Can someone do my Week 3 discussion in BUS 639 Technology & Innovation?

© Copyright 2018 FSN Publishing Limited. All rights reserved

The Future of Business Partnering Global Survey 2019

Insights from the FSN Modern Finance Forum on LinkedIn

BP2

2

Sponsored By

Letter from the Leader of the Modern Finance Forum

Gary Simon CEO FSN & Leader of the Modern Finance Forum LinkedIn

Dear Colleagues,

FSN’s “Future of Business Partnering” Survey 2019 is one of the largest surveys of its kind covering responses from than 660 senior finance professionals worldwide. It is the first time that there has been an in-depth study of finance business partnering and it reveals startling insights about the scope of business partnering, different styles of delivery and the impact of data preparedness and organizational size on the success of the role.

Whilst 88% of senior finance professionals consider themselves to be business partners, there are profoundly different views of what business partnering entails, ranging from the traditional financial management tasks all the way through to prompting change and innovation in core financial processes. Although the vast majority of finance professionals remain mired in their traditional roles, around a quarter point the way forward to a new era of business partnering centered on top line growth, strategic alignment and encouraging process change and innovation. We call this new generation of business partner BP2 (BP Squared) to illustrate the step-change that is involved in migrating from current thinking to the leading edge of business partner delivery.

“Data mastery” is revealed as crucial to effective business partnering. Finance organizations that have mastered their data have the time and space to devote to innovation and change, whereas those whose data is not comprehensive and well managed find themselves bogged down in traditional finance activities.

The quality and effectiveness of business partnering varies with the size of organization. The survey finds that business partners from small organizations (with less than 500 employees) are the most appreciated. The smaller scale of the organization and lower levels of transactions help finance professionals keep their finger on the pulse more easily and promote collaboration and knowledge- sharing. At the other extreme, large organizations, (more than 3,500 employees) tend to have a more formal and mature business partnering model yet they tend to be hampered by lack of process standardization and automation that holds them back from delivering business partner excellence.

3

Letter from the Leader of the Modern Finance Forum

Mid-sized organizations are literally caught in the middle. They do not have the advantages of operating on a small scale and neither do they have the well-defined and resourced organizational structures of larger competitors. Business partners in the middle of the size spectrum are, by their own assessment, least well regarded and make the smallest contribution to profitability compared to their peers.

The area where the most developmental work is required is around the measurement of business partnering success. While more than 90% of business partners assert that their activities contribute to profitability, 57% of organizations say that have no agreed way of measuring the success of their endeavors. Despite these challenges our research has been able to identify three models of assessment that go some way to measuring the success of business partnering activity. Nevertheless, the difficulty in quantifying the contribution of business partnering should not be underestimated.

We hope that you find the survey’s findings set out in this document thought-provoking and interesting. But above all we hope that the contents of this report together with FSN’s “Innovation Showcase” to be released later this year which describes the latest innovations in the vendor community, will inspire you to explore and discuss business partnering and innovation in your own organization with your colleagues.

Gary Simon

Gary Simon CEO FSN & Leader of the Modern Finance Forum

4

5

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

Executive Summary

BP2 – The Next Generation of Business Partner

Data to Support Business Partnering

Size Does Matter

Measuring Business Partnering

How our research was conducted

About FSN

6

10

17

22

26

30

33

Table of Contents

6

Executive Summary

6

Business Partnering

The concept of finance providing business support to operational divisions is not new. For some time, progressive companies have encouraged the finance function to exert its influence and spread its insight beyond the four accounting walls. But it is only recently that business partnering has really gone mainstream. In the technologically supercharged business environment, business partnering is essential to staying competitive.

But the pervasiveness of business partnering doesn’t translate into universal effectiveness. There are widely different definitions of the process, various levels of engagement, contrasting approaches to partnerships and an as yet undecided view on measuring its success.

Field of vision

Business partnering is the process of collaboration between finance executives and operational management that widens the reach of financial insight and benefits the whole company. How wide this influence goes and what it includes is a matter of some debate though.

This survey found that most CFOs see the scope of business partnerships as a mix of financial knowledge and commercial support, challenging budgets and providing some strategic advice on commercial decision-making. This is the traditional way of viewing the relationship and is certainly a useful starting point for companies at the beginning of their journey.

But it isn’t necessarily enough anymore. Business partnering has been around for long enough that your competitors may already have moved on to the next iteration of the process. These are business partners that are also agents of change, actively exploring new business models, seeking out innovation across the organization, and pushing for process change.

Then again maybe not. Only 19% of respondents said their business partnering style was to act as change agents. Meanwhile 35% hardly scratched the surface of the relationship because they limited themselves to a highly finance-centric approach, or applied such a light touch to their partnerships that finance was only occasionally approached for operational decision-making. The remaining 46% of finance business partners are seen as trusted advisors who are sought out for operational decisions, which is effective but not necessarily proactive.

Executive Summary

7

Data mantra

The data revolution is in many ways responsible for the rise in finance business partnering, as well as its enabler. Technology has brought so much more information to the fore, and companies are using it to steal a march on their competitors. This is forcing organizations to fight back by using business partnerships to expand the financial insight brought about by the data revolution into other areas of the business. But the survey shows that they are only as strong as the data that underpins it.

78% of respondents were either overwhelmed by too much poorly managed data, constrained by the access to the right data, or hamstrung by a lack of technology to use to generate insight. Only 22% had achieved data mastery where they actively manage their data as a corporate asset and have the tools to manage and analyze it to deliver competitive advantage.

Those data masters generate the most effective business partnerships, delivering change and enjoying the high regard of the operational functions which they support. Meanwhile the laggards have to contend with under-developed processes that exhibit a lack of standardization and automation.

Best measurements

How do you know if you’re getting it right, or pouring time and effort into an ineffective endeavor? Not only is business partnering difficult to define and subjective in approach, it is also notoriously hard to measure. Many of the outcomes of the partnership are intangible, like the collaborative relationships that build up over time, the nuanced understanding of the financial impacts of operational decisions, and the cultural improvements that occur when different departments work together.

Many survey respondents said they have inadequate or non-existent measuring capabilities, and those that do offered up an array of solutions. The most common was the survey or appraisal method, which while subjective, does allow partners to ‘rate’ their partnership and provide feedback on their contribution. Other finance executives choose to measure business partnerships in the same way they measure financial business goals, using metrics like revenue, profit and cash generation. The issue with this is establishing a causal link between the business partnership and the financial outcome.

Still others choose to hold all parties accountable from the beginning, collaboratively establishing specific targets for the business partnership to ensure there are very tangible outcomes linked to the process.

Executive Summary

8

Smaller is nimble

The size of organization also has some bearing on whether business partnering will be effective or not. Smaller companies tend to produce more satisfactory outcomes and are held in higher regard than their larger counterparts. This is at least in part because everyone is expected to muck in, they’re usually physically located closer to one another, and there may be less financial data to manage or share.

Large corporates meanwhile are more organized in their approach and are more likely to have a business partnering title to go with the job. But despite regulated channels to go through, they are not as well regarded as partners in smaller organizations and come up against substantial hindrances like a lack of automation and standardization.

But at least they are more effective than mid-size companies which fall into the cracks between ‘small and nurturing’, and ‘big and resourceful’. Mid-sized companies scored poorly on several metrics of business partnering efficacy. It’s not a fait accompli though. Mid-sized companies looking to spark change through business partnering must manage their relationships with a small-sized collaborative mentality using their mid-sized resources.

When companies are up against nimble start-ups and business model disruptors, they need to build strong and collaborative relationships at the epicenter of the finance function. Wherever business partners are on their journey, business partnering is viewed as an important tool in the corporate arsenal.

Executive Summary

9

10

BP2 – The Next Generation of Business Partner

10

Chapter 1

BP2 – the next generation of Business Partner

The role of business partner has become almost ubiquitous in organizations today. According to respondents of this survey, 88% of senior finance professionals already consider themselves to be business partners. This key finding suggests that the silo mentality is breaking down and, at last, departments and functions are joining forces to teach and learn from each other to deliver better performance.

But the scope of the role, how it is defined, and how senior finance executives characterize their own business partnering are all open to interpretation. And many of the ideas are still hamstrung by traditional finance behaviors and aspirations, so that the next generation of business partners as agents of change and innovation languish at the bottom of the priority list.

The scope of business partnering

According to the survey, most CFOs see business partnering as a blend of traditional finance and commercial support, while innovation and change are more likely to be seen as outside the scope of business partnering.

57% of senior finance executives strongly agree that a business partner should challenge budgets, plans and forecasts. Being involved in strategy and development followed closely behind with 56% strongly agreeing that it forms part of the scope of business partnering, while influencing commercial decisions was a close third.

The pattern that emerges from the survey is that traditional and commercial elements are given more weight within the scope of business partnering than being a catalyst for change and innovation. This more radical change agenda is only shared by around 36% of respondents, indicating that finance professionals still largely see their role in traditional or commercial terms. They have yet to recognize the finance function’s role in the next generation of business partnering, which can be the catalyst for innovation in business models, for process improvements and for organizational change.

Traditional and commercial business partners aren’t necessarily less important than change agents, but the latter has the potential to add the most value in the longer term, and should at least be in the purview of progressive CFOs who want to drive change and encourage growth.

Unfortunately, this is not an easy thing to change. Finding time for any business partnering can be a struggle, but CFOs spend disproportionately less time on activities that bring about change than on traditional business partnering roles. Without investing time and effort into it, CFOs will struggle to fulfill their role as the next generation of business partner.

Overall 45% of CFOs struggle to make time for any business partnering, so it won’t come as a surprise that, ultimately, only 57% of CFOs believe their finance team efforts as business partners are well regarded by the operational functions.

BP2 – The Next Generation of Business Partner

11

88% of CFOs consider themselves to be a business partner.

45% of CFOs struggle to make time for business partnering

The four personas of business partnering

Ask a room full of CFOs what business partnering means and you’ll get a room full of answers, each one influenced by their personal journey through the changing business landscape. By its very variability, this important business process is being enacted in many ways. FSN, the survey authors, did not seek to define business partnering. Instead, the survey asked respondents to define business partnering in their own words, and the 383 detailed answers were all different. But underlying the diversity were patterns of emphasis that defined four ‘personas’ or styles of business partnering, each exerting its own influence on the growth of the business over time.

A detailed analysis of the definitions and the frequency of occurrence of key phrases and expressions allowed us to plot these personas, their relative weight, together with their likely impact on growth over time.

BP2 – The Next Generation of Business Partner

12

The Four Personas or Business Partnering:

The size of the bubbles denotes the frequency (number) of times an attribute of business partnering was referenced in the definitions and these were plotted in terms of their likely contribution to growth in the short to long term.

The greatest number of comments by far coalesced around the bottom left-hand quadrant denoting a finance-centric focus on short to medium term outcomes, i.e. the traditional finance business partner.

But there was an encouraging drift upwards and rightwards towards the quadrant denoting what we call the next generation of business partner, “BP2” (BP Squared). This is a super-charged business partner using his or her wide experience, purview and remit to help bring about change in the organization, for example, new business models, new processes and innovative methods of organizational deployment.

Relatively few of the 383 respondents offering definitions of a business partner, concerned themselves with top line growth i.e. with involvement in commercial sales negotiations or the sales pipeline – a critical part of influencing growth.

Finally, surprisingly few finance business partners immersed themselves in strategy development or saw their role as helping to ensure strategic alignment. It suggests that the ongoing transition of the CFO’s role from financial steward to strategic advisor is not as advanced as some would suggest.

Financial Performance drivers

Most CFOs and senior finance executives define the role of the business partner in traditional financial terms. They are there to explain and illuminate the financial operations, be a trusted, safe pair of hands that manages business risk, and provide some operational support. The focus for these CFOs is on communicating a clear understanding of the financial imperative in order to steer the performance of the business prudently.

This ideal reflects the status quo and perpetuates the traditional view of finance, and the role of the CFO. It’s one where the finance function remains a static force, opening up only so far as to allow the rest of the business to see how it functions and make them more accountable to it. While it is obviously necessary for other functions to understand and support a financial strategy, the drawback of this approach is the shortcomings for the business as a whole. Finance-centric business partnering provides some short-term outcomes but does little to promote more than pedestrian growth. It’s better than nothing, but it’s far from the best.

BP2 – The Next Generation of Business Partner

Of the 383 business partnering definitions received a clear majority focused on financial performance as opposed to BP2 activities.

13

Top-Line Drivers

In the upper quadrant, top line drivers focus on driving growth and sales with a collaborative approach to commercial decision-making. This style of business partnering can have a positive effect on earnings, as improvements in commercial operations and the management of the sales pipeline are translated into revenue. But while top line drivers are linked to higher growth than financial-focused business partners, the outcome tends to be only short term.

The key issue for CFOs is that very few of them even allude to commercial partnerships when defining the scope of business partnering. They ignore the potential for the finance function to help improve the commercial outcomes, like sales or the collection of debt or even a change in business models.

Strategic Aligners

Those CFOs who focus on strategic alignment in their business partnering approach tend to see longer term results. They use analysis and strategy to drive decision- making, bringing business goals into focus through partnerships and collaborative working. This business benefit helps to strengthen the foundation of the business in the long term, but it isn’t the most effective in driving substantial growth. And again, there is a paucity of CFOs and senior finance executives who cited strategy development and analysis in their definition of business partnering.

Catalysts for change

The CFOs who were the most progressive and visionary in their definition of business partnering use the role as a catalyst for change. They challenge their colleagues, influence the strategic direction of the business, and generate momentum through change and innovation from the very heart of the finance function. These finance executives get involved in decision-making, and understand the need to influence, advise and challenge in order to promote change. This definition is the one that translates into sustained high growth.

The four personas are not mutually exclusive. Some CFOs view business partnering as a combination of some or all of these attributes. But the preponderance of opinion is clustered around the traditional view of finance, while very little is to do with being a catalyst for change.

BP2 – The Next Generation of Business Partner

14

The four personas are not mutually exclusive. Some CFOs view business partnering as a combination of some or all of these attributes.

How do CFOs characterize their finance function?

However CFOs choose to define the role of business partnering, each function has its own character and style. According to the survey, 17% have a finance-centric approach to business partnering, limiting the relationship to financial stewardship and performance. A further 18% have to settle for a light-touch approach where they are occasionally invited to become involved in commercial decision-making. This means 35% of senior finance executives are barely involved in any commercial decision-making at all.

More positively, the survey showed that 46% are considered to be trusted advisors, and are sought out by operational business teams for opinions before they make big commercial or financial decisions.

But at the apex of the business partnering journey are the change agents, who make up a paltry 19% of the senior finance executives surveyed. These forward thinkers are frequently catalysts for change, suggesting new business processes and areas where the company can benefit from innovation. This is the next stage in the evolution of both the role of the modern CFO and the role of the finance function at the heart of business innovation. We call CFOs in this category BP2 (BP Squared) to denote the huge distance between these forward-thinking individuals and the rest of the pack.

Measuring up

Business partnering can be a subtle yet effective process, but it’s not easy to measure. 57% of organizations have no agreed way of measuring the success of business partnering, and 34% don’t think it’s possible to separate and quantify the value added through this collaboration.

Yet CFOs believe there is a strong correlation between business partnering and profitability – with 91% of respondents saying their business partnering efforts significantly add to profitability. While it’s true that some of the outcomes of business partnering are intangible, it is still important to be able to make a direct connection between it and improved performance, otherwise those efforts may be ineffective but are allowed to continue.

BP2 – The Next Generation of Business Partner

15

35% of CFOs are barely involved in commercial decision- making.

One solution is to use 360 degree appraisals, drawing in a wider gamut of feedback including business partners and internal customers to ascertain the effectiveness of the process. Finance business partnering can also be quantified if there are business model changes, like the move from product sales to services, which require a generous underpinning of financial input to be carried out effectively.

Business partnering offers companies a way to inexpensively pool all their best resources to generate ideas, spark innovation and positively add value to the business. First CFOs need to recognize the importance of business partnering, widen their idea of how it can add value, and then actually set aside the enough time to become agents of change and growth.

BP2 – The Next Generation of Business Partner

16

17

Chapter 2

Data to Support Business Partnering

17

Data unlocks business partnering

Data is the most valuable organizational currency in today’s competitive business environment. Most companies are still in the process of working out the best method to collect, collate and use the tsunami of data available to them in order to generate insight. Some organizations are just at the start of their data journey, others are more advanced, and our research confirms that their data profile will make a significant difference to how well their business partnering works.

The survey asked how well respondent’s data supported the role of business partnering, and the responses showed that 18% were data overloaded. This meant business partners have too many conflicting data sources and poor data governance, leaving them with little actual usable data to support the partnering process.

26% were data constrained, meaning they cannot get hold of the data they need to drive insight and decision-making. And a further 34% were technology constrained, muddling through without the tech savvy resources or tools to fully exploit the data they already have. These senior finance executives may know the data is there, sitting in an ERP or CRM system, but can’t exploit it because they lack the right technology tools.

The final 22% have achieved data mastery, where they actively manage their data as a corporate asset, and have the tools and resources to exploit it in order to give their company a competitive edge.

This means 78% overall are hampered by data constraints and are failing to use data effectively to get the best out of their business partnering. While the good intentions are there, it is a weak partnership because there is little of substance to work with.

Data to Support Business Partnering

18

78% of organizations are hampered by data constraints.

“We have too many data sources and data governance is poor.”

18% DATA OVERLOAD

“We cannot get hold of the data we need to drive insight and

decision-making.”

26% DATA CONSTRAINED

“We do not have the tech-savvy resources or tools to fully exploit

data we have.”

34% TECHNOLOGY CONSTRAINED

“Data is actively managed as a corporate asset and we have the tools and resources to provide competitive edge and insight.”

22% DATA MASTERS

The diagram above is the Business Partnering Maturity Model as it relates to data. It illustrates that there is a huge gap between how effective data masters and data laggards are at business partnering. The percentage of business partners falling into each category of data management (‘data overloaded’, ‘data constrained’ etc) has been plotted together with how well these finance functions feel that business partnering is regarded by the operational units as well as their perceived influence on change.

The analysis reveals that “Data masters” are in a league of their own. They are significantly more likely to be well regarded by the operations and are more likely to act as change agents in their business partnering role.

We know from FSN’s 2018 Innovation in Financial Reporting survey that data masters, who similarly made up around one fifth of senior finance executives surveyed, are also more innovative. That research showed they were more likely to have worked on innovative projects in the last three years, and were less likely to be troubled by obstacles to reporting and innovation.

Data masters also have a more sophisticated approach to business partnering. They’re more likely to be change agents, are more often seen as a trusted advisor and they’re more involved in decision-making.

Interestingly, two-thirds of data masters have a formal or agreed way to measure the success of business partnering, compared to less than 41% of data constrained CFOs, and 36% of technology constrained and data overloaded finance executives. They’re also more inclined to perform 360 degree appraisals with their internal customers to assess the success of their business partnering. This means they can monitor and measure their success, which allows them to adapt and improve their processes.

Data to Support Business Partnering

19

The Big Divide:

% Business Partnering ‘Very Well Regarded’ by the Operations

% T

ha t c

on sid

er th

em se

lv es

to b

e a

‘C ha

ng e

Ag en

t’

20

The remainder, i.e. those that have not mastered their data, are clustered around a similar position on the Business Partnering Maturity Model, i.e. there is little to separate them around how well they are regarded by operational business units or whether they are in a position to influence change.

The key message from this survey is that data masters are the stars of the modern finance function, and it is a sentiment echoed through many of FSN’s surveys over the last few years.

The Innovation in Financial Reporting survey also found that data masters outperformed their less able competitors in three key performance measures that are indicative of financial health and efficiency. They close their books faster, reforecast quicker and generate more accurate forecasts, and crucially they have the time to add value to the organization.

People, processes and technology

So, if data is the key to driving business partnerships, where do the people, processes and technology come in? Business partnering doesn’t necessarily come naturally to everyone. Where there is no experience of it in previous positions, or if the culture is normally quite insular, sometimes CFOs and senior finance executives need focused guidance. But according to the survey, 77% of organizations expect employees to pick up business partnering on the job. And only just over half offer specialized training courses to support them.

Each company and department or function will be different, but businesses need to support their partnerships, either with formal structures or at the very least with guidance from experienced executives to maximize the outcome.

Meanwhile processes can be a hindrance to business partnering in organizations where there is a lack of standardization and automation. The survey found that 71% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a lack of automation hinders the process of business partnering. This was followed closely by a lack of standardization, and a lack of unification, or integration in corporate systems. Surprisingly the constraints of too many or too complex spreadsheets only hindered 61% of CFOs, the lowest of all obstacles but still a substantial stumbling block to effective partnerships.

The hindrances reflect the need for better technology to manage the data that will unlock real inter-departmental insight, and 83% of CFOs said that better software to support data analytics is their most pressing need when supporting effective business partnerships.

Meanwhile 81% are looking to future technology to assist in data visualization to make improvements to their business partnering.

81% of CFOs are looking to future technology to assist in data visualization to make improvements to their business partnering.

Data to Support Business Partnering

This echoes the findings of FSN’s The Future of Planning, Budgeting and Forecasting survey which identified users of cutting edge visualization tools as the most effective forecasters. Being able to visually demonstrate financial data and ideas in an engaging and accessible way is particularly important in business partnering, when the counterparty doesn’t work in finance and may have only rudimentary knowledge of complex financial concepts.

Data is a clear differentiator. Business partners who can access, analyze and explain organizational data are more likely to generate real insight, engage their business partners, and become a positive agent of change and growth.

81% of CFOs are looking to future technology to assist in data visualization to make improvements to their business partnering.

Data to Support Business Partnering

21

22

Chapter 3

Size Does Matter

22

Size does matter

Businesses go through various stages of growth, from start-up venture, to mid-sized success and finally large corporations with seemingly infinite moving parts. As the company grows it takes on new challenges, and how it responds to those challenges will dictate whether or how quickly it reaches the next level. As business partnering becomes the norm, companies of all sizes are using it to try to build relationships, encourage cohesion, and use the combined knowledge and experience of different functions to generate insight and improve growth – with varying degrees of success.

Analysis of the survey results reveals that small businesses are best at business partnering. They are very well-regarded, viewed as change agents, and have an inclusive approach which means everyone in finance is considered a business partner. This reflects the collaborative mentality of a smaller organization where everyone has to roll up their sleeves and get involved. Because small companies are less spread out physically, people naturally gravitate towards collaboration, and there may still be an element of the original proprietors or founders who draw the business together. On a practical level, there will be fewer transactions so it will also be easier to understand what is going on at a granular level.

Size Does Matter

23

Business Partnering very Well regarded

Everyone In finance considered to be a business partner

Finance viewed as a 'change agent': We are frequently a

catalyst for change, suggesting new business processes and

areas where the business can benefit from innovation.

Less than 500 employees

Between 500 to 3,500 employees

More than 3,500 employees

The finance teams in smaller organizations make better business partners.

Mid-range outcomes

Mid-size companies fared worst at business partnering. They were most likely to operate on a light touch basis, which means business partners were less likely to be involved in decision-making. And those business partners were not as well regarded by operations, had little time to spend on being catalysts of change, and were less likely to say their business partnering significantly added to profitability.

Despite their moniker as a mid-size business, these were still quite large enterprises with between 500 and 3,500 employees. The poor business partnering results reflect the journey of development for these companies who have left behind the highly engaged, proprietor-run collaborative office and find themselves in something of a no-man’s land.

These companies may be growing but haven’t yet got the resources to employ a lot of professional managers and directors that would come with experience of, and enthusiasm for, business partnering. While it is being carried out, the focus of business partnering is very much on current performance and with keeping the company afloat, rather than growth activities and initiatives that would enable it to flourish.

Big, not better

Once a company is large enough to employ professional managers across its departments and functions, their business partnering processes improve. They are well organized, have established business partnering teams, and importantly they have agreed measures of success. Large organizations talk to internal customers, engage in 360 appraisals and often have employees with specific business partnering titles.

But does this actually make them more successful as business partners? The survey suggests that despite all this formality, they face the most obstacles along the way. Large businesses are more likely to complain there are too many spreadsheet-bound processes so they fail to provide timely support to operational business units. They also are more likely to complain that a lack of process standardization and automation is hindering their business partnering endeavors.

So instead, because they are large and have more resources than smaller companies, they are more likely to look for solutions in technology. 76% of large businesses think robotic process automation will enable them to spend more time on business partnering and analysis, which is 25% more than small businesses.

Size Does Matter

Larger organizations are more inclined to look to technology solutions such as robotic automation to free up time to spend on business partnering.

24

25

Size Does Matter

They’re also one fifth more likely to agree and strongly agree that machine learning will generate performance narratives more quickly than they can be produced now, thereby aiding the understanding of non-financial managers and accelerating their business partnering efforts.

The advantages of effective business partnering are a stronger, more cohesive business with a clear growth trajectory. Wherever companies are on their journey, they need to tailor their business partnering to suit the needs of the business at the time. So, a small company should be encouraging change in order to grow into a mid-sized company successfully, and a mid-sized company should ensure that everyone has the time and resources to make business partnering successful as the organization changes. Meanwhile large companies can’t just pay lip service to a business partnering name tag while failing to share and innovate together because of failings within their business processes.

Which business processes most hinder business partnering?

Business Process: Less than 500 employees

500 to 3,500 employees

3,500 + employees

Spreadsheet Bound: There are too many spreadsheet bound processes so that we cannot provide timely support to operational business units.

58% 60% 66%

Lack of Standardization: Lack of standardized processes makes it difficult to provide a consistent approach to business partnering.

65% 67% 73%

Lack of Automation: It takes too long to provide results and KPIs needed to provide timely support for business partners.

68% 70% 77%

Lack of Unification: Lack of unified transaction and reporting environment makes it difficult to assemble a complete picture of performance.

62% 65% 65%

26

Chapter 4

Measuring Business Partnering

26

Measuring Business Partnering

The nuanced and often intangible benefits of business partnering make measuring the process very difficult. Often described as a mixture of art and science, the problem is clearly a common one as the survey responses attest. When asked to describe their own methods of measurement, many senior finance executives admitted theirs were inadequate or non-existent.

But it is important to have some way of gauging the efficacy of a business partnership, otherwise effort may be being wasted on ineffective and time- consuming procedures. Those respondents who did have a way to measure the success of their business partnerships fell into three main categories, namely; (i) appraisal or survey-led, (ii) finance focused and (ii) target-based accountability.

Appraisal or survey-led

Some finance executives use the 360 degree appraisal method with internal ‘customers’ to gauge the success of a business partnership. This method is becoming increasingly popular for all appraisal processes, because it includes feedback from many internal stakeholders rather than just a single direct manger. In looking to measure the effectiveness of business partnering, 360 degree manager appraisals will include feedback from the partners themselves, surrounding colleagues and even external stakeholders who are expected to benefit from the partnership.

Some CFOs are turning to surveys to make their assessments. For example, some respondents said they use satisfaction surveys that include a scoring system based on the projected outcomes, others track the time spent on low-level vs value- added tasks, and still others query the service, relevance and support levels of the partnership.

The appraisal or survey method is a good way of measuring sentiment, reflecting how the finance business partner is viewed by their operational counterpart. An effective partnership is built on trust and communication, which encourages engagement and builds collaborative relationships. Engagement emerged strongly as a key outcome for business partnerships, bringing different teams together, and driving energy and proactive behavior to better tackle business obstacles.

Finance focused

A finance focused approach to measuring the efficacy of business partnerships uses standard financial metrics like revenue growth, profitability, cashflow and capex. This finance focus mirrors the metrics used to calculate the efficacy of other business strategies, which is why it is very difficult to ‘prove’ that business partnering is the reason for the outcomes.

Still, there is a strong argument for including finance focused measures in finance- led business partnerships, because ultimately the finance partner is supposed to propel a project or relationship forward to impact on the business bottom-line.

Measuring Business Partnering

27

34% of CFOs do not believe it is possible to quantify the contribution attributable to their business partnering efforts.

91% of respondents say their business partnering efforts significantly add to profitability.

HOWEVER

The alternative to generic financial metrics as a measure are more specific targets that relate to the operation or the project under the auspices of the business partner. So, if the partnership involved supply chain relationships, financial outcomes like favorable customer agreements and cost control could be selected as the assessment criteria for a successful business partnership. Marketing relationships could be measured on sales and returns, and human resource partnerships could be measured by pay rates and productivity.

One survey respondent said they break down their measurements into timeliness when meeting deadlines, the quality of output, for example the number of errors or revisions in budgets or forecasts, and the effectiveness in realizing savings from proposals put forward by the finance partner.

Where a project is budget and planning focused, monitoring the variance between forecasts is a good proxy for how well the finance business partner is steering the operational unit towards achievable targets.

Finance functions have a natural inclination to focus on finance metrics, but the closer these metrics are related to the business partnership, the easier they are to link to the success or failure of that process.

Target-based accountability

Some survey respondents tackled the issue of how to assess a business partnership by ensuring the measurement process was included from the beginning. This means that both business partners and operational business partners were involved in the setting of outcome targets from the very start of the process. These targets were different for each CFO or senior finance executive depending on the specific project or relationship being measured, but included a combination of financial (budget or revenue/profit related) metrics and non-financial outcomes (engagement, accuracy etc).

At the end of the project, the outcomes are measured to see whether the targets have been met, and in addition the operational unit will report back on how much the contribution of their finance business partner was responsible for achieving those targets.

The advantages of a target-based approach is the clear goals that both partners are working towards, which solidifies the expectations and improves the outcomes. This can be measured from both sides. Just as the operational partner will appraise their finance counterpart on their contribution, the finance partner can also be measured at their end. For example, asking the finance business partner to present the state of the business without notice, to see whether they were fully engaged in the process, and questioning them about their understanding of the business drivers behind the financial performance.

It’s important that all partners are accountable to the process, and setting targets together, at the start, provides a solid foundation on which to build the partnership and assess its effectiveness.

28

Measuring Business Partnering

29

Measuring Business Partnering

It’s important that all partners are accountable to the process, and setting targets together, at the start, provides a solid foundation on which to build the partnership and assess its effectiveness.

However you choose to measure the success of a business partnership, assessment is necessary to understand whether the process is working and if the targets or outcomes are met. That said, the lasting relationships built through business partnering can continue to provide positive momentum long after a project is complete. From finance being included in discussions before decisions are made, to collaboration across the operations and finance divide, the rewards of business partnering should be ongoing.

30

Methodology

30

METHODOLOGY

The survey drew responses from 662 international senior finance professionals from our 55,000 strong FSN Modern Finance Forum on LinkedIn.

This survey covered finance professionals across 23 different industries. 81% of these professionals were considered to have senior job titles and above.

Geography of Respondents

Africa

Asia PAC

Europe

Middle East

North America

South America

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Organizational Size – Number of employees

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-20

21-50

51-100

101-250

251-500

501-1,000

1,001-3,500

5,001-10,000

More than 10,000

31

Methodology

3,501 – 5,000

Industry of Respondents

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Aerospace & Defense

Automotive

Other

Utilities

Transportation

Telecommunications

Technology (Computers, Software)

Retail

Banking / Financial Services

Business Services / Consulting

Real Estate

Pharmaceuticals / Life Sciences

Oil and Gas / Mining / Energy

Non-profit

Media & Entertainment

Manufacturing

Hospitality / Leisure / Travel

Health Care

Government (State, Local)

Government (Federal, including Military)

Education

Consumer Products

Insurance

32

Methodology

About FSN

Disclaimer of Liability

© 2019 FSN Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. FSN is a registered trademark of FSN Publishing Limited (“FSN”). This publication may not be reproduced or distributed, in part or as a whole, in any form without FSN’s prior written permission. This report is exclusively for your personal use and cannot be shared outside your company, or via email, internet posting, social media or other external information storage & retrieval systems.

Whilst every attempt has been made to ensure that the information in this document is accurate and complete some typographical errors or technical inaccuracies may exist. This report is of a general nature and not intended to be specific to a particular set of circumstances. The report contains the views and opinions of FSN Publishing Limited and FSN Publishing Limited make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this report and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, or written sales materials. FSN Publishing does not provide advisory services and no part of this research report should be construed or used as such. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. FSN Publishing Limited and the author shall not be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

FSN is a global publisher of thought leadership, research and “must-have” content for CFOs and senior finance professionals around the world. FSN’s highly popular and active Modern Finance Forum on LinkedIn has a membership of more than 55,000 readers in more than 23 countries and across every major industry segment. It is also the publisher of the popular www.fsn.co.uk website and regularly holds networking dinners and events for its members.

ABOUT FSN

®

Contact:

Gary Simon, CEO: [email protected]

Michelle Fabian: [email protected]

HQ Office in United Kingdom FSN Publishing Limited Devonshire House Manor Way Borehamwood Herts, WD6 1QQ

Switchboard: +44 (0)20 84452688

The Modern Finance Forum LinkedIn

33

© Copyright 2018 FSN Publishing Limited. All rights reserved

Innovation in the Finance Function Global Survey 2018

Insights from the FSN Modern Finance Forum on LinkedIn

2

With thanks to our sponsors

Letter from the Leader of the Modern Finance Forum

Gary Simon CEO FSN & Leader of the Modern Finance Forum LinkedIn

Dear Colleagues,

FSN’s Innovation in the Finance Function Survey 2018 is one of the largest surveys of its kind covering responses from than 1,000 senior finance professionals worldwide. It is the first time that there has been an in-depth study of attitudes to innovation in the finance function and it reveals startling insights about the appetite for finance innovation, including the impact of culture, attitudes to risk, organizational politics, style of project investment and levels of confidence in measuring return on investment.

The research shows unequivocally a strong link between innovation in the finance function and performance. Those organizations that are early adopters of technology or invest in innovation in a balanced way across the enterprise outperform organizations that are diffident, less structured in their investment approach and risk averse. Innovative finance functions close their books faster, produce more accurate financial forecasts and are less tied to legacy systems and traditional ways of working. Furthermore, innovative finance functions attract the best finance talent, leaving everybody else in their wake.

Encouragingly, 34% of finance functions are actively involved in innovation with around two thirds of these, pursuing opportunities for innovation more widely across the enterprise. But the study also finds that what constitutes innovation is very much in the ‘eye of the beholder’. For around 20% of respondents it’s a new ERP system and for another 20% it’s about driving insight through enterprise performance management applications. However, 35%, remain shackled to legacy systems. These finance functions must console themselves with innovations at the margin i.e. relatively small changes in standardization, automation and integration. And for some, finance innovation is about how the finance function is organized rather than the latest digital technologies.

3

Letter from the Leader of the Modern Finance Forum

Regional differences, especially between economically advanced and developing nations colors attitudes to whether innovation is supported and, if it is does have management backing, where investment is most needed. Nevertheless, wherever finance professionals reside and no matter how sophisticated their investment plans, all agree that the number one priority for innovation is around the need for better business insight.

The report also identifies the principle obstacles to innovation. Chief among these is an inability to measure the return on investment in technology. There is clearly cause to be optimistic about innovation in the finance function but there are also some formidable challenges. For example, more than 65% have yet to get their ‘hands dirty’.

We hope that you find the survey’s findings set out in this document thought-provoking and interesting. But above all we hope that the contents of this report together with FSN’s “Innovation Showcase” to be released later this year which describes the latest innovations in the vendor community, will inspire you to explore and discuss innovation in your own organization with your colleagues.

Gary Simon

Gary Simon CEO FSN & Leader of the Modern Finance Forum

4

5

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

Chapter Five

Chapter Six

Chapter Seven

Executive Summary

Big difference in attitudes to innovation across the world

Early adopters of innovation perform better

Front and back – A balanced approach to innovation drives best overall performance

Finance needs insightful innovation

Innovation interference – no culture, no time, no measurement

The recipe for successful innovation

In their own words – what innovation means to finance professionals

How our research was conducted

About FSN

6

10

13

17

22

25

27

28

28

31

Table of Contents

6

Executive Summary

6

Innovation Survey Executive Brief

Innovation is the process of introducing new ideas or inventions to bring about more effective processes, products or ideas. In business, this could mean creating better products, improving services, or improving the processes that support these products or services. Throughout history, organizations have had to innovate to remain competitive, by inventing new products that people want or need, or by offering a better service than anyone else in the same industry. In the decades before the advent of ubiquitous computer technology, innovation occurred gradually. Since then though, it seems the pace of change has become so rapid, it’s sometimes hard to keep up.

Organizations face a daunting future where existing competitors are constantly innovating, while new start-ups reinvent entire business models. Inertia is not an option, they must innovate, within the finance function and across the wider organization, or run the risk of obsolescence. And they need to do it now. Because early adopters of innovation in the finance function perform better.

True Innovators are finance functions that adopt technology early, encourage an active culture of innovation in their organizations, make the time to innovate and reward it. These are CFOs and finance executives who have stepped out from behind the finance desk to take an active role in innovation across the enterprise, not just within their own sphere of influence. True innovators can reforecast more quickly, close the books faster and forecast more accurately than those organizations that ignore innovation or find it difficult to drum up support, financing or time for it. True innovators embrace a culture of innovation, and because of this they have access to talent that can sustain their innovation agenda.

Balancing act

Even if companies do innovate, their decision on where and how to invest also affects performance. Customer-facing technology investment has long been the vanguard of new technologies. But organizations that continue to focus on front- office functions to the detriment of back-office systems, or worse, those that have no strategy for innovation investment at all, are slower and less accurate at forecasting than organizations with a balanced approach. This means looking at the organization in the round, identifying the need in both the front and back office, and ensuring resources are distributed in a balanced manner.

Those companies that approach technology investment with a balanced hand are better at nurturing innovation, they share ideas and skills, there are not afraid to make mistakes and innovation is a priority of their leadership. Balanced tech investors face fewer cultural obstacles like in-house politics or risk aversion, and they find it easier to identify tech-savvy talent to bring about change.

Executive Summary

7

High hurdles

Innovation requires real change, and there are many obstacles to effecting that change. The most prolific are culture, time and a lack of credible and accurate measures of innovation success.

Culture can quickly inhibit change if there isn’t a concerted effort, driven from the top, to encourage and foster innovation. Where mistakes are relentlessly punished, no-one will be prepared to try new ideas. And if the finance function is not viewed as a source of innovation by the rest of the management team, it will be extremely difficult to articulate the value of innovation within it and make a case for investment.

To make the case for innovative investment, CFOs and their senior finance executives need to be able to measure the return on investment (ROI), but there is very little agreement on how to go about it. Only a quarter of CFOs believe traditional methods of ROI are suitable measures of innovation success, and they don’t capture adequately the intangible benefits of digital innovation.

Sometimes the obstacles to innovation success come down to regional differences in culture. The survey shows that North American organizations are less risk averse, while European companies are held back by the perceived risk of failure. Europe was the most conservative in its approach to innovation, had more issues with finding top talent and was less able to make a business case for innovation than their North American peers. Obviously each business is different, and there are very successful and innovative organizations in all regions, but it is worth understanding these regional differences when CFOs look to tackle the obstacles in their path. That is when they have time…

A tangible benefit of digital innovation is time, but it is also a major reason why innovation is neglected. 67% of CFOs and their senior finance executives say that too many of their resources are tied up with legacy systems and traditional ways of working, leaving little time to innovate. Time is a well-documented benefit of technology investment. Automation frees up finance professionals for more value- added roles, and the new innovations in financial technology, like robotic process automation and machine learning are improving insights and clearing the way for the finance function to become a strategic contributor to the business.

If these obstacles are not overcome, the finance function is in danger of falling behind the rest of the organization and the consequence of this is that organizations itself risks getting left behind by its competitors.

Executive Summary

8

Real world innovation

Successful innovation requires three main ingredients – people, process and technology. Technology may get the most amount of airplay, but without the people and processes to make the best use of technology, innovation projects will fail to produce the desired results. To drive change, organizations need innovation champions and a dedicated budget to most prudently and effectively spend it.

Ultimately innovation depends on context. Where companies are still struggling with legacy systems and outdated methods, innovation looks like a little bit of process automation and a simple improvement in document handling. For around 40% innovation is a new ERP or performance management system. Where companies have already implemented cloud systems that smooth the processes of the finance function, then innovation looks like a new accounting robot or an analytical engine that can learn to uncover insights independently.

Wherever they are along the finance function continuum, senior finance executives recognize the need for innovation and must find the time, cultural imperative and success measures to embrace change and stay competitive.

Executive Summary

9

10

Chapter 1

Big difference in attitudes to innovation across the world

10

8% of European CFOs strongly disagreed “staff are afraid to make mistakes leading to innovative ideas being shelved”, while almost double (15%) of North American CFOs strongly disagreed.

Big difference in attitudes to innovation across the world

Globalization has leveled the playing field for most organizations, enabling them to sell their wares or services around the world, and offering them the same opportunities and technologies as their regional competitors. But they don’t all approach these opportunities in the same way. This survey has very clearly identified major differences in attitudes to innovation around the world. These reflect the cultural undercurrents of national identity and attitudes towards business and change. They are most stark on either side of the Atlantic, where America is the least risk averse while Europe is held back by the perceived risk of failure.

Just 31% of North Americans take a conservative approach to innovation, preferring instead to experiment with and try out new technologies when they become available. This compares to half of Europeans, 49% of Middle Eastern companies and 48% of Africans and South Americans, who believe their approach to innovation is too conservative. Asia Pacific respondents fell squarely between these two camps, with 38% conservative and risk averse.

The cultural reasons behind this are manifold, but fear of making mistakes is a contributory factor. Only 8% of respondents from Europe rejected the notion that “staff are afraid to make mistakes, leading to innovative ideas being shelved”. Almost double the number of North Americas disagreed with this statement, suggesting they are far less likely to fear failure, and may even use it to propel innovation success by using mistakes as a basis to learn and progress.

The adventurous spirit of the North Americans means they are most likely to be first to try new technology, with 33% identifying themselves as “early adopters of technology, with an active culture of innovation, across the entire enterprise”, compared to just 19% of European finance executives.

The noticeable differences in attitude extend across the globe. South America has the biggest problem with cultural failings and in-house politics, with 67% citing these factors as stumbling blocks to innovation in the finance function. North America found these the least challenging (40%) while 48% of European executives also found these issues problematic.

Big difference in attitudes to innovation across the world

11

Just 31% of North American take a conservative approach to innovation. (Europe 50%, Africa 48%, Asia Pac 38%, South America 48% Middle East 49%).

EUROPE MOST CONSERVATIVE, WITH NORTH AMERICA MOST INNOVATIVE & EXPERIMENTAL

FEAR OF MAKING MISTAKES HOLDS BACK TWICE AS MANY COMPANIES IN EUROPE THAN

NORTH AMERICA

People power

Technology alone cannot engender innovation, it has to come from the right people and their attitudes to change. Half of Europeans cited lack of technology-savvy talent as an obstacle to innovation in the finance function, compared with just over a third in North America. Certainly, the universities and businesses in Silicon Valley are renowned for incubating this sort of expertise, but it isn’t confined to California. Across the entire US, there is a much wider pool of talent from which to draw on, and arguably more of a culture of nurturing from within.

Ultimately though, finance executives have to convince the rest of the C-Suite that investing in finance innovation will deliver tangible returns, which means making the best business case for this use of resources. The survey points to North and South America as best placed to do this. Just 21% of North Americans and 19% of South Americans said the inability to make a compelling business case for change was holding them back on their finance innovation journey. By contrast 37% of Europeans faced this stumbling block.

It’s not easy to face up to your own shortcomings, but there are clearly substantial cultural hindrances to innovation in the more conservative regions of the world. That’s not to disparage those who choose to venture more cautiously into the unknown, but innovation, however it is implemented, is essential to remain relevant and competitive. More than that though, as the survey will show, there are major advantages to be gained from being early to the innovation table.

Big difference in attitudes to innovation across the world

12

Just 21% North America and 19% South America highlighted making a business case for innovation as a stumbling block to innovation vs Europe 37%

NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA SAY THEY ARE BETTER ABLE TO MAKE A BUSINESS CASE

13

Chapter 2

Early adopters of innovation perform better

13

Early adopters of innovation perform better

In the context of a fast-paced, competitive market environment, innovation seems such an obvious and necessary focus for any business, and yet 65% of organizations are not actively committed to it. The laggards, who make up 11% of survey respondents, “rarely if ever discuss innovation and don’t have time to devote to it”. Another 54% are uncommitted innovators who would like to be more innovative but rarely get the time, funding or support from the rest of the board to invest in finance process innovation.

At least there are the 11% who are early adopters of technology within the finance function. These committed innovators have recognized the importance of being innovative, but have limited it to their own sphere of influence. The remaining 23% are even more dedicated to innovation across the business. True Innovators are those finance functions that are “early adopters of technology, have an active culture of innovation, make time for it, reward innovation and play an active role in innovation across the entire enterprise.”

Early adopters of innovation perform better

14

65% of organizations are not actively committed to innovation

One would expect an innovative organization to have some edge on their competitors, and the survey bears this out, with significant advantages on three key performance metrics. True Innovators in the finance function are able to reforecast quicker, close the books faster and forecast more accurately than their less innovative competitors. 66% of true innovators were able to reforecast within one week, compared with 59% of committed innovators, 53% of those uncommitted to innovation and 57% of laggards.

True Innovators also do better at closing the books quickly. 30% can close the books within three days, compared with 28% of committed innovators, 21% uncommitted, and just 17% of laggards. The results are equally stark for accuracy of forecasting. 55% of true innovators could forecast revenue to within +/- 5%, compared with just 45% of committed innovators, 42% of the uncommitted innovators and 31% of laggards.

The significant difference in performance indicators is not the only concern laggards and innovation poor companies need to worry about. 63% of organizations that don’t discuss innovation believe they are in danger of their finance processes falling behind the rest of the business. This compares to just 16% of early technology adopters.

Laggards are let down by a culture of indifference, one in which they fear making mistakes, ideas are not shared across the business and their own leadership has failed to steer an innovation course.

Laggards are more than twice as likely as true innovators to say too many of their resources are tied up with legacy systems and traditional ways of working, and 61% of laggards are afraid to make mistakes, thus shelving innovation. This compares with just 14% of true innovators, who have long ago realized that mistakes are part of the process of innovation, not a sign of its failure.

Only 9% of early technology adopters fail to share innovation skills and ideas across the business, but 63% of laggards face this significant challenge in their organization.

Getting innovative projects off the mark invariably requires management buy in, but more than half of laggards say that innovation is not a priority for their leadership team compared with 17% of true innovators. Clearly the leadership team is part of the driving force behind innovation, but they also need technology-savvy talent to navigate the often arduous process of change. Whether as a consequence of their tardiness towards innovation or the reason behind it, 58% of laggards cited lack of talent in the finance organization as a stumbling block to innovation. Uncommitted innovators similarly pleaded a dearth of talent in 55% of cases, while 40% of committed innovators found this an issue. A mere 18% of true innovators struggled to find well qualified people to lead their innovative projects.

Early adopters of innovation perform better

True innovators outperform their competitors across all 3 dimensions; speed to reforecast, forecasting accuracy and time to close the books.

15

16

Early adopters of innovation perform better

Innovative companies attract innovative people. Almost 90% of senior finance executives would relish the opportunity to lead a truly innovative project, and 73% would even change organizations to be more involved in innovation.

A tech-savvy workforce and a culture of learning, sharing and making mistakes are part of the footprint of an innovative organization. But true innovators also exhibit a balanced approach to technology, they strive for additional insight and they know how to measure their innovation success.

There’s no question innovation takes effort, and in many companies the day to day running of the business takes precedent over what may be seen as a luxury they cannot afford. But the cost of ignoring innovation may turn out to be higher than the price of it.

The need to innovate in the finance function can no longer be ignored, 63% of organizations that don’t discuss innovation believe they are in danger of their finance processes falling behind the rest of the business.

17

Chapter 3

Front and back – A balanced approach to innovation drives best overall performance

17

Front and back – A balanced approach to innovation drives best overall performance

Being just one online shopping click away from a designer handbag or a pint of milk has immeasurably changed the face of retail. Businesses have to fight harder to attract and maintain customers either online or in store and this has forced them to focus on customer-facing systems. They have implemented customer relationship management (CRM) systems, web analytics and digital marketing in order to compete effectively against the digital behemoths like Amazon as well as the nimble start-ups disrupting the sector. Even in non-retail organizations, the focus has been squarely on attracting new customers, sometimes to the neglect of back office systems and often to the detriment of performance.

According to this survey, 49% of senior finance executives said “most of the innovation has been in customer-facing processes first (for example CRM, Web analytics, digital marketing social capability, chat)” with back-office systems trailing behind. 12% said the opposite, with innovation in the back-office finance function first, with customer-facing processes trailing behind. A further 11% of experimental organizations had very little strategy, with investment in isolated innovation initiatives with no clear strategic direction or impact.

Front and back – A balanced approach to innovation drives best overall performance

18

Just 28% of organizations apply a balanced approach to innovation say CFOs

Only 28% applied a balanced approach to investment, strategically selecting both customer-facing systems and back-office finance processes for innovative investment. Previous research (Future of the Finance Function 2016) has pointed to a lack of commitment to linking front and back office functions, but also showed that companies that have prioritized this link alongside standardization and automation had more time to spend on value-added activities, made quicker, more informed decisions and had a better view of organizational performance. This innovation survey bears out these advantages, demonstrating that in at least two of three key performance metrics, a balanced approach is best, leading to better accuracy of forecasting and faster reforecasting.

64% of organizations with a balanced approach to investment are able to reforecast within 1 week, compared with 55% of customer-facing and finance- led investors, and only 48% of experimental investors. In addition, 52% of balanced investors are able to forecast revenue to within +/- 5%, compared with 44% of customer-facing investors, 38% of finance-led investors and 34% of experimental investors.

Closing the books

The performance measure where finance-focused investment led the way was in the time it takes to close the books – but only just. 64% of organizations who had focused their investment on back office systems were able to close their books within 5 days, compared with 59% of balanced investors, 50% of customer-facing investors and 49% of experimental investors. This could suggest finance-led investment tends towards the traditional areas of accountancy, which help to automate reconciliation, rather than in the planning, budgeting and forecasting areas of finance, which would improve accuracy of insight.

Front and back – A balanced approach to innovation drives best overall performance

Those organizations with a balanced approach to innovation outperform on both time to reforecast and accuracy of the forecast. Organizations with a finance focused approach a able to close their books fastest.

19

20

Front and back – A balanced approach to innovation drives best overall performance

A balance of cultures

In addition to driving better overall performance, balanced technology innovators are also better at nurturing a culture of innovation. Only 18% said innovation wasn’t a priority of leadership, compared with 48% of the experimental group, while only 14% of the balanced investors said innovative ideas and skills weren’t shared, compared with 35% of respondents who were more ad hoc and experimental in their approach to technology investment. A quarter were concerned that the rate of innovation was too slow and a similar percentage were afraid to make mistakes and so shelved innovative ideas. This compares to 61% and 43% of experimental investors respectively.

Perhaps most tellingly though, 44% of balanced investors worried that too many of their resources were tied up with legacy systems and traditional ways of working. This was considerably less than investors in customer-facing systems at 73%, finance-led investors at 79% and experimental investors at 81%. The implication is that balanced technology investors are already addressing legacy systems, recognizing the limitations of both front and back office processes, and implementing the right technology to improve the efficacy of their resources.

Building the foundations of innovation

Balanced organizations are more likely to view themselves as true innovators, or early adopters of technology, likely because they have already laid the foundations for innovation in the finance function. Just 38% of balanced tech investors said cultural failings and in-house politics were a concern, compared with 60% of customer-facing tech investors, 69% of experimental investors and 71% of finance-led investors.

They were less likely to be risk averse, less likely to suffer from a lack of talent, and less likely to have trouble making a compelling business case for change, than any of the other investment types. Just 30% said their finance function was not perceived to be innovative, whereas around half of all other investor types expressed this concern. And while at least half of all respondents were concerned about not having teams dedicated to innovation, balanced investors were significantly less worried about this than the other investor types.

Balanced organizations are more likely to view themselves as true innovators, or early adopters of technology, likely because they have already laid the foundations for innovation in the finance function.

Driving insight

Organizations all have different priorities and are at different stages of their journey so it makes sense that a company’s approach to technology investment will be driven by a variety of motivations. But it is telling that 41% of organizations with a balanced approach to investment felt innovation was most needed to drive better insights about the business. Given twelve relevant options, insight ranked highest for balanced investors. By contrast customer- facing investors felt innovation was most needed to better support the customer experience, finance-led technology ranked improvements in finance function productivity as their most needed innovation, and experimental investors were looking to improve the robustness and dependability of

Decision-making.

The results suggest that each type of investor is at a different stage of their journey, with finance and experimental investors focusing on process improvement, still some way from being able to take advantage of insight-driven change. Meanwhile customer-facing technology investors are in an echo- chamber of customer improvement, ignoring the performance enhancements of a more balanced approach. In fact, a balanced investment approach can lead to a better customer experience as well, by linking front and back office to expedite queries, improving demand forecasts to ensure uninterrupted supply and improving efficiencies so that resources can be invested in the customer.

Insight is fast becoming the key differentiator in a crowded and competitive market. Yes, organizations must provide a great customer experience, high productivity and solid decision-making, but these days that will only maintain the status quo. Insight, used insightfully, will push companies to the forefront of their industry, and to do that they must balance their technology investment at both ends.

Front and back – A balanced approach to innovation drives best overall performance

Insight is fast becoming the key differentiator in a crowded and competitive market.

Dominant investment priority by approach to innovation

BALANCED

Looking to drive better insights about the business

CUSTOMER FACING

Looking to better support the customer experience

EXPERIMENTAL

Looking to improve the robustness and dependability of decision making

FINANCE FOCUSED

Looking to drive improve finance function productivity

41% 50%

43% 36%

21

22

Chapter 4

Finance needs insightful innovation

22

Finance needs insightful innovation

The finance function is clearly in need of innovation, but if CFOs can make the case for channeling resources into this often under-invested department, there remains the question of where and what to invest in. For most respondents, the answer is insight. 85% of CFOs and their senior finance executives believe innovation is needed to drive better insights about the business. This reflects the changing nature of the finance function from accounting powerhouse to strategic leader. Finance sits at the confluence of all the business functions, and is best-placed to offer the sort of insight that can give organizations a competitive edge.

The survey found that the second reason the finance function needs innovation is to accelerate the provision of accurate management information. This begs the question “what sort of management information is currently being generated, and how accurate is it?” This information is a fundamental requirement of any business and it implies that in many organizations, the process of generating management information may be outdated and inefficient.

Improving the robustness and dependability of decision-making was third on senior finance executives’ list of most needed innovation for the finance function. This also raises questions about the current robustness of decision- making in some organizations, and suggests some fundamental shortfalls in organizational information exchange.

Knowledge and talent

There is ready technology available to meet all of these finance innovation needs, but in almost half of cases there is a problem with finding the right people. 45% of CFOs and senior finance executives cited a lack of technology- savvy talent in the finance function as an obstacle to innovation.

Thankfully, executives themselves seem comfortable with at least some of the insight-driving technologies, most notably data visualization where 59% are either knowledgeable or very knowledgeable, as well as predictive analytics, which was cumulatively understood by 45% of respondents.

85% of CFOs and their senior finance executives believe innovation is needed to drive better insights about the business.

23

Finance needs insightful innovation

24

Finance needs insightful innovation

Where they struggle is with the newer technologies like machine learning, artificial intelligence and accounting robots, which are widely touted but not well-understood. These technologies may offer the greatest transformative potential but CFOs are yet to grasp how they could directly aid their finance function. Blockchain and Cryptocurrency languished below the knowledge line for most finance executives, and this will likely only change when the definitive application of this technology becomes more mainstream.

There is a clearly need for innovation in the finance function, most urgently to generate business insights, but also ensure management information is robust enough to make well-informed decisions. Finance executives appear most knowledgeable about technology that can help them gain this insight, now it is a matter of finding the resources to invest in them.

45% of CFOs and senior finance executives cited a lack of technology-savvy talent in the finance function as an obstacle to innovation.

25

Chapter 5

Innovation interference – no culture, no time, no measurement

25

Innovation interference – no culture, no time, no measurement

Innovation interference – no culture, no time, no measurement

Building a successful company and maintaining that success in the face of intense competition requires continuous innovation, but there are many obstacles on the path to success. The most common and widespread obstructions are an unresponsive and stifling culture that shies away from change, a lack of time to focus on change, and the difficulty of measuring the success of innovation.

Culture clash

Innovation doesn’t just happen, it needs to be cultivated, nurtured and encouraged, which means taking measured risks and not fearing failure. But 45% of CFOs and senior finance executives believe their approach to innovation is too conservative, lamenting that “we do not experiment or pilot new technologies”. And 34% are too afraid to make mistakes so they shelve innovative ideas to avoid errors.

A culture of innovation needs to permeate the organization, but in 27% of organizations surveyed, innovative ideas and skills are not shared with other functions or business units. And in almost half of organizations, cultural failings and in-house politics block the path to change. Unfortunately, 29% of respondents say innovation is not a priority of leadership, which immediately stymies innovation from all angles, because often these ideas come from people at the coalface of the finance function who find their suggestions rejected further up the management line.

The finance function itself is a significant source of obstacles to successful innovation. Almost half of CFOs say initiatives that originate from within the finance function are not seen as innovative by the rest of the management team. That may be because in 45% of cases the senior finance executives themselves do not present finance process improvement as innovation. And the cause of that may be that 44% struggle to articulate the value of innovation in the finance function.

In some cases the executive team fail to nurture a culture of innovation across the board, and in other cases the finance function itself fails to convince the executive leadership of its innovative worth. Whatever the obstacle, cultural buy-in is the only way to ensure ideas are followed through to implementation.

34% of CFOs say they are too afraid of making mistakes so they shelve innovative ideas to avoid errors.

45% of the senior finance executives say they struggle to present finance process improvement as innovation.

26

Time after time

Time, or rather the lack of it, is a recurrent theme in the lament of the finance executive. The first Future of the Finance Function 2016 survey found that two- thirds of CFOs and senior finance executives were unable to focus on process improvements and innovation because they had no time, and subsequent surveys have echoed this sentiment with depressing regularity.

In this survey, 11% of organizations rarely if ever discuss innovation and don’t have time to devote to it, while 54% would like to be more innovative but don’t have the time, funding or support to do so. Unfortunately, the only way to free up time is to implement innovative improvements into their finance function, which they don’t have time to focus on. 67% of respondents said too many of their resources are tied up with legacy systems and traditional ways of working.

CFOs are the final custodians of regulatory results. When processes are out- dated and results are untrustworthy, CFOs and their senior management team will use their time to review the figures to ensure accuracy, instead of on value- added strategic pursuits, like innovation.

Measuring success

CFOs and senior finance executives already find it hard to present process improvement as innovation and articulate the value of it within the finance function, and their job is made all the harder because of the difficult of measuring their success. Just a quarter of CFOs believe traditional methods of Return on Investment (ROI) are a suitable measure of innovation success.

In fact, 70% say these methods do not capture adequately the intangible benefits of digital innovation. And 58% don’t have an agreed method of evaluating ROI on technology driven initiatives. This is a substantial stumbling block for any innovative project, because resource allocation needs to be justified on the basis of its benefits, and no C-suite will agree to new projects when there is no measure of success.

The immediate returns on an automation project might be manpower cost savings, but the intangible benefits might include improved customer satisfaction. Being able to measure these benefits, however they manifest, will increase the likelihood of the finance function receiving its fair share of innovative investment.

Innovation interference – no culture, no time, no measurement

58% don’t have an agreed method of evaluating ROI on technology driven initiatives.

27

Innovation interference – no culture, no time, no measurement

Falling behind

With so many obstacles to innovation in the finance function, many organizations fail to achieve any sort of change. But the consequences of this failure can be far-reaching, because in those cases finance functions are in danger of falling behind the rest of the organization, or holding it back.

41% of CFOs and senior finance executives say that the lack of agreement on how to measure technology innovation is delaying investment decisions, and they are at risk of falling behind the market. 45% say their rate of innovation is too slow and they risk getting left behind their competitors. And 36% are concerned that their finance processes are in danger of not keeping up with the rest of the business.

Falling at any one of the hurdles could mean being overtaken by more innovative competitors. Organizations need strong leadership to drive a strategy and culture of innovation, and over half of respondents believe the CFO is best positioned to lead innovation in the finance function. If the CFO doesn’t step up, the entire organization may suffer as a consequence.

41% of CFOs and senior finance executives say that the lack of agreement on how to measure technology innovation is delaying investment decisions, and they are at risk of falling behind the market.

28

29

Chapter 6

The recipe for successful innovation

29

The recipe for successful innovation

The recipe for successful innovation

There is no silver bullet that will eradicate the obstacles to innovation in the finance function. Instead there are several ingredients that organizations need to add to the corporate mix in order to deliver real change. The key ingredients reflect the golden triangle of systems success, namely people, process and technology.

For CFOs and their senior finance executives, people top the list of ingredients for successful innovation in the finance function. 87% of survey respondents said they needed people capable of implementing change, someone to manage and drive the processes and technology that will effect the change.

Technology followed second, with 66% of CFOs believing that innovation success requires utilizing the full potential of technology. Process came in a close third, with 59% of senior finance executives needing to ensure a marked improvement in productivity and finance function effectiveness to push forward with innovation projects. Too often these days technology is lauded as the saviour of businesses, and it’s true to say the momentous developments in technology over the last decades have changed the corporate landscape beyond recognition. But it is heartening to see that CFOs and senior finance executives recognize the vital role played by experienced agents of change. Because without the right people, major projects are unlikely to come to fruition on spec, on time and on budget.

Driving change

When asked what is the best way to drive innovation forward in the finance function, survey respondents ranked a ‘dedicated innovation champion’ as their highest priority. This underpins the powerful acknowledgment of people at the apex of the change hierarchy.

Next on the priority list to drive innovation was a dedicated budget for innovative ideas. This obviously requires senior management to make the case for investment in finance innovation, and the recognition from the rest of the C-suite that the returns justify the resources.

Incorporating innovation objectives into personal appraisals ranked third for drivers of change, and this goes to the heart of cultural buy-in for innovation across the organization. But it must be driven from the very top of the organization, permeating the ranks from senior management downwards, instilling a culture of innovation and tying it to personal development goals.

87% of survey respondents said they needed people capable of implementing change in order to innovate successfully.

CFOs top 3 priorities to drive change:

1. Dedicated innovation champion

2. Dedicated innovation budget

3. Incorporating innovation objectives into personal appraisals

30

The fourth priority for innovation – recruiting individuals with a track record of innovation – split the vote. 17% of CFOs ranked this their number one method of driving innovation, while 23% ranked it in sixth place. This is clearly a polarizing point, one which hinges on recruitment and experience. Some CFOs may feel the need to bring in new talent that has already managed major change projects, whereas others may feel they have the right people internally who know the business and can run the project. Unsurprisingly, laggards are the most keen to bring in somebody who has done it before, perhaps reflecting a desperate attempt to break out of their predicament of negligible innovation.

The final ingredient for success is how to measure it, because without an accurate measure, there is no way to know if the investment has been worth the substantial and disruptive effort. 58% of senior finance executives said they don’t have an agreed method of evaluating return on investment on technology-driven initiatives, which may mean some projects never get started, and those that do go ahead aren’t easily evaluated.

You need people to implement technology designed to improve processes. Without all three elements, there can be no change to measure.

The recipe for successful innovation

31

32

Chapter 7

In their own words – what innovation means to finance professionals

32

In their own words – what innovation means to finance professionals

Innovation means different things to different people, depending on where they are on their journey to the finance function of the future. 250 survey participants took the time to describe actual examples of innovation in their businesses, and the comments reflect the wide-ranging views of CFOs and senior finance executives at different stages of their journey. Recognizing this diversity of views, the survey didn’t seek to define innovation. Innovation is in the ‘eye of beholder’ and many describe quite modest developments as innovation.

The largest proportion (35%) described innovation that related to small steps in automation and integration rather than wholesale change to completely new systems. These incremental changes were extremely diverse, including the automation of tasks in the monthly close; a move to self-service accounting; remodeling the accounts payable process, and for a few, the implementation of time and expenses management.

Any innovation in clearly better than none at all, but it does mean a third of respondents who described their own innovation journey remain shackled to legacy systems and have to be content with small innovations that deal with particular pain points in their core financial process.

In their own words – what innovation means to finance professionals

33

250 participants took the time to tell us about examples of innovation in their businesses

Reporting 15%

Cloud ERP 5%

Really Innovative 12%

Cloud 3%

Insight 30%

ERP 30%

Regulation 5%

In their own words – what innovation means to finance professionals

Encouragingly, 20% said they had undertaken a complete ERP replacement and classed this as a major innovative step. Cloud was only mentioned a handful of times, which may mean that respondents felt this was not particularly noteworthy, or that they had settled for an on-premise implementation.

A further 20% chose to describe innovation projects that delivered management insight. The implementation of budgeting and planning tools featured prominently, as did business intelligence tools and dashboards. But the motivation in the majority of cases was delivery of better key performance indicators and analytical capability. Cloud implementation featured more strongly in this category, perhaps because of a greater choice of cloud-based applications, or the relative ease of implementing management information projects in the cloud, compared with ERP in the cloud.

For 10% of respondents, innovation was about reporting, and the comments tended to focus on the speed of delivery, with an emphasis on real-time reporting. For example, “more digitization of finance information and less reliance on paper”, “fast close and reporting by work day two” and “integrated real- time management and financial reporting systems.”

Disappointingly, only 8% of comments stood out as unexpectedly innovative and at the leading edge of developments. These innovators were more inclined to point out that innovation isn’t only about the latest ‘whizzy’ technology. For some, innovation was about organizational change in the finance function, for example “a new finance team structure with better Financial Planning & Analysis and faster month-end closing”. For others, it meant “reorganization of the finance function resulting in the responsibilities of 80% of the finance function changing, creating roles that were more value-added and efficient, together with a 10% headcount reduction.”

One respondent created “an innovation office”, while another introduced “weekly improvement initiatives”. And one ambitious organization established a “business finance college”. This initiative lead to a “ground-breaking program for the Business Finance Function and Finance Business Partners, aimed at changing the culture in the finance organization and increasing direct and indirect value creation from the finance function.”

A few executives are clearly further along their finance function journey, describing innovation that reflects the cutting edge of technology, such as “the use of artificial intelligence (IBM’s Watson) in forecasting”, the “utilization of robotics to perform processes and create reports”, and the “creation of interactive presentations of financial information to make it easier for the management to interpret”.

This vast and varied range of personal experiences of innovation reflects a finance function continuum, with traditional legacy systems at one end and cutting edge technology at the other. And if a finance function has always used spreadsheet-bound systems for budgeting or reporting then implementing a specialized budgeting application or an ERP system is truly innovative – it is a major step-change. But for now, the scales are tipped towards organizations that can only manage incremental innovations, mired in time-consuming legacy systems, plastering over the most difficult processes with small fixes. But the tide is turning slowly. Major ERP upgrades are often the catalyst for more wider system changes, and the focus on insight-driving innovation bodes well for strategic management decision-making. There may only be a few unexpectedly innovative experiences, but as new technology becomes more mainstream, and CFOs begin to realize the necessity of constant innovation, the scales will swing the other way.

34

35

Methodology

35

METHODOLOGY

The survey drew responses from 1,037 international senior finance professionals from our 51,000 strong FSN Modern Finance Forum on LinkedIn.

This survey covered finance professionals across 23 different industries. 81% of these professionals were considered to have senior job titles and above.

Geography of Respondents

Africa

Asia PAC

Europe

Middle East

North America

South America

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Organizational Size – Number of employees

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-20

21-50

51-100

101-250

251-500

501-1,000

1,001-5000

5,001-10,000

More than 10,000

36

Methodology

Industry of Respondents

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Aerospace & Defense

Automotive

Other

Utilities

Transportation

Telecommunications

Technology (Computers, Software)

Retail

Banking / Financial Services

Business Services / Consulting

Real Estate

Pharmaceuticals / Life Sciences

Oil and Gas / Mining / Energy

Non-profit

Media & Entertainment

Manufacturing

Hospitality / Leisure / Travel

Health care

Government (State, Local)

Government (Federal, including Military)

Education

Consumer Products

Insurance

37

Methodology

About FSN

Disclaimer of Liability © 2018 FSN Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. FSN is a registered trademark of FSN Publishing Limited (“FSN”). This publication may not be reproduced or distributed, in part or as a whole, in any form without FSN’s prior written permission. This report is exclusively for your personal use and cannot be shared outside your company, or via email, internet posting, social media or other external information storage & retrieval systems. Whilst every attempt has been made to ensure that the information in this document is accurate and complete some typographical errors or technical inaccuracies may exist. This report is of a general nature and not intended to be specific to a particular set of circumstances. The report contains the views and opinions of FSN Publishing Limited and FSN Publishing Limited make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this report and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, or written sales materials. FSN Publishing does not provide advisory services and no part of this research report should be construed or used as such. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. FSN Publishing Limited and the author shall not be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

FSN is a global publisher of thought leadership, research and “must-have” content for CFOs and senior finance professionals around the world. FSN’s highly popular and active Modern Finance Forum on LinkedIn has a membership of more than 51,000 readers in more than 23 countries and across every major industry segment. It is also the publisher of the popular www.fsn.co.uk website and regularly holds networking dinners and events for its members.

ABOUT FSN

®

Contact:

Gary Simon, CEO: [email protected]

Michelle Fabian: [email protected]

HQ Office in United Kingdom Clarendon House 125, Shenley Road, Borehamwood, Herts, WD6 1AG

Switchboard: +44 (0)20 84452688

The Modern Finance Forum LinkedIn

image1.jpeg

image1.jpeg

image2.jpeg