Who owns the planning and consolidation process? More often than we’d like to admit, we lose track of the change management and data ownership process. With various parties playing a role in the generation, maintenance, and oversight of financial data, I’d like to offer a few thoughts from a third-party perspective.
The players and their roles
Typically in the data governance process there are:
- The numbers people: Your accounting group (consolidations) or your planners (forecasts). These are the people that can vouch for the accuracy and completeness of the data, but they don’t always know where it comes from or who uses it. Interacting with this group you’re likely to encounter accounting terms like out-of-balance, eliminating entries, or journal entries. Sometimes this group is technical enough to understand scripting or IT change governance processes, but often they are only familiar with the concepts at a high level.
- The technical team: Depending on your organization, this group can vary greatly. It may consist of accountants and planners with enough technical expertise to run the show on the setup and configuration side of the software. They may also be part of the more traditional IT group. Either way, the best situation is when you have someone that can understand the accounting, planning, and technical sides of things.
- The “real” IT crew: Most organizations will have a core IT support group. This can vary from a small core group that keeps the servers and network up and running, to a full bench of IT professionals. This group doesn’t usually have much of an accounting background and will need help when a wide-eyed accountant tells him or her, “Your balance sheet is out-of-balance and the intercompany transactions seem to be the issue.”
- The fuzz: Again, most organizations will have at least a core contingent of staff dedicated to oversight. This may include an internal audit function, IT audit group, or a SOX project management office. The experience and depth of understanding within this group ranges from individuals who are well-versed in ITIL and ITSM methodology to those just looking to make sure the I’s are dotted and the T’s crossed.The bosses: Everyone has someone they answer to — all these groups do as well. Each group will have a different set of expectations and demands. The finance and accounting group will likely get pushed to “get it done,” while the oversight groups will be looking to ensure nothing slips through the cracks.
Instances of conflict
Ideally, all of these groups would work together like a well-oiled machine, but we know that isn’t always the case. Commonly, conflicts between these groups are usually the result of a lack of understanding and communication. Conflict usually arises in the following types of situations:
- A “small” change is necessary, and the numbers people can’t understand why they need to go through a change management process.
- The finance group has put together what they believe is clear documentation of what needs to happen (including supporting data), but the IT group in charge of making the change has difficulty understanding what the accountants need.
- The governance group has been reviewing the system changes and wonders why the accounting group needs so many changes. If the process was well-designed and aligned, does it need to change so much?
- The bosses want to know why everything wasn’t done yesterday (or why everyone keeps complaining).
Often, the first step toward conflict resolution is to take a deep breath and relax. Remember, each group of stakeholders just wants what’s best for the organization. No one is looking to ruin someone else’s day. As previously noted, most of these conflicts are the result of miscommunication.
Observations from the field
Having seen this process play out at many organizations over the years, here is some advice for each of these groups to improve outcomes:
- To the accountants:
Make sure you’re not speaking in acronyms — remember you’re probably not talking to someone with years of accounting experience. Clearly document exactly what it is that you need and avoid using accounting-specific terms like balancing or intercompany. Consider what it was like before you spoke in terms of debits and credits.
Take the change management process seriously. Too often, I have observed the accounting and finance group has no interest in performing detailed testing on anything other than “real” numbers (which usually means the production system). If the IT group feels you’re putting data at risk, they are going to put the brakes on any changes you’re requesting. - To the IT group:
Be sure to take the requests of the business seriously. It’s a pretty sure thing that these requests aren’t the result of boredom or a desire to see you running in circles. Typically, there is immense pressure from their superiors to make the system work the way they think it should — more often than not, there is little understanding of how complex small changes can be.
Where there is immense pressure, there is incentive to get a problem solved as soon as possible. This can result in users attempting all sorts of workarounds. If you want to avoid a “shadow” IT group, demonstrate you are doing your best to meet their needs. - To the governance group:
While no one is asking that you turn a blind eye to deficiencies, try to frame your process as a value-added effort to assist the company. Often, users understand there is a governance process but don’t understand the purpose of this endeavor. The best governance groups I have worked with have framed their efforts as helping the business and the users to have the most efficient and secure process possible. - To the bosses:
We all know things have to get done, and they need to get done now. However, the amount of pressure you apply is directly related to the level of risk individuals are willing to take to avoid that pressure. I have seen many companies create an environment of risk avoidance, to the point that no one is willing to take any risks for fear of sticking their necks out. Seek ways to encourage a growth mindset within your organization.
Moving forward
With very few exceptions, we are all trying to do the best job we can. Try to see yourself and your department as a builder and enabler, not as a gatekeeper and punisher. At the end of the day, if we respect one another while getting our jobs done, we all look better.
