Latest Blogs
View all
CFOs at multi-entity groups face a stark reality: the management control systems they need to run their business are often too difficult to actually implement.
Financial data sits trapped across multiple ERP systems—SAP in one entity,NetSuite in another, Visma in subsidiaries. Consolidation becomes a monthly Excel marathon. Issues surface weeks after they occur, when corrective actionis no longer possible. The board wants answers. The CFO knows there's a betterway.
But here's the paradox: the solutions designed to solve this problem often become the problem themselves
Traditionalconsolidation and Corporate Performance Management (CPM) systems promisefinancial control across complex group structures. Yet many CFOs remain miredin spreadsheet chaos despite knowing these solutions exist.
The obstacle isn't capability—it's lifecycle friction.
Consider the full operational burden:
- Implementation: 3-6 months of setup, internal coordination, and testingbefore go-live
- Maintenance: Ongoing IT involvement to keep the system current as ERPsupdate
- Adaptation: Every restructuring, acquisition, or entity change triggers anew mini-project
This isn't theoretical. A McKinsey-University of Oxford study of 5,400 large ITprojects found that on average, these projects run 45% over budget and 7% overtime, while delivering 56% less value than predicted.[^1] The most commonoutcome? Projects that never start at all, because CFOs correctly assess theylack the internal capacity to absorb another heavy IT initiative.
The result: manual processes persist, decisions lag, and operational problemsremain hidden until they become expensive crises.
Management control isn't retrospective reporting—it's early detection.
It means spotting margin compression at the entity level before it compoundsinto a group-wide issue. Catching cash flow problems in subsidiaries beforecovenant breaches occur. Identifying operational inefficiencies while there'sstill time to intervene.
This requires systems that:
1. Work with existing ERP landscapes without forced standardization
2. Adapt automatically as entities are added, renamed, or restructured Â
3. Deliver value without becoming an internal IT burden
The feature list matters less than whether the system actually gets deployed and used.
When managementcontrol goes live in hours rather than months, three things happen:
1. Projects That Otherwise Wouldn't Start, Now Launch
Organizations without dedicated IT resources—the majority of mid-sizedgroups—can finally implement proper financial control. The decision shifts from"can we afford a 6-month project?" to "can we spend a daytesting this?"
2. Opportunity Cost Collapses** Â
The real opportunity cost isn't the implementation period—it's the delayeddecision-making. A 6-month implementation delays identifying margin issues bytwo quarters. For a company with 15% EBITDA margin facing 200 basis pointcompression, that's €150K in undetected EBITDA leakage per quarter on a €20Mrevenue base. Fast implementation recaptures visibility when margins can stillbe defended.
3. Organizational Friction Disappears**
Long implementations require executive sponsorship, change management, trainingprograms, and sustained internal focus. Fast deployment needs none of this. TheCFO can test, validate, and scale without building consensus for a "majorinitiative."
Traditional business cases focus on annual subscription costs. They ignore the hiddentax:
- Internal coordination hours: 200-400 hours for mid-market implementations(10-20 entities), representing €30-60K in fully-loaded finance team cost
- Implementation consulting: €40-120K (€3-8K per entity for data mapping,testing, and cutover support)
- Ongoing system maintenance: €15-30K annually for chart of accountsupdates, new entity onboarding, and system upgrades
- Change management costs: Every acquisition or restructuring requiresre-mapping, re-testing, re-training across the platform
These aren't one-time costs. They recur whenever the business changes—which inPE-backed environments or growing groups happens quarterly. Systems that adaptautomatically to structural changes eliminate this entire cost category. Thefinancial impact compounds over extended holding periods—Bain & Company's2023 research indicates portfolio companies are now held for six years orlonger.[^2] With compressed exit multiples, operational improvement throughmargin expansion and working capital optimization has replaced multipleexpansion as the primary value driver. This demands granular, timely financialvisibility that traditional consolidation delays obscure.
For CFOsassessing management control systems, three questions separate viable optionsfrom IT projects that will consume your team:
1. How long from decision to first consolidated report? If the answer ismeasured in months, calculate the opportunity cost of delayed insights.
2. What happens when we acquire a new entity? If the answer involves"project kick-off" or "consultant engagement," factor thisinto total lifecycle cost.
3. Who owns ongoing maintenance? If the answer is "your IT team"or "shared responsibility," assess whether you have the internalcapacity.
4. What's the total 3-year cost of ownership? Calculate: (Annualsubscription × 3) + implementation costs + internal hours (€150/hrfully-loaded) + ongoing change costs. Compare against: (Current manual processcost × 3) + audit inefficiency + delayed decision-making cost. Systems with 18-month payback rarely get approved; 6-month payback is defensible.
Features matter. Integration breadth matters. But implementation speed andlifecycle friction determine whether the system creates value or becomesanother burden.
The organizationsachieving the strongest financial control aren't necessarily those with themost sophisticated systems—they're the ones that actually deployed somethingand use it daily.
Multi-entity groups can no longer afford 6-month implementations followed bycontinuous maintenance projects. Compressed valuations and operational focusdemand tools that work with existing systems, adapt automatically, and delivervalue from day one.
Fast implementation isn't a nice-to-have. It's the difference betweenmanagement control that gets implemented and management control that remains astrategic priority on next quarter's list.
‍
1: Bloch, M.,Blumberg, S., & Laartz, J. (2012). "Delivering large-scale IT projectson time, on budget, and on value." *McKinsey & Company*. Study of5,400 IT projects conducted with University of Oxford's BT Centre for MajorProgramme Management found large IT projects (>$15M) run 45% over budget and7% over time on average, while delivering 56% less value than predicted.Additionally, 17% of projects go so poorly they threaten company existence.Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/delivering-large-scale-it-projects-on-time-on-budget-and-on-value
2: MacArthur, H., et al. (2023). "Private Equity Midyear Report2023." *Bain & Company*. Research indicates buyout funds holdapproximately 26,000 portfolio companies for nearly six years on average, withmost assets exceeding the typical five-year exit timeframe. Extended holdingperiods have increased focus on operational value creation. Available at: https://www.bain.com/insights/topics/global-private-equity-report/
‍
