| TECHNOLOGY |
September
2004 |
SPREADSHEET HELL?
CFOs are interested in the many new
technologies being pitched to them, but are they really trapped
in spreadsheet hell?
By Don Durfee
Call it the "innovation gap", a yawning
space between two parallel universes. In one, companies operate
more effectively than ever before, powered by a rash of new
technologies that tackle every aspect of financial management,
from the mundane (if complex) processing of invoices and payments
right up to strategic planning and long-term forecasting.
Software companies promote an endless array of appealing new
products that promise to save CFOs time and money, put companies
in compliance with new financial rules, and turn reams of
data into actionable intelligence. A stream of conferences,
roundtables, and webcasts explore the latest innovations and
profile the forward-thinking companies that have deployed
them, with the obligatory touting of astounding returns on
investment.
In the other universe, new technologies
don't fare as well. This universe could be labeled "reality".
In a recent survey of 168 finance executives, CFO IT asked
about the state of IT as used by corporate finance departments.
Out of a list of 14 finance-specific technologies, we found
that only two are widely used: spreadsheets and basic budgeting
and planning systems. The others - from portals and dashboards
to treasury and tax software - have thus far largely been
ignored. "Spreadsheet hell", a term often invoked by software
companies - and, occasionally, by customers - is not, as of
yet, driving many CFOs to make substantial investments in
newer forms of IT. Nor have the demands of regulations from
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, even though many of the more-complex
rules focus on internal controls, an aspect of corporate operations
often inextricably tied to technology..
Slow motion
Why the gulf between expectations and
reality? It's not that finance departments are uneasy about
deploying new technologies - the great majority of survey
respondents expressed satisfaction with their department's
ability to absorb new IT. Instead, the two main factors appear
to be the slump in overall IT spending and the lingering hangover
from the Y2K-inspired wave of ERP implementations. According
to our survey, cost and integration problems remain the top
barriers to implementing new finance technologies. "Although
there is renewed interest, we still haven't seen a big pickup
in finance IT spending," says John Van Decker, a vice president
at Meta Group.
Ironically, Sarbanes-Oxley may be slowing
the pace of new technology adoption further. It's not that
IT won't be important for companies' compliance efforts; on
the contrary, CFOs say that having a well-integrated system
that accurately and transparently reports results is a definite
advantage when executives have to sign their name to financial
statements. Instead, the problem is that compliance requires
such a major effort that many CFOs don't want the disruption
of a large systems implementation.
"While we're in the middle of Sarbanes-Oxley,
we have an embargo on new systems," says JT Fisher, CFO of
Delta Connection, a unit of Delta Air Lines in the US. "You
don't want to have internal-control attestations driven off
of audits and process reviews that are linked to systems that
are unstable. Once the process is bolted down, we can start
adding new IT." Our survey suggests that many finance executives
are taking a similarly cautious approach. Of the public companies
that responded, only 10 percent are spending much more on
technology as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley, 50 percent are spending
somewhat more, and the rest see no change.
But the innovation gap our survey uncovered
does not stem only from caution in the face of new business
requirements. Broadly speaking, finance executives appear
to be largely content with the technologies they have today:
72 percent say they have most or everything they need in the
way of finance IT. And the much-derided spreadsheet, so often
posited as the dinosaur that newer technologies will ultimately
make extinct, is not heading for the tar pits anytime soon.
Every single company we surveyed uses spreadsheets today,
and a mere 9 percent think they will decline in importance
in the coming years.
Companies have also learned, after much
expense and pain, that technology is only part of the solution,
and sometimes not a particularly big part. Technology really
works, says Fisher, when it "helps you slough off old ways
of doing things, when it helps you discover and adapt better
processes. That's when you get great efficiencies. But the
latest technologies, in and of themselves, don't make you
more productive.".
Change is coming
This lull in technology adoption won't
last forever, though. According to the survey, companies do
plan to start adding new finance IT. Eighty-two percent say
that within five years their finance departments will rely
on a mix of current and new technologies, and 13 percent say
they will rely primarily on new technologies.
One reason is that spreadsheets - useful
and beloved though they are - will soon force a change for
many companies. While they can satisfy many needs in small,
stable organizations, they can become a major burden for larger
companies. Indeed, while only 33 percent of respondents with
revenue under US$100 million say that "spreadsheet hell" is
a fair description of what goes on in their departments, that
figure jumps to 59 percent for larger companies.
"When you are an organization with
less than US$100 million in revenues, you can almost run your
whole accounting department using spreadsheets," says Lee
Geishecker, a vice president and research area lead at Gartner.
"But as soon as you run into business complexity such as industry-specific
requirements, complex incentive programs on your sales side,
or multinational environments, you have to move away from
spreadsheets as the engine for your budgeting." As companies
start growing again, there will be pressure to fix the spreadsheet
problem.
Such pressure was strong at Mentor Graphics,
a US$675 million provider of engineering software. A few years
ago, the company's annual planning process required rolling
up data from 1,200 Excel spreadsheets - one for each cost
center. "When you get that many spreadsheets, it never quite
ties together," says Jan-Willem Beldman, the company's enterprise
data architect. "On average, it was a six-to-eight-week process
each year just to get that worked out."
Today the company uses a Hyperion Essbase
system with a web-based tool that pulls all of the data into
one place, automates the approval process, and allows planners
to run scenarios more easily than they could in Excel. "We're
now doing the whole planning process in five months, down
from what was an eight-month ordeal," says Beldman. Another
force for change is the ongoing drive to reduce the cost of
finance. CEOs continue to demand that such cost centers as
finance be leaner, while making a greater strategic contribution.
Because of its ability to automate routine tasks, technology
will be vital to this effort.
Consider Delta's experience. When the
airline industry suffered a sharp decline in demand following
September 11, 2001, the company had to make deep cuts in all
areas. Finance was able to use Delta's new SAP system to do
its part. By redesigning and automating finance processes
as part of the implementation, the department was able to
reduce staffing by between 15 and 20 percent, and dedicate
more employees to providing decision support to the business.
"We've greatly reduced the amount
of finance staff time spent on transaction processing," says
Fisher. "Now we spend much more time on business matters."
Delta had a curious advantage, Fisher says, in that its hodgepodge
of systems were so cumbersome that when the company consolidated
on a single ERP system from SAP in 2001, "we didn't have to
worry about people being reluctant to learn a new system -
they said, 'I don't care what the new system is, I'll embrace
it.'"
More important, Fisher says that a single
ERP system offered a way out of spreadsheet hell because it
provides a uniform source of data that all spreadsheet analyses
rely on. "In the past, you would sit in a meeting and several
people would offer up business models, and you'd have to spend
time sorting out what everyone's assumptions were based on,"
he says. "You couldn't even get to a discussion of whether
the business case was good or bad because you were bogged
down trying to understand what one spreadsheet was saying
versus another. That's spreadsheet hell."
ERP, of course, is not new, although
the major vendors constantly add new modules and capabilities
to it. Among the more purely new technologies of most interest
to CFOs, five rise to the top: corporate (or business) performance
management, a.k.a. CPM/BPM; E-procurement; portals; E-payment/E-billing
software or services; and dashboards. .
Teach them to fish
What these technologies have in common,
aside from the inevitable promises that they will provide
near-instantaneous payback, is that they help finance departments
do less paper-shuffling and more analysis. E-procurement and
E-payment/ E-billing (technologies sometimes collectively
known as financial supply-chain software) help free finance
from much of its routine accounting work. CPM/BPM, portals,
and dashboards are tools that help finance satisfy the business's
demand for better visibility into the drivers of growth or
the sources of trouble.
Frank Figueroa, CFO of Sandia National
Laboratories, which is owned by the US Department of Energy
but operated by Sandia, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, is
interested in visibility on several levels. "As much as I'd
like to drive down the cost of IT," he says, "if that spending
helps us achieve our objectives, then that's fine. I would
just like better insight into which IT projects provide the
most contribution to our strategic objectives."
Despite those reservations, he is upbeat
about the promise of CPM products. The company is using an
Oracle ERP system and portals (essentially web pages customized
to provide access to data, software applications, and other
sources of information relevant to a given constituency) as
a way of pushing data out to business managers and customers.
Now Figueroa is looking for tools to help analyze the data.
"We're doing a good job of reducing the cost per transaction,"
he says. "The drive now is to do a better job of predicting
revenue streams and taking actions to make sure we're achieving
our strategic goals." One of those goals, he says, is to gain
a better understanding of the link between IT spending and
quantifiable performance improvements.
That need isn't lost on makers of ERP
systems (such as Oracle) many of which have come out with
new systems to compete with vendors that specialize in CPM
and other aspects of finance IT. In particular, Oracle sees
more adoption of web-based applications for such areas as
bill presentment, receivables management, and credit management.
For his part, Fisher of Delta Connection
says that once Sarbanes-Oxley compliance is well in hand,
he hopes to explore technology that will streamline the company's
approach to payroll and employee-records management. "This
is the biggest, most complex cobweb of systems for us," he
says.
That one-thing-at-a-time approach would
seem at odds with the transformative visions that many software
vendors are peddling. But what can look slow and steady in
the near term can in fact be fairly revolutionary: is there
a finance department in existence that doesn't rely on the
internet as an all-purpose technological backbone? Could one
have said the same five years ago? Even in the near term,
the innovation gap seems far more likely to shrink than to
grow. The number of companies that will adopt newer forms
of finance IT will be so large, why, you'd need a spreadsheet
to track them all. 
Don Durfee is research editor of CFO in
the US
|
After the cost-cutting,
more cuts
While many CFOs have an IT wish list and
seem interested in new technologies, a recent survey from
Booz Allen Hamilton suggests that purse strings will remain
securely fastened. Asked about their top overall priorities,
fully 85 percent of the 156 CFOs surveyed cited cost-cutting
for general and administrative services - a.k.a. overhead
- including IT, human resources, and core accounting and finance
functions. In fact, despite the prolonged economic slump and
the substantial cost-cutting it has already entailed, only
3 percent said they've cut overhead costs as much as possible.
While survey respondents pointed to a
number of different strategies for making further cuts, there
was little evidence of a slash-and-burn approach. With the
easy cuts having been made, companies now believe they'll
need to combine cuts to nonessential services with other strategies,
including standardization, restructuring, and altered relationships
with - and expectations of - the business units that consume
many of those services.
The survey turned up plenty of evidence
that IT strategy will play a key role in such plans - and
maybe a number of roles. For one, Booz Allen found that success
in cutting overhead costs can hinge in large part on mastering
the complexity of IT. Companies that said "managing a
patchwork of different systems" is their top IT challenge
were almost unanimous in labeling themselves underperformers
in overhead reduction, while fewer than half of the self-described
leaders in cost-cutting said managing a hodgepodge of systems
is a top IT concern.
In some cases, an investment in
IT may help business units become more self-sufficient. One
of the appeals of business intelligence and CPM technology
is that they can enable business managers to do their own
analyses based on a common set of data. If the technology
lives up to its promise, business units can satisfy some of
their own requests, allowing finance to do more with less.
"A lot of what finance does today are things that people
would do themselves if they had the tools," says John
Van Decker, a vice president at Meta Group.
That's been a perennial complaint,
of course, but with tools improving and the pressure on companies
to operate more efficiently in no way abating, this could
be a classic case of spend a dime to make a dollar.
|