SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

    FP&A in Manufacturing: How Finance Teams Turn Volatility into Advantage

    Why FP&A Must Evolve Alongside Planning, Data, and Processes

    Few industries feel macroeconomic pressure as directly as manufacturing. Inflation works its way through labor, raw materials, energy, and transportation. Tariffs can redraw the cost of a supply chain overnight. Exchange rates quietly erode competitiveness abroad, and demand rarely moves in a straight line. For finance leaders, the job description has changed. Keeping the books is no longer enough: the expectation now is to anticipate change, model it, and help steer the business through it.

    That shift is putting Financial Planning & Analysis (FP&A) at the center of manufacturing performance. But here’s what we tend to see on the ground: most FP&A teams aren’t held back by ambition or talent. They’re held back by static plans, disconnected systems, and manual routines that can’t keep pace with how fast conditions move. The technology to fix that already exists. What decides the outcome is how the transformation is designed and delivered — and that’s the perspective we bring to every manufacturing finance project at AKC.

    Start with the pressures, not the platform

    When a manufacturer decides to modernize FP&A, the conversation tends to jump straight to tooling — dashboards, AI features, what comes out of the box. Fair questions, but they belong later. The starting point should be the pressures the business actually needs to absorb.

    In manufacturing, those pressures are specific: inflation across cost drivers, tariff exposure on imported materials, FX risk on international sales, overhead that quietly eats margin. Each of these can be modeled continuously rather than discovered after the quarter closes. Before we talk about configuration, we help finance teams get clear on the outcomes they’re chasing — shorter budgeting cycles, sharper forecasts, better visibility into what really drives margin. Skip that step and you risk deploying a powerful platform without ever solving the problems that triggered the project.

    From annual budgets to continuous, driver-based planning

    The traditional annual budget was built for a more predictable world. Today, a plan that’s set once and revisited twelve months later is already obsolete by the time it’s approved. The more resilient model is agile, driver-based planning: rolling forecasts fed by real-time data and built around the operational drivers — volumes, input costs, labor, logistics — that actually move the numbers.

    This is exactly the shift we delivered with La Marzocco, where AKC implemented a group budgeting and forecasting model that gave finance a single, structured process across the group rather than a patchwork of spreadsheets. → Read the La Marzocco case study — a good reference point for any manufacturer looking to industrialize budgeting and forecasting.

    The same logic extends upstream into demand. For Lucart, we implemented a sales demand planning solution that connects commercial expectations to the financial plan, so forecasts reflect where the market is actually heading rather than last year’s assumptions. → Read the Lucart Sales Demand Planning case study, a strong example of aligning finance with operations.

    Scenario planning: the manufacturer’s insurance policy

    If there’s one capability that sets resilient manufacturers apart, it’s scenario planning. Being able to model “what if inflation spikes in Q3” or “what if this tariff lands” and see the impact roll up to margin by product line and plant in minutes rather than weeks is what makes Finance a genuine decision-support engine instead of a source of after-the-fact reporting. 

    In today’s manufacturing environment, the ability to test assumptions quickly has become a competitive advantage. Whether assessing the impact of rising energy costs, changes in demand, supply chain disruptions, or fluctuations in raw material prices, organizations need planning processes that enable faster, more informed decisions. 

    The value of scenario planning lies not only in the simulations themselves, but in the ability to evaluate options before change occurs. This gives management teams greater confidence in their decisions and allows them to respond more effectively when market conditions shift. 

    Trusted numbers start with connected data

    Scenario planning is only as good as the data underneath it, and this is the factor most transformation projects underestimate. Teams obsess over functionality while quietly assuming the data flowing in from ERP, MES, and other systems is clean. In manufacturing — with multiple plants, product lines, and legal entities — it usually isn’t. Inconsistent codes, incomplete records, and conflicting business rules erode both reporting quality and, worse, user trust.

    That’s why our industrial manufacturing work with Burgo centered on building a reliable, integrated foundation: the kind of single source of truth that makes everything downstream, from forecasting to reporting, defensible. → Read the Burgo case study.

    The same principle underpins financial consolidation. For Dayco, a global group, AKC delivered a consolidation solution that brought consistency and control to group reporting across entities — the governance backbone that lets a multinational close its books with confidence and speed. → Read the Dayco case study.

    Technology sets the stage — the delivery decides the outcome

    None of this is really about software. Advanced planning platforms, automation, and AI-driven forecasting are powerful growth enablers: they free finance teams from spreadsheet consolidation and give time back for analysis and advice. But the platform you choose matters far less than your organization’s ability to manage the change and turn the initiative into a real business improvement.

    That belief is the core of how we work at AKC. We don’t start with software — we start with your objectives, your people, and your data. We involve key users from day one, because the people who live these processes daily understand the bottlenecks that never surface in a project workshop, and their ownership is what drives adoption after go-live. We resist the temptation to digitize broken processes, standardizing KPIs and reporting structures instead of automating yesterday’s mess. And we treat go-live as the beginning, not the end — the first months of real usage are where the most valuable improvements are found. The approach is deliberately unglamorous: progressive, measured, and built to last, with nothing resembling a risky “big bang.”

    The AKC difference

    As a Platinum Partner of CCH® Tagetik and now VISEO’s Global CCH® Tagetik Competence Center, AKC combines deep CCH Tagetik specialization and system integration capability with management consulting experience built over years of CPM projects. For manufacturers, that means a partner who understands both the technology and the operational reality of plants, product lines, and global supply chains — and who can deliver across borders for multinational groups.

    Volatility in manufacturing isn’t going away. But with connected data, continuous planning, and scenario modeling in place, finance teams have what they need to manage it — and even to make it work in their favor.

    Planning to modernize FP&A in your manufacturing organization — or trying to unlock value from a system that hasn’t delivered yet? Let’s talk.

    👉 Curious how these principles apply beyond FP&A? Read the companion piece: Why EPM Implementations Succeed or Fail — and It’s Rarely the Software.

     

    Why EPM Implementations Succeed or Fail — and It’s Rarely the Software

    Why EPM Implementations Succeed or Fail — and It’s Rarely the Software

    Many organizations invest in a new Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) solution expecting sharper budgeting, faster forecasting, and more reliable reporting. Yet months after go-live, the promised benefits often fail to materialize. The reason is rarely the technology itself — it’s how the project was managed.

    Expectations run high at the start: more control over data, leaner processes, better insight for decision-making. But the platform you choose matters far less than your organization’s ability to manage change and turn the initiative into a genuine business improvement, not just a system swap. That’s where implementation experience earns its keep.

    Start with outcomes, not software

    When EPM projects come up, the conversation jumps almost instantly to the tool: what features it offers, how flexible it is, which dashboards come out of the box. Fair questions — but they belong later.

    Before evaluating any solution, you need to be clear about the outcomes you’re chasing. Shorter budgeting cycles? More accurate forecasts? Standardized financial reporting across business units? Better visibility into the drivers that actually move the business? Skip this step and you risk deploying a powerful platform without ever addressing the problems that triggered the project in the first place. The most successful initiatives invest time upfront — reviewing current processes, spotting improvement opportunities, and agreeing on a shared roadmap — long before anyone talks about configurations.

    Engage people early, not just Finance

    One of the most common mistakes is treating EPM as a Finance-only project. In reality, the numbers used to plan, measure, and manage performance come from across the whole organization — sales, operations, HR, and executive teams all feed the data behind budgets, forecasts, and management reports.

    That’s why involving key users from day one is essential. The people who live these processes daily understand the bottlenecks that never surface in a project workshop. Their input shapes a solution that reflects how the business really works — and it builds the ownership that drives adoption once you go live. When people feel part of the transformation, a new system stops being “IT’s project” and becomes the way they work.

    Don’t digitize broken processes — and mind your data

    Every transformation is a chance to rethink how work actually gets done. Plenty of organizations still run on duplicate reports, redundant approval steps, parallel spreadsheets, and manual routines that crept in years ago and never left. Lift those inefficiencies straight into a new platform and you’ve simply automated the mess.

    The goal is simplification. Standardizing KPIs, aligning reporting structures, and establishing consistent performance management processes lifts data quality while freeing up hours spent on non-value-added work. That doesn’t mean forcing rigid uniformity on every unit — it means striking the right balance between governance, control, and operational flexibility.

    And this is where the most underestimated factor comes in: data governance. Teams obsess over functionality while quietly assuming the information flowing in from ERP, CRM, and other applications is clean. It usually isn’t — and that’s where implementations start to stumble. Inconsistent codes, incomplete records, and conflicting business rules erode reporting quality and, worse, user trust. Tackle data governance from the very beginning: without a reliable foundation, even the most advanced technology produces questionable results.

    Go-live is a starting line, not a finish line

    Many companies treat go-live as the end of the project. More often, it’s the beginning of the phase that matters most. The first weeks and months of real usage reveal how people genuinely work, which features deliver the most value, and where the next round of improvements should focus. Collecting feedback, running regular review sessions, and investing in ongoing training are what strengthen adoption and protect the long-term return on investment.

    The real differentiator is the partner beside you

    Technology sets the stage, but people, processes, and data governance decide the outcome — and getting all three right is exactly where experience counts.

    Our CCH Tagetik Competence Center brings together 130 specialized consultants worldwide. VISEO has been recognized as a Top New Partner globally, while AKC has been named Global Competence Center four years in a row. At AKC, now part of VISEO, that platform expertise is matched by a delivery philosophy built over years of CPM projects: we don’t start with software, we start with your objectives, your people, and your data. The approach is deliberately unglamorous — progressive, measured, sustainable — nothing resembling a risky “big bang.”

    That’s how an EPM platform becomes a lasting way of working, rather than just another go-live on the calendar.

    If you’re planning an EPM initiative, or trying to unlock the value of one that hasn’t delivered yet, let’s talk.

    👉 Curious about the destination all this execution is driving toward? Read the companion piece: Unified Financial Performance: Why Consolidation, Reporting, and Compliance Are Converging  for the vision behind unified financial performance.

    Unified Financial Performance: Why Consolidation, Reporting, and Compliance Are Converging  

    Unified Financial Performance: Why Consolidation, Reporting, and Compliance Are Converging

    Ask any finance leader what keeps them up at night, and the answer rarely fits into a single box. It’s the regulator asking for more disclosures. It’s the board wanting a forecast by Thursday. It’s the nagging feeling that the numbers in the consolidation system don’t quite line up with the ones in the management report. For years, finance teams learned to live with this fragmentation. Today, they simply can’t afford to.

    The old operating model — consolidation over here, reporting over there, compliance somewhere off to the side — is quietly breaking down. In its place, a new expectation is taking hold: statutory, managerial, and regulatory views should all draw from the same source, tell the same story, and do it fast. This is no longer a nice-to-have. It’s becoming one of the clearest levers a CFO has to protect and improve financial performance.

    Why the current setup has run out of road

    The pressure hasn’t crept up gradually. Over the last decade it has piled on from three directions at once.

    First, regulation. ESG frameworks, evolving taxonomies, IFRS updates, prudential reporting, and international tax rules — the volume and complexity of mandatory disclosures keep climbing, with no sign of slowing.

    Second, expectations from investors and boards, who increasingly want forward-looking answers rather than a tidy rear-view mirror.

    And third, the day-to-day squeeze on finance teams themselves: more analysis, deeper insight, delivered in the same window as before — or a shorter one.

    Here’s the problem. Many finance functions are still running on tools that were never designed to carry this load. Systems built in different technological eras, often inherited through a string of acquisitions, leave behind a patchwork of disconnected data models. The symptoms are familiar to anyone who has lived through a close:

    • consolidation and reporting figures that refuse to reconcile;
    • endless manual adjustments;
    • reconciliations that eat entire days;
    • a permanent dependency on IT to change anything meaningful;
    • and no single, trusted view of the truth.

    That last point is the real cost. When there’s no shared version of reality, every conversation starts with a debate about whose numbers are right. CFOs are increasingly done with that debate — and they’re looking for platforms that bring data, processes, and governance back under one roof.

    From patched-together tools to a unified model

    This is where unified platforms have moved from “interesting alternative” to genuine market standard. They’re not just a like-for-like swap for legacy software. They represent a different way of thinking about how finance runs.

    CCH Tagetik is a good illustration of the shift. Calling it a consolidation tool undersells it. The platform spans the full financial performance cycle — from close through forecasting, reporting, and all the way to regulatory disclosure — on top of a single, coherent data model. That model is what ties everything together:

    • statutory and management consolidation;
    • forecasting and planning;
    • operational performance management;
    • ESG and regulatory reporting;
    • tax management;
    • automated disclosure.

    What makes the difference under the hood is how it treats financial dimensions. They aren’t rigid technical fields you fight against. They behave as genuine business objects — shared across the platform, hierarchical without practical limits, and configurable by finance people rather than developers. In other words, the system is built to absorb complexity instead of buckling under it.

    What actually changes for the CFO

    The usual benefits — cleaner data, better traceability, and stronger governance — are real, but they’re only part of the story. A unified platform changes the way performance itself is managed. Four shifts stand out.

    One version of the truth. When local, conversion, and consolidation layers all live in the same model, the gaps between statutory, management, and analytical views shrink dramatically. Numbers become controlled, documented, and defensible.

    The end of copy-paste reporting. With reporting built in — dashboards, reporting books, ad hoc analysis via drag-and-drop, and now GenAI-assisted queries — production stops relying on a fragile chain of exports and spreadsheets.

    Finance back in the driver’s seat. Because CCH Tagetik is low-code, finance teams can set up rules, allocations, calendars, workflows, and automation themselves. Less waiting on IT, shorter cycles, quicker decisions, and far more room to react when the rules of the game change.

    Regulation-ready by design. ESG, IFRS 16 and 17, Disclosure Management, Solvency II, tax reporting, GMT, and CbCR — handling multi-framework, heavily regulated reporting inside one data environment stops being a scramble and becomes a genuine competitive edge.

    AI and auditability: the new performance drivers

    The interesting part isn’t automation for its own sake — it’s what automation frees people to do. CCH Tagetik brings in a layer of AI that quietly removes friction: anomaly detection, automatic transaction matching, journal automation, predictive analytics, and an “Ask AI” capability that lets you interrogate the data in plain language.

    Pair that with full traceability — audit trails, logs, and built-in controls — and the CFO’s position strengthens on both fronts at once: guardian of financial truth and a faster, better-informed decision-maker.

    A structural shift, not a passing trend

    The steady replacement of legacy tools like SAP FC, Hyperion, and IBM Cognos with unified platforms isn’t a fad that will fade with the next budget cycle. It’s a structural change cutting across every sector — from large listed groups to mid-market companies. CFOs need financial performance that is more reliable, faster, clearer, and genuinely actionable, and the old architecture can’t deliver all four at once.

    The future of finance is unified

    Improving financial performance used to be shorthand for “close faster” or “make the numbers trustworthy.” The bar has moved. It now means seeing statutory, forecast, and regulatory performance as one connected picture, inside one environment.

    Data has become a strategic asset. Bringing consolidation, FP&A, and regulatory reporting together is no longer what sets a finance team apart; it’s fast becoming the baseline everyone is expected to meet. The teams that lean into this convergence now will spend tomorrow enjoying faster closes, more agile forecasting, sharper insight, more responsive performance management, and compliance they actually feel in control of.

    Unification isn’t a technology decision anymore. It’s the foundation the next generation of finance will be built on.

    👉 A unified platform sets the stage — but choosing it is only half the story. Read the companion piece: Why EPM Implementations Succeed or Fail — and It’s Rarely the Software to see what actually determines the outcome.

    CPM software: 3 questions for choosing an application consulting firm

    As with any area within a business organization, corporate performance management (CPM) has its own set of complexities and characteristics that must be taken into account not only when choosing CPM software, but also when choosing the consulting firm that will implement that precise software.

    Let us see in this article the parameters that should always be evaluated before selecting the consulting firm that will best be able to guide and support you in the set-up phase and throughout the process of customizing and maintaining the corporate performance management software you have chosen.

    CPM software: 3 questions to select the consulting firm that is right for you

    1. Executor or Partner?

    The first question to ask is about the approach. Is an application consulting firm that is used to working as an “executor” required or a consulting firm that can play the role of “partner” for the company? There are big differences between the two options.

    Often, companies think they have hired a “partner” and instead find themselves working with an “executor.”

    Working with an “executor” means not questioning what has been done so far, not confronting the experience of other projects or best practices in both process and solution implementation. It means overdoing it with customizations, often unnecessary, resulting in entrenchment in the organizational and process changes that the company will undergo in the future. How do you identify an “executor” or “partner” during a selection process for implementing your CPM software?

    Someone who will propose a blank sheet of paper for you to fill in with your model will probably be an “executor”; someone who, by contrast, will bring to you the experience of one or more processes, best practices, and critical issues that others have had before you, even challenging your current model, will probably be a “partner.”

    2. A technical or functional consultant?

    Setting up a corporate performance management solution is nothing complicated. Transforming a functional design to a technical model that reflects the features of the CPM software solution is a bit more elaborate.

    The real complexity, however, is guiding the customer in making a functional choice that not only meets the needs of the business but also succeeds in reducing the risks of excessive maintenance effort, performance problems, and inadequate user experience.

    Having the skills to be able to do this requires a profile with a mixed growth path between technical and functional skills. Does the consulting firm you are choosing have resources with these characteristics, or does it have distinct profiles between technical consultants and functional consultants?

    3. People first: pay attention to the turnover rate

    Many consulting firms have very high turnover rates.

    In corporate performance management projects, where the right mix of functional and technical skills is extremely important, it can be a major risk to the success of the project.

    How much is the indirect cost and inefficiency of starting a project with a team that loses resources along the way that will need to be replaced? How do you quantify the company’s loss due to the relationship that was formed and that has to be rebuilt from scratch?

    A consulting firm that is unable to retain its talent means that it does not invest sufficiently in the quality of its delivery. What is the turnover of the consulting firm you are about to hire?

    In conclusion, the quality of the consulting service is of paramount importance to the success of a CPM software implementation project. Choosing a partner goes beyond technical expertise; it should also be based on their experience, which creates added value from the outset.

    Fast Closing: how to trace the correct business routes around it

    “Nothing is built on stone; everything is built on sand, but we must build as if the sand were stone.”
    (Jorge Luis Borges)

    The highly dynamic market environment and the rapid evolution of technology now have a constant impact on the transformation needs of business processes in companies.

    Although this context is extremely variable and mobile as “sand,” the need to build a “solid” process such as Closing, nevertheless remains a business priority in order to chart a proper course for the future. It is now well known that the Closing/Fast closing process is only one of the pieces of a puzzle that is completed with the iterative processes of planning, but it however remains a fundamental element of it in order to be able to build and hypothesize a complete design.

    As we had mentioned in a previous article “Fast Closing and ERP: is it time to rethink boundaries?“, it also becomes a fundamental element to establish the boundaries of the various applications within the Closing process. In this regard, what we would like to show you is a real case of a home appliance manufacturing company in which, using a well-established methodology, we set ourselves with the client two fundamental objectives: to rethink the closing process and to optimize all the activities related to it.

    The project, which we will briefly describe to you in its macro-phases, leveraged four key areas:

    • Processes: total and/or partial revisiting of the processes involved
    • Organization: realignment of the responsibilities of the key figures involved in the Closing processes
    • Technology: identifying the capabilities of existing or “new” applications for proper coverage of the Closing process steps
    • People: identification of competence and/or role gaps of the people involved within the process and activation of an appropriate change management program

    Fast Closing: identification of Key Principles

    In this first quick assessment project phase, the client’s board supported by the AKC team identified change guidelines such as:

    • The key business performance indicators and the supporting control model
    • The main responsibilities within the organization in the Closing process with approach: central VS local
    • The responsibilities/boundaries of the application perimeters involved

    The unification of the models

    In this second project phase, the goal achieved was the unification of the cascading control/dimensional models:  

    • The business control model aimed at representing the performance indices identified in assessment
    • The dimensional model of the transactional/management system (ERP) in which the core administrative/accounting processes are recorded
    • The dimensional model of the corporate performance management (CPM) system aimed at the data closure and consolidation process

    Maintaining consistency among the above three models ensures that there was a uniformity of language among top management, day by day activities carried out by operational staff, and controlling people dedicated to the data closure and consolidation process.

    This uniformity of language implicitly allows processes throughout the chain to be carried out more effectively.

    The realignment of the management system (ERP).

    In this third project phase the ERP was realigned in order to properly “map” within its dimensional model the needs of the control model. The main elements analyzed and realigned to the model were:

    • all control model objects: profit centers, cost centers, internal orders, job orders, statistical allocation and/or allocation drivers
    • the product cost structure: cleansing and revisiting the cost elements according to a net allocation approach between fixed and variable costs.

    The implementation of the CPM system

    Since the company lacked a full-fledged CPM system, a specific tool was implemented in this fourth project phase in order to cover some important process steps so far not covered by structured applications (closing and consolidation activities until then had been carried out on office automation/excel tools).

    The main pillars on which the implementation of the CPM tool was developed were:

    • Definition and implementation of the CPM dimensional model.
    • Definition and implementation of closing processes by individual Company with related operational tasks
    • Definition and implementation of Group closure processes
    • Definition of the reconciliation process at both the individual Company and Group level

    Change management

    In order to operationalize the change, with the changes made within the ERP system and the implementation of the process broken down in a structured way into steps/tasks supported by a workflow within the CPM tool, a specific staff onboarding plan was activated that was based on three areas of work:

    • revisiting procedures with clear distinction of responsibilities with central VS local approach
    • training plan to engage staff by leading them to have a complete understanding of the closing process
    • operational training on applications to enable proper maintenance of the data over time and proper performance of operational activities.

    Conclusions

    The closing project, with even its acception/declination of Fast Closing, is by its nature a complex and articulated process. In order to enable companies to create value by making available the necessary information in a clear and comprehensive manner and simultaneously within the timeframe of a precise Corporate Closing timeline, it must be designed in a detailed and coherent manner.

    No aspect of this must be overlooked: organizational model, technological landscape, processes and procedures, but above all, awareness of the context in which people perform this activity by providing them with all the skills they need.

    Fast Closing and ERP: is it time to rethink boundaries?

    In times of high volatility, such as those we are currently experiencing, companies face the need to quickly understand current phenomena and make timely and correct decisions.  The ability, therefore, to have reliable information in a tight timeframe becomes a crucial aspect of business life, and shortening the timeframe for reporting results (so-called fast closing) can be the answer to this need, provided that the reliability of the data on the basis of which to make relevant decisions is maintained.

    However, no matter how fast the processes of consumptive accounting can run, there comes sooner or later a time when they appear incompressible, except by accepting an increasing approximation of information. Approximation that, beyond a certain limit is unacceptable when communicating information externally (so-called financial reporting to the market) or internally as part of the corporate incentive system (so-called MBO).CTA ebook CFO

    A blurred boundary: data reliability

    The unreliability of data represents a boundary that should not be crossed, so it is necessary to understand where to set the bar. Once that boundary is drawn, one can reason about how to shorten the closing-the-book processes in order to have the information available as quickly as possible to be conveyed to the market or used internally. According to Art. 2 point 16 Directive 2013/34/EU, information is material when its omission or misstatement could reasonably influence decisions made by users of financial statement information, and according to Art. 2423 of the Civil Code, what influences the fairness and truthfulness of financial statement representation is material.

    Therefore, in general, it is possible to say that information is material where in its absence, due to its absence or unreliability, it is not possible to effectively make decisions geared toward creating value and/or reducing risks. It therefore seems foolhardy to adopt an approach aimed at reducing the timeframe of the closing-the-book process within an ERP by moving part of the fast closing processes to personal computing media (i.e., Excel) and then simply decanting the results into the ERP, which then becomes a container of externally originated and therefore not reliably certified data.

    On the other hand, an ERP guarantees data according to rigorous and certified logic unless it is increasingly fed with externally produced data (i.e., Excel files or other tools) that is not integrated with the ERP itself. Finally, consider also the aforementioned increasing volatility that requires greater flexibility in data processing and analysis. An ERP requires quite significant costs to be adapted to changing needs so data reprocessing ends up falling back on the aforementioned personal computing tools.

    Rethinking the Fast Closing process in a CPM system

    We can therefore try to rethink the closing-the-book process by starting with an analysis of the significance of individual data for internal and external reporting purposes and then consider a solution that sees this process move to Corporate Performance Management (CPM) systems. It is then necessary to identify the data with the highest significance and within that the data with the lowest data source traceability. The latter are those that create the greatest concern at fast closing and risk not being effectively manned with personal computing solutions.

    CTA ebook CFO

    In this critical area may fall processes whose impact on financial reporting can be significant e.g., management of leases under IFRS 16, of incentive & compensation systems, trade promotions, fleet management, rate adjustments based on actual volumes and costs, management of agency relationships, etc… vertical needs that an ERP can cover, but with high costs and generating increasing time incompressibility, while with departmental solutions costs and time are definitely more affordable.

    The belief that ERP must necessarily cover the entire closing process in an integrated way is thus called into question, a false myth if there is widespread use of personal computing solutions. It is therefore appropriate to begin to consider moving the closing process to a CPM system, interfaced not only with the various departments but insistent on the ERP itself.

    ERP, CPM system, or both?

    The CPM system would then be deputized to go the so-called last mile, drawing from ERP at a certain date prior to closing and from departmental systems. Closing and settlement entries would therefore take place within the CPM system, which could easily handle the process of preparing consolidated financial statements.

    Immediately prior to closing, reperforming activities could be thought of in relation to relevant processes based on deviations of ERP data from those obtained from the initial extraction and in relation to the relevance of the closing period (i.e., semi-annual and annual reporting). Finally, variance analysis would take place directly in the CPM system, the location where forecast data are processed.

    In conclusion, the reduction in closing time, while maintaining the high reliability of the data obtained, seems not able to be effectively verified by moving certain processes to personal computing solutions that then pour into the ERP. The ERP is the indispensable seat of transactional processes, but the closing-the-book process can be effectively rethought, in relation to the so-called “last mile,” by making use of CPM systems, also supported by specific departmental solutions, which ensure high traceability of data formation processes and the ability to process them flexibly and accurately.CTA ebook CFO Box ENG

    CCH® Tagetik: 7 capabilities to strengthen the Office of Finance

    Today the Office of Finance is facing new challenges; requests to CFOs are increasing every day, together with the request of decision-making capability and visibility on operational processes.

    In this phase, the selection of the right software, along with a design phase aimed at optimizing processes, can maximize the results in the CPM (Corporate Performance Management) area. One of the best software vendors on the market is undoubtedly CCH® Tagetik Expert Solution from Wolters Kluwer, which has continually improved its position over the past few years. Let’s look at its strengths for the Office of Finance.

    CCH® Tagetik: what it does and why it’s important to have CPM Software

    The choice of CPM software represents an important step for a company because an inappropriate evaluation can cause serious consequences and repercussions both internally, i.e. on people and therefore on company performance, and externally, i.e., on business performance.

    In a CPM software, the following activities can be carried out:

    • budgeting;
    • planning and forecasting;
    • consolidation;
    • closing;
    • reporting & analytics.

    We should remember that the above actions have an impact on medium-long-term strategic plans and visions. Especially in the last period, also due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the ability to remain competitive at the market level, gaining shares, is also due to the company’s ability to meet business needs with applicative responses.request demo CCH Tagetik

    In an increasingly challenging environment, at least at an economic level, these applications have become more important, allowing the streamlining of many processes in the Finance Area making companies more “agile”, which means more able to respond properly to the changing markets.

    In this context, CPM software, if well implemented, can really give a boost to the performance of a company, and make a difference in many processes.

    In our experience we have seen several Planning or Consolidation projects taking increasing time (and costs!) of implementation, without even going live or going live but with a low level of satisfaction for the users. To avoid this kind of outcome as much as possible, here are several factors that can contribute to the successful implementation of CPM processes.

    Implementation of CPM processes: success factors

    It is practically impossible to analyze in detail every single factor that can determine the success or failure of a process in the field of Corporate Performance Management since it is composed of a large number of elements. However, we can summarize the most important ones in our opinion:

    Choosing the right consulting firm

    Engaging a consulting firm means being supported by Industry Experts and therefore getting a critical analysis of current business processes, understanding how to transform and evolve them according to the market, and implementing best practices. be careful to choose a partner and not a simple executor.

    Not software features, but process requirements

    The selection of software should always be driven by the process you want to manage in your organization. However, the attitude is often to adapt the process to the software chosen for the implementation with negative impacts on both day-to-day operations and maintenance costs.

    Given the facts, the software solution that is more suitable to obtain a given result given in each business context is clearly CCH® Tagetik CPM software.

    request demo CCH Tagetik

    CCH® Tagetik expert solution: top 7 capabilities to strengthen the Office of Finance

    CCH® Tagetik solution adapts to business processes while minimizing the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) and meets the needs of finance users. Here are the 7 strengths of CCH® Tagetik for the Office of Finance:

    1. CCH® Tagetik, as confirmed by leading analysts, is one of the few market leaders in both Planning and Financial Close that allows you to manage both Actual and Forecasting processes within the same tool, which by their nature has many points of contact and intersection. The possibility of having a single software to manage these two types of processes allows easy comparison of results, ensuring a common data model and therefore a meaningful comparison.
    2. From a technical point of view the solution is deployable both On-Premise and on Cloud and it is the only software certified to run also on the SAP Hana database, leveraging all the benefits also in terms of performance. For companies that already have, or are about to pass, to the new SAP S4 this feature can be a definite advantage in terms of integration with the ERP.
    3. The ability to use an open and unencrypted database allows CCH® Tagetik to easily interact with all Business Intelligence systems on the market (MS Power BI, SAC, Qlik, and others) which, as confirmed by our experience in the field, are very often already present and used in of many companies, and therefore safeguarding the investment made in this area.
    4. Product Capabilities: both in the Financial Close and Planning fields, the CCH® Tagetik suite is outstanding for its many built-in features (i.e. allocation, spreading, double-entry bookkeeping, etc.) that allow you to model complex processes. The use of native functions eliminates the need to develop ad-hoc code (customization vs. programming) and makes the solution maintainable directly by the business, reducing maintenance costs.
    5. Analytic Information Hub: the addition of an analytical layer allows the flexible management of operational processes where an unlimited number of dimensions and a high granularity of data are used. The native integration with the financial layer allows an automatic reconciliation between operational and financial data.
    6. Predictive Intelligence: the new engine with Artificial Intelligence integrated into the Analytic Information Hub offers the possibility to automatically interconnect historical series, capture trends, and business drivers, and give the best solution for the future.
    7. Customer Experience: last, but not least, is the point referring to Customer Experience and Satisfaction. The suite, according to all the major analysts, is positioned in the top position of this ranking.

    In conclusion, the CCH® Tagetik Expert Solution from Wolters Kluwer stands out for its ease of use and implementation – a feature that should not be underestimated, especially when it comes to restructuring the Finance department’s processes. However, to achieve the company’s goals, a design phase is also needed to optimize the underlying processes and make them more efficient.

    request demo CCH Tagetik

    Industrial accounting: what is it, what is it for, and what are the benefits

    Industrial accounting plays a vital role in business management since it enables the determination of production costs, a key factor in guiding strategic business decisions. Given the importance that this analysis has within business margins, it is necessary to make use of processes and tools capable of providing reliable data and reports that can guide management decisions. 

    There are several software programs on the market that allow for optimal management of industrial accounting, however, choosing the best solution may not be as easy as one might think. So let’s take a look at what industrial accounting is used for and what are the benefits of its optimal management. 

    What is industrial accounting

    Before delving into an analysis of the advantages of proper management of industrial accounting, it is necessary to dwell on the elements to be taken into consideration. As is now well known, industrial accounting has the task of evaluating what are the costs of production of a given good or work order through data on the activities carried out in individual departments and the corresponding material consumption. 

    Thanks to industrial accounting, side by side with analytical accounting, it will be possible to get a complete picture of the company’s status and it will also be possible to examine and reshape future business development actions with the intention of achieving the set goals and maximizing results.

    Cost accounting and industrial accounting: the differences

    Very often the terms “industrial accounting” and “cost accounting” are used synonymously, however, this is incorrect, since they are two processes that partly overlap but do not completely coincide. In fact, industrial accounting, as anticipated earlier, takes into account data related to production processes. Then, by integrating balance sheet data with production data, production costs can be determined.

    Analytical accounting, on the other hand, focuses on indirect costs which do not relate to a specific product or service finding a way to identify and allocate them in the most correct way, very often making use of aggregation by cost centers, one of the most widely used methodologies in this type of accounting. Although these two processes refer to different concepts, frequently in the business environment these two terms are mistakenly used as synonyms because they are two closely related aspects. In fact:  

    • the calculation of production costs can only be done using data from cost accounting;
    • in order to estimate margins on sales, it is necessary to have production costs.

    What is the purpose of industrial accounting?

    Within different companies, industrial accounting takes on different characteristics that are adapted to the needs of different businesses. In fact, in this area of responsibility of the Finance department, it is not necessary to submit to the requirements imposed by standards, and therefore the choices on the system to be adopted are dictated by other factors, including the sector in which the company operates and the size. 

    In any case, regardless of the sector in which it is applied, industrial accounting has a very specific purpose: to produce timely data and reports to guide the company’s strategic decisions in the medium and long term. Going into detail, through industrial accounting it will be possible to have greater control:

    • Of production costs and sales margins;
    • Of inventory values.

    Calculation of production costs and sales margins

    The main task of industrial accounting is to define what the production costs of various goods or work orders are by means of information on the individual activities carried out in the different departments and their material consumption. This process makes it possible to implement a control mechanism on the various margins, which increases its validity proportionally according to the number of businesses owned by the company.

    Thanks to industrial accounting, in fact, it is possible to have an accurate estimate of what are the production costs and the related sales margins based on the price of the finished product, which, however, know that they do not depend solely on production costs, but also on the market.

    Going into specifics, we speak of industrial margin, meaning the difference between selling price and the related production costs. For the company to generate earnings, the industrial margin must also be able to cover the business costs that will arise as a result of the production phase; should this not occur, the company would have an unsustainable business. The only way to avert this situation is through the proper calculation of production costs and the subsequent development of an efficient industrial accounting system.

    By combining economic accounting data with data derived from industrial accounting, it is possible to have information not otherwise obtainable through general accounting alone. These data and reports can then allow an assessment of the efficiency of each production line in the company and its profit capacity. Once the costs of the various product lines have been delineated, greater control can be gained through: 

    • the calculation of the margins of each product: this will allow one to push harder on the most profitable ones;
    • the evaluation of different pricing strategies;
    • the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of in-house production against contract work.

    Having reliable final information, it will then be possible to make reliable statistical analyses and forecasts, which will also allow anticipating events with the construction of economic, capital and financial budgets. Of course, the program drawn up at the beginning of the year, during the budgeting phase, will then have to be constantly monitored, correcting, if necessary, the shot with budget review or forecasting operations. 

    Stock assessment and control

    Finally, industrial accounting also makes it possible to evaluate and control inventory, an area that produces a few effects not only on the operational side, but also on the economic and equity side. Although it is easy to imagine that an overstock ensures a better supply to the various departments or to the sales, an overstock can produce several critical issues first of all an excessive use of financial resources and the economic risk of depreciation due to various factors, such as the perishability of products. Hence the need for an industrial accounting system capable of producing precise and accurate information to optimize the risk of stock holding.

    Finally, industrial accounting also allows for the valuation of inventories, a practice that every company must perform at least once a year at the stage of annual financial statements. The valuation of inventories in the absence of an efficient and optimized industrial accounting system turns out to be very complicated, but above all, it risks providing approximate data that do not allow to know accurately the real value of inventories and therefore also the related risk component. 

    The types of industrial accounting

    Depending on the industry and the needs of various companies, it is possible to opt for different types of industrial accounting. These include:

    • standard cost industrial accounting;
    • actual cost industrial accounting. 

    Let’s see what they are in detail and when it is preferable to choose one or the other.

    Standard Costing

    Standard cost industrial accounting is the optimal solution for businesses in which the cost of production remains constant over time, or at least undergoes minimal variations. Within this context, in fact, it will be necessary to calculate the cost of production only once, in the budget period, based exclusively on data that do not change over time, and revise it only the following year by updating the values if there are any changes. This solution, however, cannot be chosen by companies that have a production cost that varies significantly throughout the year.

    Actual costing

    Actual cost industrial accounting, on the other hand, is the best solution for companies that have to undergo market fluctuations and therefore need to review the cost of production on a constant, even weekly basis. This is the case, for example, for all those companies that process products in which the raw material fluctuates greatly throughout the year. In the case where this calculation is not done in a constant and periodic way, one could have untrue margin values, which could lead the company to make unprofitable, if not even counterproductive, choices. In any case, in general, almost all companies, in order to have more accurate and detailed information, opt for both solutions, making a standard cost calculation at least once a year and a final cost calculation monthly. 

    What are the advantages?

    Having an efficient industrial accounting system, flanked by a strong cost accounting system, is the only way for a company to govern market fluctuations by ensuring a product and service proposal in line with the company’s cost and margin requirements. In fact, by periodically keeping track of the price trends of the materials used in production, it is possible to have an accurate and timely estimate of production costs as well, consequently, one can adjust one’s pitch should one be faced with market fluctuations.

    In conclusion, companies without an efficient industrial accounting system are more susceptible to market volatility and should changes occur in the price of materials used they may not be able to implement choices aimed at limiting the negative effects of this situation. On the contrary, companies with a timely accounting system have the ability to adjust their focus because of the more accurate margin indications that will be able to guide business decisions in the immediate future.

    The CFO in the post-pandemic restart

    The increasing market volatility and the resulting difficulty in planning, along with the ever-pressing need for updated and reliable information in a short time frame, the proliferation of risk factors to monitor and manage, and the necessary oversight and development of sustainability issues, have over time increased the centrality and complexity of the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) role within a company.

    Moreover, the pandemic crisis has been a further, terrifying accelerator of this process already underway, so much so that, having overcome the most acute phase of resilience to the crisis, it is now necessary to consider how the role of the CFO should be played in the hoped-for restart.

    In doing so, it is important to keep in mind that, if the pandemic leaves behind a world characterized by greater unpredictability, risk, and social distancing, changing the way companies operate, the ultimate goal of any company remains unchanged, which is to create sustainable value over time in light of the risks assumed.

    In essence, the keywords remain value, risk, and sustainability, and it is appropriate to reflect on whether the role of the CFO has changed as a result of the pandemic crisis and what possible consequences can be imagined.

    CFO: key-role in decision-making

    Value means cultivating profitable businesses and generating cash flow through them. To this end, the CFO continues to play a key role, providing reliable information through budgeting and reporting processes for making operational and/or strategic decisions. What changes is the speed at which all of this happens; information is required in increasingly short timeframes and, given the greater uncertainty that characterizes the contexts in which companies operate, it becomes more complex to provide useful estimates and projections for making these decisions.

    Beyond the internal implications, it should also be remembered that poor reliability of financial information provided to external parties places significant responsibilities on the CFO. Therefore, the analytical and traceability of data within the information systems supporting the CFO appears decisive.

    Nor can it be thought that identifying a few measures and focusing on those in planning and control is enough. Certainly, there are summary measures (such as free cash flow, but also measures of profitability) on which objectives are normally assigned to management, but then it is necessary to go deeper to analyze more complex phenomena.

    Furthermore, in the context of a post-pandemic recovery, the CFO’s contribution should not be limited to providing information for someone else to decide, as they could play a valuable proactive, if not propulsive, role in rethinking strategic choices, production processes, work organization, cost allocation in a “zero-based” logic, and all of this thanks to the information that the CFO can draw on firsthand and the overall view of the company processes that they are called to have.

    The CFO as an ally of digital transformation

    In light of what has been described, there is a need for greater reliance on solid planning and control systems in analytical construction and data traceability, while at the same time being quickly adaptable to changing contexts. Similarly, it becomes important to be able to develop business performance management systems useful for defining paths and objectives and measuring their achievement, adapting them over time in line with changing dynamics. In general, the increasing digitization of processes can be a valuable ally for the CFO in a context of often reduced and often distant resources.

    And an ally of Enterprise Risk Management

    But the greatest factor of change is undoubtedly the greater emphasis on risk management due to the increasing volatility and unpredictability of the contexts in which companies operate. In this area too, the CFO – in addition to being the risk owner of some risks, including those related to financial information – also ensures the planning and control of OPEX and CAPEX aimed at mitigating risk consistently with the company’s risk appetite, taking care to avoid periodic phases of cost rationalization, especially if developed with unfortunate linear cuts.

    The CFO becomes a valuable ally – if not directly responsible for this role – of ERM (Enterprise Risk Management) for the purpose of an adequate mapping of risks within company processes and their consequent mitigation through actions taken by risk owners, often responsible for both profit and cost centers.

    In search of sustainable growth

    Lastly, sustainability. Assuming that the “G” point of sustainability is Governance, which is also expressed through budgeting and reporting processes as well as risk management, it should be emphasized that non-financial reporting continues to play a crucial role in achieving sustainable growth in the medium to long term. Certainly, during the worst period of the pandemic, in the phase of pure resilience for companies, the focus on various sustainability issues may have diminished. However, during the recovery phase, these issues become central again, and their management by the CFO remains crucial.

    Risk management, profitability planning and control, especially cash generation (and therefore value), and non-financial reporting are all issues that the CFO must govern jointly and in-depth, quickly and effectively during the recovery phase. To this end, the digitization of administration, finance, and control processes becomes an essential lever to ensure the management of the three corporate pillars (value, risk, and sustainability), especially in a phase of hoped-for recovery.

    CIO and CFO: the secret to a successful collaboration

    Collaboration between CIO and CFO has become an indispensable factor in achieving business goals. In recent years, due in part to the Covid-19 pandemic, business processes, especially in the Finance department, have been accelerating technologically at a much faster pace than in the past, and this has inevitably forced a revisiting of them. 

    In this context, the ability to maintain and gain market share is a reflection of the company’s ability to combine business needs with application responses. This can only be achieved if there is a close collaboration between the CIO and CFO capable of adding value to the business.

    The importance of collaboration between CIO and CFO

    As Sheri Rhodes, Chief Information Officer at Workday, also recently said, “Modernizing and automating financial operations is now one of the priority digital activities of today’s companies, in fact I would say it is the top priority. Collaboration between the CIO and CFO has become imperative to achieve business objectives.“

    CTA ebook CFO

    Of course, it is important to point out that not all companies operate in the same way, and in fact it is not uncommon to find situations where communication between the CIO and CFO is not perfectly transparent and where the communication model is unidirectional, one way or the other. In fact, a vertical division of departments, i.e., silos that do not communicate with each other adequately, continues to persist in many activities. In our experience in the field over the years, we have found communication difficulties in both SMEs and listed companies. Although this model allows the company to move forward, revisiting it with a view to greater synergy could allow for more beneficial and more successful results.

    The risks of an absence of synergy

    By now it seems clear that the absence of synergy between the CIO and CFO can undermine results and the achievement of business objectives. Although in some cases the CIO and CFO manage to arrive at a compromise that can satisfy both, in most cases what results is a clash between the two figures capable of wrecking the spirit of collaboration that is being sought. 

    In essence, analyzing the issue on a purely operational level, should the CIO and CFO fail to arrive at a close collaboration two possible scenarios will play out. The first sees a prevailing of the position advocated by the CIO, who will most likely go for one of the best technological solutions on the market. These solutions, although perfect for the technology project of the CIO and the consulting firms that support him in his activity, may not be able to adequately support the activity of Finance users, not meeting their needs. In fact, CIOs often tend to adopt solutions at the ERP and CPM level that favor the choice of the same vendor in an effort to seek integration that, if it is possible at the horizontal level, is not possible at the vertical level.

    In the event that the CFO’s position prevails, it is easy to assume that the company adopts a solution that meets the needs of Finance users but lacks adequate integrations between the ERP and CPM levels with non-negligible effects at the TCO level of the solution. The collaborative process between the CIO and CFO must have a single goal: to choose a software capable of adapting to the business processes (perhaps revisited as a result of a BPR operation) while minimizing the TCO of the entire project. Faced with the complexity of this choice, it is necessary for the Chief Information Officer and the Chief Financial Officer to work synergistically in the interest of the company, free from possible constraints imposed from within or from outside companies.

    The benefits of a collaboration between CIO and CFO

    Very often when a company is faced with the choice of new software, it tries to prefer solutions that can guarantee high levels of integration so as to significantly reduce maintenance and interfacing costs. However, to date, as we explained earlier, there are no vendors offering truly integrated solutions between the CPM and ERP layers (vertical integration).  

    The issue changes if we analyze the situation from a “horizontal” perspective. In this sense, in fact, it is possible to find software that can adapt to process needs and at the same time manage to integrate optimally with each other. Integration, therefore, should not be sought on the vertical axis, but on the horizontal axis, and the real breakthrough in achieving business objectives lies in the collaboration between two key figures namely the CIO and the CFO.

    CTA ebook CFO

    The necessary requirements for successful collaboration

    In the quest for synergy between the CIO and the CFO, for successful collaboration to be achieved, it is necessary for the relationship between the two figures to be based on certain prerequisites. Going into specifics, it is necessary for the CIO to be able to evaluate the best application solution, without making philosophical choices that often do not minimize project TCO or even meet business needs. On the other hand, the CFO must disengage from what is a user issue and move to a process issue.

    In fact, very often it happens that users who have always worked with the same program become reluctant when considering an alternative solution. In fact, updating a software inevitably also implies a change in the way of working. Although new things can invariably generate fear and uncertainty, it is nevertheless of paramount importance to keep in mind that business processes over the years may have changed from what was analyzed in previous implementations. For this very reason, it is necessary to reevaluate the process and evaluate the software that best fits the new business needs. Within this framework at first process analysis and then comparison activity with the software turns out to be crucial. Remaining anchored to the patterns of the past in fact runs the risk of making choices that are not win-win for the company and of not seizing the opportunities that projects of this type are able to offer, thus missing an opportunity for growth and development.In essence, for a successful collaboration to take place between the CIO and the CFO, it is necessary for both to abandon the beliefs of what could be the advantages of their own office with the intention of adding value to the company. Through the right collaboration, the CFO and CIO will enable the company to continue to thrive in a rapidly changing marketplace that along with the associated risks, however, also offers great opportunities.

    CTA ebook CFO Box ENG