In recent years, the financial services and insurance industries have been subjected to continuous changes in the global economy, regulations and compliance. In the face of this turbulence, traditional ERP systems have proven inflexible, time consuming and costly to change. On the other hand, ‘Line of Business’ applications, which provide specialised vertical market capabilities, are often held back by weak financials. As a result, more and more mid-market finance and insurance companies are deciding that a hybrid approach is the optimum way forward. In this new FSN white paper, sponsored by Infor, Gary Simon, looks at the issues and the prerequisites for success.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
WHAT TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES ARE BUSINESSES USING TO COPE WITH THE NEW DEMANDS?
Option 1 – The ERP approach
Option 2 – The ‘Line of Business’ approach
Option 3 – Best in Class Financial Management System + Line of Business application approach
FIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS
Requirement 1 – Unified Ledger
Requirement 2 – Smart Transactions
Requirement 3 – Integration
Requirement 4 – Robust Reporting Capabilities
Requirement 5 – Global Capabilities
Nice to Have
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Finance and insurance organisations are operating in a period of unprecedented change, delivering services against the background of constantly shifting goalposts. From managing growth and coping with re-organisations, divestments and acquisitions to dealing with new markets, accounting regulations and compliance laws, financial executives in these industries face a host of challenges – irrespective of whether the global economy is in recovery or decline.
Compliance issues are especially trying. A succession of regulatory changes like Basel 2, Solvency 11, Dodd Frank, the Financial Corrupt Practices Act and a swathe of new international accounting standards such as IFRS Insurance Phase 11 suggests that finance executives will have their hands full for another four years, simply to accommodate changes already in the pipeline.
The impact of these changes on the finance function can be felt in the broadening of reporting requirements, increased complexity around the recording of transactions, and accelerated deadlines for reporting to external regulators. For instance, a 2008 survey1 of interim financial statements in UK public companies showed that they grew in volume by 27 percent in one year alone and within the European Union, insurance regulations are due to change in the same timeframe as new IFRS. Outside of Europe, US businesses will have to cope with the transition from US GAAP to IFRS, as well as the new Capital Adequacy measures set out in Solvency 11. To add insult to injury, the required turnaround for quarterly returns under Sovency 11 in Europe2 is to be steadily cut from six to four weeks and reports to supervisors from 18 to 14 weeks between 2013 and 2015.
When it comes to managing these types of complex changes, the importance of an organization’s financial management system cannot be underestimated. Systems that are robust yet flexible enough to allow business processes to be adapted on the fly are critical, as they provide easy access to the information and tools needed to effectively manage such a dynamic environment. Yet, many modern-day systems are architecturally constrained, difficult to change, and rooted in outdated concepts designed for the needs of a different generation.
So why is tail being allowed to wag the dog? Finance and insurance companies can no longer afford to be constrained by their financial management systems, knocked off course by every regulatory change, and left exposed to the enormous cost and disruption of implementing change. They need to lighten the burden of managing complex industry requirements and ensure financial management systems are an enabler of growth, not an obstacle. The big question is how.
This white paper explores how well financial services and insurance organisations have coped with regulatory demands and examines strategies for leveraging technology to establish an enduring platform for dependable decision making in a climate of regulatory and business uncertainty.
WHAT TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES ARE BUSINESSES USING TO COPE WITH THE NEW DEMANDS?
Mid–market finance and insurance companies have a variety of options available for meeting their financial management needs. Often, in fact, the choices can be too plentiful, making it difficult to thoroughly assess the benefits and downsides of each approach. However, the process can be simplified by classifying financial management technology strategies into the three broad categories outlined below. These strategies will inevitably evolve along with technology, although companies can easily become locked in to systems that are unable to adapt as the business changes and grows. That’s why it is so critical to choose a strategy that can accommodate your needs both now and over the long-haul. Whether you’re starting from scratch or replacing a key piece of your overall technology puzzle, making the right decisions now can ensure that your financial management system is an asset to long-term growth and profitability.
Option 1 – The ERP Approach
ERP systems have long been a challenge for mid-market finance and insurance companies. They offer name-brand credibility, promise robust functionality, and often seem like a safe choice in a sea of options. However, the promise of large-scale ERP for the mid-market has rarely lived up to reality. A primary source of ERP’s failure to meet expectations in the mid-market is the one-size-fits-all approach that many ERP companies take – and that size is large. Mid-market companies that choose this route often find themselves with solutions that are expensive, inflexible, and unnecessarily complex.
So while ERP systems have much to offer, finance directors in the mid-market often look to other options that are more adaptable, far more cost-effective, and more closely aligned with their specific business needs.
Option 2 – The Line of Business Approach
Line of Business applications can be defined as systems developed to address a particular business process or need (e.g., claims processing), but they frequently have broader functionality (e.g., financials) built in. These systems can be vendor provided, home-grown, or some combination of both. Line of Business applications are chosen for their focus on complex, industry-driven business needs that broader systems may address at only a superficial level. They have typically been developed over time and provide deep functionality and industry expertise in their given area of focus.
However, the strength of Line of Business applications is also the source of their weakness, particularly when it comes to financial management. Precisely because they are so focused, Line of Business applications rarely provide robust functionality outside their area of expertise. Often, companies will start using whatever financial management capabilities are provided when they are small and their needs are basic. Within a very short time, however, most outgrow the limited financial management functionality and find themselves stuck with a system that is unable to adapt or grow.
Regardless of whether integration is manual or fully automated, the existence of sub-ledgers outside of the ‘core’ financial systems gives rise to reconciliation challenges, (transaction matching and journal entries) especially in high volume environments.
The bottom line is that Line of Business applications have much to offer and can be a valuable asset, particularly in the complex finance and insurance industries. If the challenges posed by poor integration can be overcome and robust financial management capability incorporated, these applications provide an attractive way forward.
Option 3 – Best in Class Financial Management System + Line of Business applications
Best in Class applications can be defined as systems that address a single, core business area (e.g., financial management) that is common across industries. These solutions have typically been developed from the ground-up to address their area of focus, rather than added on to other applications to create a packaged offering. While there is no official classification, Best in Class solutions are those that have a singular focus and robust functionality that broader based solutions cannot match.
For mid-market finance and insurance companies, a hybrid approach that combines a Best in Class financial management solution with Line of Business applications has been shown to generate very positive results for the simple reason that everybody wins. Financial executives get a highly flexible system that can keep pace with business needs that change overnight, while others get the systems they need to manage complex, industry-specific business processes. Best in Class financial management solutions put the power in the finance department’s hands, providing the flexibility to adapt without the assistance of consultants, application specialists, or even IT. This is especially welcome in mid-market enterprises, which very often have limited IT resources and skills at their disposal.
So what’s the catch? The downside of Best in Class solutions has historically been difficulty of integration across other applications. Businesses can end up with a host of solutions loosely tied together, with different interfaces, reporting styles, and in some cases, overlapping functionality. However, this is an area where technology is coming rapidly to the rescue. The development of common technology platforms that allow disparate systems to be easily integrated and given a common user interface is a major trend in the enterprise software industry.
FIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS
Mid-market finance and insurance companies are increasingly finding that Best in Class financial management solutions paired with Line of Business applications deliver the strongest capabilities and the greatest flexibility. Still, finding a system capable of operating effectively in such a dynamic and complex environment can be a challenge. To ensure you get a system capable of meeting your needs, look for the five criteria (plus one ‘really nice to have’) outlined below. A system that can adhere to these standards should put you firmly on the road to success.
Requirement 1 – A Unified Ledger
A unified ledger is an essential requirement for a financial management system because it simplifies multi-source transaction processing, while simultaneously opening up the possibility of more sophisticated analysis. Among the many benefits it provides is the ability reduce complexity and eliminate unnecessary integration, since all transactions are physically recorded in the same environment. It also reduces interface costs, as a single ledger means that users don’t have to interface with different sub-ledgers in different formats.
In addition, a unified ledger can leverage “smart transactions” (see below) to allow for rich analysis to be added on-demand and maintained in one place (i.e. without the need to hive off detail to sub-ledgers). As a result, you get an adaptable and dependable core that enforces common standards of control (through consistent data validation), is infinitely extensible and is easy for users to understand.
The unified ledger has also proven to be a particularly valuable in the context of International Financial Reporting Standards and multi-GAAP reporting regimes, as it can provide significant flexibility around the length and segmentation of account codes. It can allow multiple analysis codes to be held at the level of an account, greatly simplifying the accommodation of multiple GAAP and adjustment accounts. The ease with which analysis codes are added, coupled with their implementation within a single ledger, means that users can readily pull out complex multi-GAAP reports and show the transition (comparatives and adjustments) between one basis of reporting and another.
This flexibility of the unified ledger also has profound implications for segmental reporting, which may vary between different GAAP regimes and possibly between management and statutory reporting. Multiple analysis codes at the account level allow items to be segmented one way for the purposes of local GAAP and another for IFRS or internal reporting.
The analysis structure also provides the basis for dealing with some of the complexities of Solvency II, which is more demanding about which assets can back which classes of liabilities, together with capital requirements that are different to those under current solvency rules. The ability to ‘tag’ and match different asset and liability classes is not typically available in traditional systems that artificially segregate accounts into different sub-ledgers.
Finally, a unified ledger allows for accommodation of multi-company structures (entities) within the unified database (each configured to suit different geographies as desired) or multiple entities within one entity.
Requirement 2 – Smart Transactions
Smart transactions are a type of analysis that provides a deeper level of granularity, allowing the business to add dimensionality and context to transactions that are important in performance management and vital to aspects of regulatory and compliance reporting. Not widely available in traditional financial management systems, smart transactions are nevertheless becoming a must for companies that face complex regulatory requirements.
With smart transactions, transaction types are not rigorously prescribed, which means that transactions (financial or statistical) can be defined from scratch (e.g., accounts posted and validation logic, calculations and allocations applied). The flexibility to define unique transaction types and then analyse them in a user-defined ‘smart’ way without IT intervention and without compromising control is extremely potent. The ability to add additional analysis to transactions without practical limit also helps to ‘future-proof’ financial managements system from unexpected changes.
Requirement 3 – Integration
For mid-market companies that want to leverage the capabilities of a Best in Class financial management solution, the key word is integration. As mentioned above, the ability to integrate the system across other core business applications is critical to its ultimate success. The rising popularity of Cloud technology is compounding these concerns. With more and more companies allowing at least some of their business systems to reside in the Cloud, integration across systems takes on an additional level of complexity. To be effective, your financial management system must be able to securely incorporate data from other systems – whether on premise or Cloud-based – or link to a unified database, all while preserving the same level of control for other organizational systems.
The good news is that options for integration are expanding. Technology that delivers simple integration between Best in Class and Line of Business components is rapidly evolving, enabling you to take advantage of superior functionality without compromising on the overall ease of operation.
Requirement 4 – Robust Reporting Capabilities
All financial executives understand the criticality of reporting, but capabilities of financial management systems vary widely in this area. Nearly every system will provide some standardized reports that can be generated quickly and easily; however, reporting capabilities tend to drop-off quickly beyond that. Finance departments must routinely depend on the IT department to develop new reports, which severely limits their ability to access critical business data in a timely fashion. This is especially challenging for finance and insurance companies.
An effective financial management system will ideally be able to reach across the data model of your entire organization, allowing users with relatively modest IT skills to navigate through data and produce meaningful reports on their own. Tight links to the Microsoft Office environment are also beneficial, as they put a variety of familiar tools at the disposal of users, e.g., reporting and dash-boarding. Access to integrated performance management tools (budgeting, planning, forecasting, and consolidation) is also a major plus.
Requirement 5 – Global Capabilities
If your company is not currently operating outside your own borders and you have no plans to do so, you may wonder why global financial management capabilities should be a requirement for your financial management system. However, with the business world continuing its progression toward becoming truly “one world”, there are precious few organizations that can say with absolute certainty that global financial management will never be required. Plus, systems with the capacity to accommodate a wide range of requirements (including global) are the most capable of effectively managing changes that may come in your own locale.
The worst outcome of a financial management system implementation or switchover is to discover in a few years’ time that your needs can no longer be met. For mid-market finance and insurance companies, options exist that provide excellent global finance capabilities while delivering all the other core functionality required. The best option is to take a strategic approach that allows you to handle the “now” but be prepared for what’s around the corner.
When evaluating global financial capabilities, look for a solution with the global essentials, including:
- Multi-currency, ideally up to four currencies at the transaction level
- Multi-language
- Multi-calendar
- Multi-company, independent locales (meaning the ability to create as many companies as required within one installation
- Multi-tax
- Parallel chart of accounts
- Parallel books for different accounting treatments
- Localized reporting
- Global access
A white paper recently published by Ventana Research has excellent information for anyone doing a more in-depth analysis of global financial management capabilities. Click here to download Becoming a Multinational Finance Department, by Robert Kugel, SVP of Ventana Research.
Nice to Have – Common User Interface
A common user interface across applications has long been greatly desired but largely unattainable. Given the way that both technology and companies evolve, an organization with a single system company-wide and therefore, a single user interface is truly a rarity.
The push to make the common user interface a more achievable goal can in part be credited to the on-line consumer world. As users have become accustomed to sophisticated user experiences in their personal lives, they have come to expect (and now demand) the same in their professional work environments. The enterprise software industry is responding, working rapidly to develop easy-to-use integration platforms that pull all systems together and deliver a consistent user experience.
Because a limited number of systems have this capability today, it can be classified as “nice to have,” but it will likely become a requirement in short order. User interfaces do far more than just deliver a positive user experience. They increase productivity, reduce errors, and make it easier to get a single view of data organization-wide. This combination of usability and bottom-line impact will lead to the common user interface being de facto for enterprise software applications, leaving us to marvel one day at the way things used to be.
SUMMARY
In recent years, the financial services and insurance industries have been subjected to continuous changes in the global economy, regulations and compliance. In the face of this turbulence, traditional ERP systems have proven inflexible, time consuming and costly to change. On the other hand, ‘Line of Business’ applications, which provide specialised vertical market capabilities, are often held back by weak financials.
As a result, more and more mid-market finance and insurance companies are deciding that a hybrid approach is the optimum way forward. By leveraging Best in Class financial management systems that have robust integration capabilities, they can leverage third party applications without jeopardising data accuracy, reporting, and control. The result is the best of both worlds – applications that are the best of the best for their specific business area but able to work seamlessly together.
When evaluating financial management systems, it is paramount to get beyond the needs of today and have an eye on what’s coming, both in terms of your organization’s needs and market trends. The right decision will put you in control and ensure that you have a finance department with the tools and resources to handle anything that comes its way.
Bibliography
Note1 Deloitte Survey 2008. “Half a Story” -Surveying the first half-yearly financial reports under the new rules
Note2 CEIOP (Committee of European Insurance & Occupational Pensions Supervisors) Consultation Paper 58.”Advice on supervisory reporting and disclosure” July 2009.
|
About FSN |
|
FSN Publishing Limited is an independent research, news and publishing organization catering for the needs of the finance function. This white paper is written by Gary Simon, Group Publisher of FSN and Managing Editor of FSN Newswire. He is a graduate of London University, a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and a Fellow of the British Computer Society with more than 27 years experience of implementing management and financial reporting systems. Formerly a partner in Deloitte for more than 16 years, he has led some of the most complex information management assignments for global enterprises in the private and public sector. Whilst every attempt has been made to ensure that the information in this document is accurate and complete some typographical errors or technical inaccuracies may exist. This report is of a general nature and not intended to be specific to a particular set of circumstances. FSN Publishing Limited and the author do not accept responsibility for any kind of loss resulting from the use of information contained in this document. |
