Finance Technology
ERP programmes fail less often on technology than on requirements. When finance is a stakeholder rather than an owner, the system encodes someone else's process.
In most ERP programmes, finance is consulted. Requirements are gathered, workshops are attended, sign-offs are obtained. And yet, at go-live, the chart of accounts does not support the reporting the board asked for, and the close takes longer than it did before.
This happens because consultation is not ownership. The decisions that determine whether an ERP serves finance, chart of accounts design, entity structure, intercompany treatment, close automation, are made early and rarely revisited.
When finance owns the programme, requirements start from the target reporting output and work backwards. The chart of accounts is designed against the management reporting structure, not inherited from the legacy system.
Integration architecture is designed against reconciliation needs. Automation is prioritised by control impact, not by demo appeal. Adoption is tracked as a delivery metric, not assumed.
The programme is not finished at go-live. Value realisation needs measurement: close days, manual journal volume, reconciliation exceptions, reporting turnaround. Without those metrics, ROI remains a claim rather than a result.
More reading
Financial Close
Speed is the visible metric. Control is the one that matters. A look at how multi-entity groups structure close calendars, ownership, and evidence so the cycle holds under audit.
Payroll & Compliance
Payroll providers rarely get the maths wrong. The risk sits between HR, finance, and statutory advisors, in the handoffs nobody formally owns.
A short diagnostic conversation is usually enough to tell you where the real constraint sits.