary for the company, as it has an impact on its further development, because a comparison of planned and actual values ​​makes it possible to assess probable deviations in the future.

In our opinion, conducting a PFA allows us not only to focus attention on indicators that have significant deviations of the plan from the actual, but also to identify the reasons for these deviations. And the use of deviation materiality levels in the analysis of the execution of planned control indicators and budgets in the context of the Central Federal District allows you to:

– identify all significant deviations;

– reduce the number of significant deviations in budget execution for the company as a whole;

– significantly reduce the number of gross deviations in the execution of the budgets of the Central Federal District.

At the same time, the collection and processing by financial responsibility centers of information on the implementation of budget targets allows for monitoring of their current activities, taking into account the allocated limits in general

by company. This, in turn, makes it possible to analyze and control, requiring priority attention to problem areas of the company’s activities, as well as assessing the activities of each central federal district for its implementation of budget targets.

In our opinion, the basis for conducting PFA can be the development and implementation of a methodology for conducting plan-fact analysis in a company, which will regulate the procedure and requirements for conducting PFA, as well as the form of its presentation.

Thus, in our opinion, an effective budgeting system involves not only setting planned targets for the Central Federal District, but also timely control and analysis of budget execution in order to make effective management decisions through plan-fact analysis.

Publish your monograph in good quality for only 15 rubles!
The basic price includes text proofreading, ISBN, DOI, UDC, BBK, legal copies, uploading to the RSCI, 10 author’s copies with delivery throughout Russia.

Moscow + 7 495 648 6241

Sources:

1. Karpov A. 100% of practical budgeting. Book 2. Regulations of the budgeting system. – M.: Result and quality, 2008 – 472 p.
2. BaseGroup Labs. Library. Glossary. Plan-factual analysis. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www/basegroup.ru/glossary/definitions/plan_fact/.