As part of the Anaplan Eastern Europe & Middle Asia User Group, Certified Master Anaplanners Anton Mineev (@AntonMineev), Anton Suslov (@AntonS_*9173), and Dmitrii Mamaev (@dmitrii.mamaev) shared hands-on experience in creating and maturing Centers of Excellence (CoEs). This article summarizes their key insights from the discussion. You may find it helpful if your role involves CoE strategy today — or if you're preparing to establish one in the future.
Why a CoE matters
A Center of Excellence acts as the foundation for scalable, sustainable Anaplan success. It builds internal capability, enforces architectural discipline, and accelerates delivery.
The session explored what works, what doesn't and why there's no single universal formula for building a successful CoE.
The maturity journey
The group examined how companies determine the ideal structure and governance approach for their CoE. Each approach reflects different priorities around ownership, alignment, and model governance:
- Stage 0 – No CoE: All work is done by external partners. Fast to start, but limited scalability and high dependency on outside resources.
- Stage 1 – Single specialist: One dedicated resource handles administrator tasks and small updates, learning from partners along the way.
- Stage 2 – Centralized CoE team: Builds new models, manages integrations, and enforces standards. Independence from partners is achieved.
- Stage 3 – Hybrid model: As a central team grows, proximity to the business may decline. A hybrid structure maintains centralized governance while embedding members into business functions or use cases. This keeps standards and training consistent while ensuring close alignment with business needs.
A company's CoE structure can shift over time — not only progressing forward but also reverting to earlier models — depending on organizational priorities, resourcing, and the strategic role of Anaplan within the enterprise.
Organizational placement: IT verses the business
When establishing a CoE, determining its position within the organization is a strategic decision that shapes governance, influence, and impact.
The discussion explored common structures and their trade-offs:
- IT-led CoE: technically strong and stable but often distant from end users. May compete with other IT initiatives or resist change ('If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it').
- Business-led CoE: agile and close to decision makers, but risks ad-hoc solutions and loss of architectural control.
- Hybrid model: formally part of IT but with embedded business resources. This combines centralized governance and technical standards with local ownership and agility — a balance that often delivers the best results at scale.
Roles and talent in a CoE
A CoE's success depends heavily on the right mix of roles and skill sets as it matures.
Key positions commonly found within an Anaplan CoE include:
- Key user / business administrator: Filters requests, aligns stakeholders, and ensures quality of requirements. Deep model-building skills aren't required, but understanding Anaplan principles, data flows, and interdependencies is essential. In stable models (for example, standardized reporting), a Key User can manage versions and perform simple updates.
- Model builder: develops and maintains models. A motivated junior with more learning time can often outperform an overloaded senior.
- Solution architect: defines standards, manages complexity, and ensures performance. This role can be developed internally or sourced externally.
- Workspace admin: Manages environments and access — often combined with other roles, especially as automation reduces manual administrator effort.
External partner verses internal CoE
The panel also discussed the key differences and trade-offs between relying on external partners and developing internal CoE capabilities:
- Licensing considerations: External and internal accounts may be treated differently. Always confirm with your Anaplan representative.
- Data security: Partner access expands the exposure surface — implement additional safeguards.
- Sensitive data paradox: HR or payroll data often remains restricted from external partners — a best practice in many organizations. The key is to ensure that any sensitive information, whether shared internally or externally, is managed with appropriate governance, caution, and confidentiality.
Efficiency and effectiveness
From their collective experience, the panelists observed several factors that influence efficiency and long-term success when comparing internal and external models:
- Internal team members often complete tasks faster due to deeper context and fewer administrative steps.
- External involvement introduces hand-offs, paperwork, and re-onboarding overhead.
- Partner availability and continuity can vary — context loss is common after long gaps.
- Knowledge transfer is consistently more reliable within an internal CoE than between internal and external resources.
Key takeaways
To close the session, the panel summarized several universal lessons for organizations at any stage of their CoE journey:
- There's no single formula for CoE success — design depends on scope, scale, and the strategic role of Anaplan.
- CoE members should actively engage in community discussion forums and learning events to stay aligned with best practices and platform evolution.
- Even small organizations should designate at least one Key User to retain model and process knowledge — a critical safeguard against data and continuity risk.
Questions? Leave a comment!
……………
Article contributors: Anton Mineev, Anton Suslov, and Dmitrii Mamaev — Certified Master Anaplanners and members of the Anaplan Eastern Europe & Middle Asia User Group.
