Platform · Data Warehouse · AI

The data foundation your planning, reporting and operations actually share

Atheniks is not another BI layer. It is the shared data model that planning, reporting, and operational steering build on – so your numbers stay consistent without manual bridges between systems.

How the platform works Tell us your situation

Starting point

Sound familiar?

Data in silos, plans in separate files

ERP, CRM and banks supply facts; project management, sales and procurement keep assumptions in spreadsheets and email. Without a shared data basis, every planning cycle repeats the same alignment work—and nobody sees the same version of cash flow, order backlog and costs at the same time.

Central database

One database for the facts that matter

On the platform, harmonised data lives in one central database—the shared backbone for actuals reporting, planning, forecast versions, scenarios and AI-backed answers. Every view and every dialogue uses the same data cut and the same business logic.

Data from third-party systems—such as ERP, CRM, banks, time tracking or specialist tools—is connected to that database through the integration and connectivity product Ledgera. Interfaces, mappings and runtimes are handled there in one place, instead of scattered one-off scripts per source.

Ad-hoc queries

Ask your numbers a question. Get a traceable answer.

Answers reference your harmonised model – not a generic knowledge base. Version, dimension and data timestamp can be traced in the reply. No black box.

You

Show revenue YTD, EBITDA with margin, operating cash flow and net leverage—forecast v3, group consolidated.

Atheniks

Based on forecast v3, as of 12 September—the KPI block you asked for (illustrative):

Revenue YTD

€48.2m

+3.1% vs prior year

EBITDA

€7.9m

Margin 16.4%

Operating CF

€2.1m

CW 18 watch

Net leverage

2.4×

EBITDA run-rate

All figures from the same object tree as planning and reporting; variance vs v2 in the version note.

You

Which projects show the largest negative plan vs actual variance YTD—sorted by extra cost?

Atheniks

Top 3 by extra cost vs plan YTD (costs): Nordhafen expansion (−€1.24m), IT core migration (−€0.62m), Energy efficiency package 24 (−€0.41m). Aggregated across cost centres 710–780, group; same data timestamp as above.

Another sample question (demo) …

Capture & roles

Capture where the work happens

Like the homepage section “The Atheniks platform”: pick a role and see the flow—from the screen through the shared database to the AI answer.

The example screens show facts beyond typical ERP/CRM master data (win probabilities, residual risks, substitution assumptions, partial outages, governance notes). Those signals are often missing from standard transactions—but once captured in structure they feed planning and forecast.

Sales · pipeline signal

Quality & win probability—not only amount

CRM often stores amount and stage—not internal win probability, risk rationale and expected close week that finance and operations need for planning.

1 · Screen

Deal / region

Nordhafen logistics · West

Account · economic buyer

Hafen AG · COO + head of engineering

Win %

CRM stage

4 / 5

Net (€m)

1.34

Expected close

Wk 41

Stage ↔ win-prob check

Stage 4, p 0.64—aligned (review Wk 38)

Competitive pressure

medium

Strong champion?

yes

Main concern (free text)

Port authority · customs cluster—delay possible; competitor X alternate only partly comparable

2 · Database

Source	Region	Account	Opportunity	Volume · p
Sales	West	Hafen AG	Nordhafen logistics	€1.34 m · 0.64
Sales	West	Hafen AG	Risk tag authority	— · high
Sales	West	Hafen AG	Technical champion	— · strong
Sales	Central	Westhub GmbH	Westhub retrofit	€0.42 m · 0.71
Sales	North	Offshore 24	Helgoland retrofit	€0.88 m · 0.58
Sales	North	Offshore 24	Risk tag logistics	— · medium
Sales	DACH	Portfolio	Expected close median	Wk 42 · —
Sales	DACH	Portfolio	Competitive pressure	— · medium
Sales	DACH	Portfolio	Pipeline health	— · amber
Sales	West	Hafen AG	CRM stage check	Stage 4 · aligned

3 · AI · dialog

Chat

You

Which deals with p < 0.7 still contribute more than €0.5 m in Q4—and which main concern dominates?

Atheniks

Under your filters there is one match. Figures and assumptions are in the report beside this; variants on the right as scenarios.

You

Please only deals with expected close by Wk 44 and net > €0.8 m—does the hit list change?

Atheniks

With Wk 44 and > €0.8 m it stays Nordhafen logistics; no other deal in that band. Filters line up with the database—see the metric table in the report.

Report

Analysis · Q4 · filters on

Metric	Value
Deal	Nordhafen logistics
Net Q4 (wtd.)	€1.34 m
Win prob. p	0.64
Main concern	Authority / customs-port

One match in the Q4 weighting: Nordhafen logistics €1.34 m at p = 0.64. Dominant concern: risk tag “Authority” (customs/port).

Assumptions

Win probabilities as captured; no mix with CRM stages without the stage ↔ probability check.
Net weighted as in the database; same data cut as screen and DB.

Row filter DEAL-NH-2026-LOG—same object ID as on the screen.

Scenarios

AI modelled — three initiatives, each with three variants (What · Where · How · Why).

Initiative · Nordhafen logistics · Q4

1 What: customs / authority delay +2 weeks. Where: Nordhafen port, object DEAL-NH-2026-LOG. How: Q4 close shifts right with the same entry logic as the screen. Why: forecast net in band about −€0.08 m (illustrative).
2 What: win probability p drops 0.64 → 0.55. Where: same deal, CRM and forecast slice. How: pipeline model re-aggregated. Why: board-pack risk haircut about −€0.12 m.
3 What: sales / dispatch capacity for closing calls. Where: North region, week 44. How: prioritise Nordhafen over the Chemiefeed deal. Why: protect largest Q4 net-at-risk exposure.

Initiative · Rheinhafen · Chemiefeed

1 What: delivery window slips one slot. Where: Rheinhafen intake and silo line. How: tonnage unchanged, revenue timing only. Why: Q4 revenue plan with no net loss, period shift only.
2 What: raw material +3 % vs. quote. Where: Chemiefeed purchase terms. How: refresh contribution II in the deal model. Why: price band before customer sign-off.
3 What: competitor bid with longer term. Where: tender RFQ-RH-18. How: lower p, extend tenure assumption. Why: decision matrix sales vs. Nordhafen priority.

Initiative · Group · Q4 pipeline steering

1 What: aggregate top five deals by risk tag. Where: group CRM + forecast hub. How: same weighting as the database, no shadow stages. Why: CFO readout “largest concern per week”.
2 What: sensitivity: all p < 0.7 down −0.05. Where: entire North region. How: light Monte Carlo on pipeline values. Why: worst-reasonable case for reserve note.
3 What: FX shock +4 % vs. base. Where: export-heavy deals (Nordhafen + Rheinhafen). How: margins re-priced from ERP terms. Why: separate scenario per GC note—no double count.

Project management · residual risk

Risk before the milestone—not only a Gantt date

MS Project gives dates; the professional view “residual risk (thermal)” and mitigation by week are often missing as versioned facts for forecast and CFO review.

1 · Screen

Work package

WP2 · Hydraulic commissioning

Milestone link

M3 · Nordhafen go-live

Residual risk

medium

Risk type

thermal / hydraulics

Critical path?

yes

Mitigation by

Wk 33

Owner · escalation

PM Nordhafen · level 2 (weekly steering)

Mitigation (short)

Rent backup skid + external pressure test by Wk 32

2 · Database

Source	Project	Work package	Milestone	Status / risk
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	WP2 hydraulics	M3 commissioning	Mitigation open · residual medium
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	WP2 hydraulics	M3	Crit. path · yes
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	Backup skid mitigation	By Wk 33	open
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	WP1 foundations	M1	closed · residual low
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	WP4 electrical	M4 interface	Interface open
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	M2 dewatering	M2	closed
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	Buffer north (d)	Plan basis	−12 % vs. target
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	Pipe supplier	Date	Wk 31
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	QA thermal	Review	OK
Project	PRJ-NH-2026	North steering	Escalation	Level 2

3 · AI · dialog

Chat

You

Which work packages with residual risk ≥ medium block M3 and still have no closed mitigation?

Atheniks

WP2 hydraulics meets your criteria. Details and escalation path are in the report; scenarios on the right summarise the alternatives.

You

What other open mitigations sit on the same critical path as WP2?

Atheniks

Only the backup skid to Wk 33 line shares that path; other WPs are decoupled or closed. Short view in the report, impact in scenarios A/B.

Report

Residual risk · M3 link

Field	Value
Work package	WP2 hydraulics
Critical path	yes
Mitigation	open
Residual risk	medium
Milestone	M3

WP2 hydraulics: critical path yes, mitigation open, residual medium. Blocks M3 if the mitigation is not closed.

Assumptions

Milestone logic from the same database as the screen; no parallel “shadow WPs”.
“Closed” = documented sign-off in the database (not email only).

Filter AP-WP2-NH—same as the screen.

Scenarios

AI modelled — three initiatives, each with three variants (What · Where · How · Why).

Initiative · Nordhafen · M3 / WP2 hydraulics

1 What: mitigation “rent backup skid + external pressure test” closed by Wk 33. Where: Nordhafen site, WP WP2. How: sign-off stored per DB rule “closed”. Why: M3 stays in the planned window—no path slip.
2 What: miss Wk 33 by one week. Where: same critical path to M3. How: escalation level 2 + rental cost for backup skid. Why: illustrative extra cost +€0.04 m + steering log.
3 What: thermal residual stays “medium” but mitigation closed. Where: project risk matrix. How: exposure only via follow-up checks. Why: CFO narrative without double-counting open items.

Initiative · Ostkai · drying hall

1 What: parallel delivery of component C delayed. Where: Ostkai, hall B (not Nordhafen path). How: +3 d buffer from neighbouring WP. Why: relieve shared welding crew.
2 What: “Hall” residual high, mitigation still open. Where: Ostkai milestone M2. How: link to Nordhafen is informational (resource) only. Why: portfolio view for PM—no automatic M3 impact.
3 What: escalate to level 3 only on joint resource crunch. Where: group North steering. How: trigger from welding capacity KPI. Why: explicit model for moving WP2 crew (if needed).

Initiative · Group · milestone portfolio

1 What: roll-up of all WPs with residual ≥ medium and open mitigation. Where: PM database view. How: same join logic as the screen. Why: weekly priority list before steering.
2 What: what-if: two WPs critical at once. Where: Nordhafen + Ostkai. How: model welding capacity halved. Why: illustrate double load vs. single WP2 risk.
3 What: governance: “closed” only with uploaded evidence. Where: DMS link on the WP. How: rule change tightens traffic light. Why: audit trail for M3 release.

Procurement · substitution logic

Material choice & schedule slip

The ERP order line has item and quantity—not whether an alternate section is acceptable and how many days the build plan slips.

1 · Screen

Line / lot

Steel section HE-B 200 · lot B7 Nordhafen

Source vs substitute

ArcelorMittal → Nordstahl (same structural class)

Substitution degree %

Schedule slip (days)

Engineering basis

Structural calc OK; material delta within tolerance per QA note 14-03

Released by

Site manager

Qty (t)

2 · Database

Source	Project	Lot · material	Supplier	Qty / status
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	B7 · HE-B 200	Nordstahl	42 t · subst. 85 %
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	B7 · schedule slip	—	+4 d
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	Site release	Site manager	granted
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	PO-8842	Nordstahl	confirmed
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	B6 · IPE 200	Arcelor	28 t · 0 d slip
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	B7 · IPE 240 alt.	Nordstahl	subst. 72 %
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	Customs Nordhafen	Authority	review
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	QA note 14-03	QA	linked
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	Delivery window	Nordstahl	Wk 29
Procurement	PRJ-NH-2026	WP2 link	Project	crit. path

3 · AI · dialog

Chat

You

Where substitution > 80 % and schedule slip > 0—please group by project and lot.

Atheniks

Grouped by project/lot: one focus Nordhafen · B7. Metrics and assumptions are in the report; impacts as scenarios on the right.

You

Is QA note 14-03 mandatory for site sign-off on lot B7?

Atheniks

Yes—it is linked as the engineering basis; same row as on the screen. One-line proof in the report under QA / release.

Report

Substitution · schedule slip

Metric	Value
Project	PRJ-NH-2026
Lot	B7
Substitution	85 %
Slip	+4 d
WP2 hydraulics	linked (crit. path)

Nordhafen · lot B7: substitution 85 %, slip +4 d. Linked to WP2 hydraulics (critical path) from the same database.

Assumptions

Site-manager release as captured; QA note 14-03 as static engineering basis.
Slip additive on the construction plan (not parallel ERP delivery-date logic).

PRJ-NH-2026 + line key as on the screen.

Scenarios

AI modelled — three initiatives, each with three variants (What · Where · How · Why).

Initiative · Nordhafen · lot B7 · steel section

1 What: schedule slip +4 d fully in construction buffer. Where: Nordhafen assembly, B7 girder line. How: buffer burn with no extra QA round. Why: no M3 slip, cost neutral vs. plan.
2 What: +4 d plus extra external QA wait. Where: test lab + site. How: slip additive to build plan per assumption. Why: illustrative M3 −1 week—align PM and site lead.
3 What: substitution 85 % unchanged but supplier shifts delivery window. Where: ERP line vs. QA note 14-03. How: screen ↔ DB reconcile. Why: site release with documented rationale.

Initiative · Nordhafen · lot B2 · welding consumables

1 What: electrode bottleneck, certified alternate supplier. Where: same site, different line item. How: substitution 72 %, short QA check. Why: no impact on B7 main date—inventory cost only.
2 What: customs hold 5 d on consumables container. Where: Nordhafen inbound. How: shifts B2 weld start. Why: resource clash with WP2—coordinate operations.
3 What: framework supplier A at capacity. Where: group procurement North. How: shift to supplier B, same structural class. Why: price band in the report for CFO add-ons.

Initiative · Supplier portfolio · Nordstahl

1 What: rolling mill capacity −10 % for six weeks. Where: Nordstahl plant. How: stagger deliveries across PRJ-NH-2026. Why: “split tranche” scenario in the procurement report.
2 What: QA note 14-03 revised (rev B). Where: technical pack lot B7. How: new rationale, statics unchanged. Why: second site release without material change.
3 What: Arcelor remains backup source. Where: alternate HE-B 200 section. How: 100 % substitution possible, +2 w lead time. Why: worst case if Nordstahl drops out entirely.

Operations · partial outage

Load & priority—not only a trouble ticket

A CMMS captures tickets—rarely the structured cut in available hours per week and prioritisation versus the production plan that finance needs for margin coverage.

1 · Screen

Asset · line

Boiler 2 · steam distribution north

Partial outage (h/week)

−120

Load before %

Priority vs plan

high

Output effect (t/wk)

−8 %

Workaround until

Wk 22 · mobile steam bridge + shift mix

Construction link

WP2 hydraulics (same downtime window)

2 · Database

Source	Site	Asset · line	KPI / topic	Value · period
Operations	Nordhafen	Boiler 2 · steam N.	Partial outage	−120 h/wk · Wk 18–22
Operations	Nordhafen	North line	Output	−8 % · same window
Operations	Nordhafen	Boiler 2	Priority vs plan	high
Operations	Nordhafen	Shift	Mix Wk19	+6 % capacity
Operations	Nordhafen	Mobile steam bridge	Workaround	active · to Wk 22
Operations	Nordhafen	South line	Output	−2 %
Operations	Nordhafen	K1 maintenance	Shutdown	planned · Wk 24
Operations	Nordhafen	Energy	Cost Wk20	+3 %
Operations	Nordhafen	North line	OEE	84 %
Operations	Nordhafen	Build / WP2	Link	yes · same window

3 · AI · dialog

Chat

You

Sum partial-outage h/week at high priority for Wk 18–22—and output effect per line?

Atheniks

For Wk 18–22 I rolled up hours and line effects. Table rows are in the report; scenarios on the right for finance/construction.

You

Does the mobile steam bridge count inside the −120 h/wk or is it separate?

Atheniks

Separate line: −120 h/wk is only boiler 2 partial outage; the bridge is the workaround row in the report.

Report

Partial outage · Wk 18–22

Metric	Value
Asset	Boiler 2
Partial outage	−120 h/wk
Priority	high
North line · output	−8 %
Workaround until	Wk 22

Boiler 2: −120 h/wk at high priority. North line: cumulative output effect −8 %; workaround active until Wk 22.

Assumptions

Partial-outage hours from the operations screen, not parsed from ticket text.
Link to WP2 for context only (same downtime window).

Asset ID EQ-KES2 as on the screen.

Scenarios

AI modelled — three initiatives, each with three variants (What · Where · How · Why).

Initiative · North site · boiler 2 / steam

1 What: partial outage −120 h/wk, workaround stable to Wk 22. Where: asset EQ-KES2, north steam distribution. How: mobile steam bridge + shift mix per screen. Why: contribution margin in finance band unchanged (base).
2 What: outage extends beyond Wk 22. Where: same line, high priority. How: output effect stacks; overlaps WP2 construction window. Why: illustrative +€0.06 m + escalation to PM.
3 What: steam bridge counts outside the −120 h/wk sum. Where: KPI “partial outage” vs. workaround row. How: separate fields in the report. Why: correct finance roll-up without double counting.

Initiative · North line · output / priority

1 What: output effect −8 % across Wk 18–22. Where: north line production plan. How: “high” priority keeps critical SKU. Why: service level vs. construction side-load.
2 What: priority downgraded to “medium” (internal). Where: shift planning. How: reallocate steam to another line. Why: trade-off revenue vs. supporting construction.
3 What: extra planned outage 12 h/wk (maintenance). Where: Wk 20. How: additive to partial outage in the model. Why: worst-case curve for the finance scenario.

Initiative · Construction link / WP2

1 What: same downtime window for boiler and hydraulic test. Where: Nordhafen site + north plant. How: context only—no automatic schedule slip. Why: PM sees coupling risk in the report.
2 What: hydraulic test slips +2 d. Where: WP2. How: steam demand moves with it. Why: bundle operations ↔ PM in one scenario.
3 What: no link (sensitivity). Where: data flag “informational only”. How: show KPIs separately. Why: conservative finance view without double effect.

Finance · governance note

Scenario link—not only posting text

ERP batches hold text—rarely an explicit link to a forecast version and an approved supplementary assumption the chat can resolve later.

1 · Screen

Scenario

Forecast v4 · base FX

Company code

1000 · North

Effective from

1 May

GC addendum (short)

No material uncertainties beyond Nordhafen supply chain; FX shock scenario documented separately

Linked KPI set

Contribution margin II + working capital north

Approval

CFO · 1 May

Reference (journal)

JE-Q2-8841

2 · Database

Source	Forecast	Company code	Object / ref.	Amount · status
Finance	FC v4 · base FX	1000 · North	GC note Q2	approved · CFO
Finance	FC v4	1000	Version / status	v4 · active
Finance	FC v4	1000	JE-Q2-8841	linked
Finance	FC v4	1000	KPI set CM II + WC	bound
Finance	FC v4	1000	WC north roll-forward	+€0.02 m
Finance	FC v4	Consolidation	FX base EUR/USD	1.08
Finance	FC v4	Group	Covenants Q2	green
Finance	FC v4	1000	IFRS tag JE	IAS 37
Finance	FC v4	1000	GC audit trail	complete
Finance	FC-V4-BASE	1000 · North	Scenario ID	FC-V4-BASE

3 · AI · dialog

Chat

You

Which GC notes in v4 still reference Nordhafen—and which journal references are linked?

Atheniks

In v4 there is one relevant GC hit with a Nordhafen reference. Structured fields and links are in the report; scenarios summarise WC/revision impact.

You

Is there a second journal link for JE-Q2-8841 or only one?

Atheniks

Only one reference—the same ID as on the screen. No duplicate links in the database; see the report under Journal.

Report

Governance · Forecast v4

Field	Value
GC note	Q2 · approved
Forecast	v4 · active
Nordhafen (text)	hit in short text
KPI set	CM II + WC north
Journal	JE-Q2-8841

GC note Q2 in Forecast v4: “Nordhafen” hit in the short text. Linked KPI set: contribution margin II + WC north. Journal link JE-Q2-8841 from the screen.

Assumptions

CFO approval as captured; FX shock separate (no double count in the GC short text).
“v4” = active forecast version per the database.

Scenario ID FC-V4-BASE as on the screen.

Scenarios

AI modelled — three initiatives, each with three variants (What · Where · How · Why).

Initiative · Forecast v4 · GC / Nordhafen

1 What: Nordhafen supply chain +1 week in the base case. Where: GC short text + KPI set contribution II + WC North. How: inventory and payment run dynamically. Why: illustrative working capital +€0.03 m.
2 What: GC adds explicit incremental risk (wording change). Where: forecast v4, company code 1000 North. How: governance rule “open revision”. Why: clean cut to v4.1 including new CFO sign-off.
3 What: journal link stays unique JE-Q2-8841. Where: screen ↔ database. How: no duplicate document, audit trail. Why: matches chat answer “only one reference”.

Initiative · KPI set · contribution margin II

1 What: boiler partial outage flows to variable cost. Where: north production segment. How: hours × rate from operations export. Why: contribution II in month-end close.
2 What: construction overrun +€0.06 m from operations scenario. Where: Nordhafen project costs. How: one-off booking vs. recurring. Why: split P&L vs. WC in the forecast version.
3 What: price/volume mix +1 % north revenue. Where: same KPI set. How: partially offsets contribution II. Why: upside case against supply-chain downside.

Initiative · FX / revision (separate)

1 What: FX shock +4 % per GC note in a separate annex. Where: not double-counted in the short text. How: own parameter block. Why: no double count with Nordhafen delivery week.
2 What: +25 bp on the working-capital facility. Where: treasury assumption Q2. How: finance charge on WC balance. Why: sensitivity alongside operations / construction costs.
3 What: v4.1 triggers a new approval. Where: CFO workflow. How: date + journal reference unchanged until sign-off. Why: revision trail for auditors and the AI chat.

Flow

Six steps—AI supports each step

The pipeline is not “data first, AI later”. Classification, pattern detection, chatbot, scenario generation and plausibility checks sit where they make business sense.

1

Capture

Business teams record assumptions and documents in a structured way. AI: supports classification and mapping documents to objects in the data model.
2

Integrate

ERP, CRM and banks feed the central database. AI: flags anomalies and missing periods in imports before they distort planning.
3

Harmonise

One KPI and dimension logic shared by finance and operations. AI: proposes mappings and cleansing rules for you to approve.
4

Analyse

Reports and KPIs on one basis. AI: chatbot for natural-language ad-hoc questions tied to live data and version.
5

Plan

Budget, forecast and investment models use the same facts. AI: generates scenario variants from historical patterns and explicit parameters (e.g. price, headcount, rates).
6

Steer & follow up

Approvals, variance rules and rework in one context. AI: summarises changes between versions and points to affected KPIs.

Scenarios

Change parameters, see effects

Example: two additional full-time equivalents on project X. AI generates a new plan version from linked cost centres, payroll parameters and revenue assumptions—cash flow, P&L and balance-sheet positions move consistently, not just an isolated row in a sheet.

Sample parameters

+2 FTE, project X, from February

Payroll cost (year)

+€186k

Operating cash flow (Q2)

−€42k

EBITDA margin

−0.6 pp

Equity ratio

−0.3 pp

Illustrative figures for display; in production, values depend on your model and approvals.

Before / after (illustrative)

Same planning assumptions as above—shown as metric cards with a clear delta.

Parameter · +2 FTE

Baseline

Headcount plan baseline

Revenue: unchanged
Q3 EBITDA margin: 14.2 %
Liquidity: stable

After

After +2 FTE

same revenue assumption

Revenue: same
Q3 EBITDA margin: 13.6 % −0.6 pp
Liquidity: Trough / stress Wk 18

Read left → right: plan before, then plan after Margin falls as payroll rises Liquidity: one calendar week shows the pinch point

Contact

Tell us your current data situation – we’ll say in 30 minutes whether Atheniks fits.

Briefly describe what you want to review: data sources, a specific module, or the rollout timeline. We reply with follow-up questions or a proposed slot – no canned pitch deck, no mandatory demo.

Contact form

We typically respond within two business days. No mandatory demo – we clarify upfront whether the scope fits.