What Anaplan CoE leaders should keep in-house vs outsource
- Štěpán Zechovský
- Mar 25
- 4 min read
What Anaplan CoE leaders should keep in-house vs outsource
Here’s the trade-off I see most CoE leaders struggle with.
At some point, every CoE reaches the same question:
What should we actually own internally, and where do externals add more value?
Most organizations don’t answer this explicitly. They either:
keep building internal teams until costs and complexity grow
or rely too much on external support and lose control
Neither works well long term.
In most CoEs I’ve worked with, the issue isn’t capability.
It’s how responsibilities are split.
What should stay internal (and why)
There are areas where internal ownership is not just helpful, it’s critical.
Core functions and business-critical models
Anything that runs your core planning processes should stay close to the business. Internal teams understand context, stakeholders, and decision cycles in a way externals rarely can long-term.
User support and ongoing operations
Support works best when it’s embedded. Responsiveness and continuous improvement depend on proximity to users.
License and platform management
This is governance. It needs ownership, not delegation.
Smaller, repeatable use cases
These are the backbone of most CoEs. Internal teams can deliver them efficiently once patterns are established.
CoE strategy and governance
Roadmap, prioritization, and operating model decisions need to stay internal.
Architecture standards
Consistency across models is what keeps Anaplan scalable. That requires a clear internal owner.
If these areas are pushed outside, CoEs lose control over direction, standards, and responsiveness.
What should be external (and why)
Where I see the biggest missed opportunity is on the other side.
Advanced or complex use cases outside current expertise
Stretching into unfamiliar areas slows delivery and increases risk. External experts bring speed and proven patterns.
Cross-functional initiatives (IBP, S&OP, enterprise planning)
These require coordination across domains, not just build. External teams often bring experience that internal teams don’t yet have.
New domains or capabilities
Building expertise internally takes time. External support allows you to move forward without waiting.
The advantage here is not just capacity.
It’s experience and perspective.
External teams have seen what works across multiple organizations. That outside-in view is difficult to replicate internally.
The real trade-offs of internal teams
Internal teams feel safe. They are available, aligned, and embedded in your business.
But there are trade-offs that often get underestimated.
1. Cost is not just salary
When you add internal consultants, you are not just adding salary cost. You increase your share of overhead:
management layers
HR, IT, office costs
training and onboarding
internal coordination and governance
These costs compound as the team grows.
A simple example:
CoE A: 10 internal consultants
CoE B: 5 internal + 5 external consultants
In steady state, both can deliver similar output.
But financially:
CoE A carries full fixed cost for all 10 people
CoE B carries fixed cost for 5, and variable cost for the rest
In a slowdown:
CoE A still pays for all 10
CoE B can scale down external capacity quickly
This difference becomes very visible during downturns.
2. Fixed capacity reduces flexibility
Demand for Anaplan is rarely stable. You see:
spikes when new use cases are funded
slowdowns when priorities shift
uneven demand across functions
Internal teams are fixed. Demand is not.
This creates a constant tension:
either you are understaffed and stretched
or overstaffed and carrying cost
Neither is ideal.
3. Internal teams optimize for stability, not innovation
Internal teams naturally focus on keeping things running. That’s necessary, but it often comes at the expense of introducing new approaches.
I’ve seen many long-tenured model builders who:
know existing models extremely well
keep everything stable
but struggle to challenge design or bring new ideas
That’s not a capability issue.
It’s what happens when people are embedded in the same environment for a long time.
Internal vs external: where each works best
Area | Internal team | External support |
Business knowledge | Deep understanding of context | Limited initially, improves quickly over time |
Availability | Always available | Scales up/down as needed |
Core model ownership | Strong fit | Less suitable long-term |
Advanced use cases | Can struggle outside expertise | Strong, proven patterns |
Cross-functional work | Limited exposure | Broader experience |
Innovation | Can be constrained | Brings outside perspective |
Cost structure | High fixed cost + overhead | Variable, flexible |
Scalability | Slow (hiring dependent) | Fast (on-demand) |
Downturn risk | High | Lower |
The model that works in practice
The CoEs that scale well don’t choose between internal and external.
They combine both deliberately.
A strong internal core:
understands the business
owns governance and standards
ensures continuity
Complemented by external experts who:
accelerate complex delivery
bring new ideas and patterns
expand capability without increasing fixed cost
This allows you to keep control where it matters, while staying flexible where it counts.
How SKU Point supports CoEs
SKU Point typically works with CoE leaders who already have a strong internal setup but need support in specific areas.
That includes:
advanced or cross-functional use cases
additional capacity during peak demand
bringing in experience from other implementations
The goal is not to replace internal teams, but to extend them where it makes sense.
Takeaway for CoE leaders
Keep ownership of what defines your CoE internally
Use external support where speed and experience matter
Don’t confuse availability with effectiveness
Avoid turning your CoE into a fixed-cost structure
Design your model for both stability and change
About author
I deliver Anaplan projects across EMEA and have led numerous complex implementations as a Solution Architect, Project Manager, and Engagement Partner.
My work is guided by clarity, trustworthiness, and speed - helping clients and partners achieve maximum ROI through fast, reliable delivery backed by deep hands-on experience.
Comments