+44 (0)203 058 1000
- Home
- About us
- Clients
-
Services
- Eclipse Lifecycle Services Framework
- Consulting Services
- Solutions
- Partners
- Resources
- News, Events & Views
- Contact Us
+44 (0)203 058 1000
Is the growing gap between the Financial Director and the Finance department creating a gulf between strategic objectives and operational deliverables? Gary Waylett, CEO of Eclipse Computing, warns that if this gap is not addressed, it will begin to undermine efficency, productivity and morale.
The growing realisation of the strategic importance of IT to an organisation is reflected in the Financial Director's role in specifying new financial software. Integration with other systems, proactive report generation and the use of alerts all form part of the overall vision to transform the business. As FDs increasingly appreciate, there are huge opportunities for reducing cost and improving efficiency through automation.
However, why are these corporate objectives rarely achieved in full? Even specific goals, such as the delivery of management accounts within two days of month-end or the use of real time alerts when credit limits are breached, are not always realised. Instead, following six months of implementation upheaval, the result is often a system that is merely a bit quicker than the last one. The organisation has achieved no changes to working practices, no automation and no return on investment. What went wrong?
There is a growing belief that the problem lies, in part, in the developing gulf between the system specifiers and those tasked with overseeing the actual implementation, particularly in larger organisations. Namely the FD and the accountants: while the FD had the vision, the accountants were left in the dark.
As a result, when it comes to implementation, the focus is on the issues relevant to the accountants - the operational deliverables, improvements to existing processes and working practices - not on a strategic shift towards business improvement envisaged by the FD. This increasing gap between strategy and operation should be a cause for concern in UK organisations.
Indeed, the problem is not just one of communicating the strategic vision. In this increasingly security conscious world, accountants are 'shielded' from parts of the system not associated with their job, and hence are only provided with training on and access to, specific parts of the system. The result may be improved security – a moot point in itself – but, significantly, it creates and fosters a 'me' culture. Each accountant, when involved in implementation discussion, will consider only 'his' or 'her' part of the system.
The result is clear: there can be no understanding of the bigger picture, the strategic goal, if such a restrictive attitude is adopted. And without a clear understanding of what the software can achieve, it is hardly surprising that the resultant implementation simply replicates existing processes rather than embracing valuable automated solutions.
It can be argued that this continual replication of manual processes contributes to the ridiculous hours worked by accountants at month and quarter end. How much time do accountants spend re-keying, reconciling data and tracking erroneous positions? The use of automation reduces manual tasks and enables accountants to focus on business led issues. Tight integration between systems removes any requirement for data re-keying, while the use of alerts and proactive reporting means that accountants can focus only on highlighted mistakes as and when they arise, avoiding the time consuming, repetitive work that comprises too much of the daily activity.
Yet this technology is not being used. Why? They don't know it is there. Simple.
Today's approach to technology deployments is akin to investing in a Ferrari and telling the driver it has only one gear. How can they possibly exploit the full power of the technology on offer if they do not even know it exists? Why spend £50,000 on a good software package if the business is not going to use it? In many cases, UK organisations could spend one tenth of that and replicate manual processes just as effectively.
In the worst case scenario the system will be replaced because it is not meeting objectives: and yet the technology is not to blame. The company has simply not approached the implementation correctly: those that have to use the technology have not been involved in discussions about strategic imperatives and objectives.
Furthermore, the current approach also significantly undermines an accountant's career development within an organisation. Not only is their business perspective severely restricted but their development of broader IT skills – a fundamental requirement today – is also constrained. So, while those in senior posts are attaining a broad understanding of technology's potential, those lower down the career structure are finding their skills ossifying.
Accountants with a good technical understanding can add significant value to the implementation – if the software's full capabilities and strategic imperative have been shared. Not only will the implementation be more successful but they will also gain skills that will be of further value to the organisation.
In addition, the adoption of proactive systems that replace manual processes with alerts, for example, removes the requirement for highly trained accountants to be data entry clerks and enables them to regain their traditional role of data analysts.
There is a clear requirement to maximise the value of investment in IT. And today, confidence in financial systems is low. Yet the problem does not lie with weak technology but is due to a lack of awareness and an inability to use the right tools.
The cost to the business of failing to utilise the full functionality of a financial software product is huge. Potential benefits are slashed, extending the payback period. And organisations' realisation of their failure is demonstrated by a lack of commitment to undertake real ROI calculations – despite a clear up front objective to do so.
Strategic expectations cannot be achieved if they are not communicated to those tasked with implementing the underlying tools. By sharing the vision and bridging the gap between FD's goal and accountants' day to day work, an organisation can achieve automation – and its associated benefits – and provide accountants with both a more fulfilling role and clearer career progression.
The growing realisation of the strategic importance of IT to an organisation is reflected in the Financial Director's role in specifying new financial software. Integration with other systems, proactive report generation and the use of alerts all form part of the overall vision to transform the business. As FDs increasingly appreciate, there are huge opportunities for reducing cost and improving efficiency through automation.
However, why are these corporate objectives rarely achieved in full? Even specific goals, such as the delivery of management accounts within two days of month-end or the use of real time alerts when credit limits are breached, are not always realised. Instead, following six months of implementation upheaval, the result is often a system that is merely a bit quicker than the last one. The organisation has achieved no changes to working practices, no automation and no return on investment. What went wrong?
There is a growing belief that the problem lies, in part, in the developing gulf between the system specifiers and those tasked with overseeing the actual implementation, particularly in larger organisations. Namely the FD and the accountants: while the FD had the vision, the accountants were left in the dark.
As a result, when it comes to implementation, the focus is on the issues relevant to the accountants - the operational deliverables, improvements to existing processes and working practices - not on a strategic shift towards business improvement envisaged by the FD. This increasing gap between strategy and operation should be a cause for concern in UK organisations.
Indeed, the problem is not just one of communicating the strategic vision. In this increasingly security conscious world, accountants are 'shielded' from parts of the system not associated with their job, and hence are only provided with training on and access to, specific parts of the system. The result may be improved security – a moot point in itself – but, significantly, it creates and fosters a 'me' culture. Each accountant, when involved in implementation discussion, will consider only 'his' or 'her' part of the system.
The result is clear: there can be no understanding of the bigger picture, the strategic goal, if such a restrictive attitude is adopted. And without a clear understanding of what the software can achieve, it is hardly surprising that the resultant implementation simply replicates existing processes rather than embracing valuable automated solutions.
It can be argued that this continual replication of manual processes contributes to the ridiculous hours worked by accountants at month and quarter end. How much time do accountants spend re-keying, reconciling data and tracking erroneous positions? The use of automation reduces manual tasks and enables accountants to focus on business led issues. Tight integration between systems removes any requirement for data re-keying, while the use of alerts and proactive reporting means that accountants can focus only on highlighted mistakes as and when they arise, avoiding the time consuming, repetitive work that comprises too much of the daily activity.
Yet this technology is not being used. Why? They don't know it is there. Simple.
Today's approach to technology deployments is akin to investing in a Ferrari and telling the driver it has only one gear. How can they possibly exploit the full power of the technology on offer if they do not even know it exists? Why spend £50,000 on a good software package if the business is not going to use it? In many cases, UK organisations could spend one tenth of that and replicate manual processes just as effectively.
In the worst case scenario the system will be replaced because it is not meeting objectives: and yet the technology is not to blame. The company has simply not approached the implementation correctly: those that have to use the technology have not been involved in discussions about strategic imperatives and objectives.
Furthermore, the current approach also significantly undermines an accountant's career development within an organisation. Not only is their business perspective severely restricted but their development of broader IT skills – a fundamental requirement today – is also constrained. So, while those in senior posts are attaining a broad understanding of technology's potential, those lower down the career structure are finding their skills ossifying.
Accountants with a good technical understanding can add significant value to the implementation – if the software's full capabilities and strategic imperative have been shared. Not only will the implementation be more successful but they will also gain skills that will be of further value to the organisation.
In addition, the adoption of proactive systems that replace manual processes with alerts, for example, removes the requirement for highly trained accountants to be data entry clerks and enables them to regain their traditional role of data analysts.
There is a clear requirement to maximise the value of investment in IT. And today, confidence in financial systems is low. Yet the problem does not lie with weak technology but is due to a lack of awareness and an inability to use the right tools.
The cost to the business of failing to utilise the full functionality of a financial software product is huge. Potential benefits are slashed, extending the payback period. And organisations' realisation of their failure is demonstrated by a lack of commitment to undertake real ROI calculations – despite a clear up front objective to do so.
Strategic expectations cannot be achieved if they are not communicated to those tasked with implementing the underlying tools. By sharing the vision and bridging the gap between FD's goal and accountants' day to day work, an organisation can achieve automation – and its associated benefits – and provide accountants with both a more fulfilling role and clearer career progression.
