Operational Controllership

Operational controllership
The quiet evolution
February 2014

An open discussion of
the challenges, changes
and future direction of
operational controllership

Table of contents

The heart of the matter

4

A changing landscape

An in-depth discussion

6

The quiet evolution
Summary 7
The roundtable discussion
12

What this means for your business

Improving the effectiveness and efficiency
of your operational controllership
organization

February 2014

22


A changing landscape

PwC recently hosted a number of senior
executives from leading global companies (including The Dow Chemical
Company, General Electric, Pfizer Inc.
and The Procter & Gamble Company),
to participate in a roundtable discussion on what operational controllership
means today, and what it encompasses
in contrast to technical controllership
and reporting.
The topics included:
• how operational controllership is
organized within their companies,
• how talent is recruited and the
available career paths for their
development,
• the major focus areas for operational
controllership, and
• how the function will look in five
years.
The roundtable represented an open
discussion on a range of changes,
challenges, and future direction of the
operational controllership function
across each company, which resonated
with the entire group. The roundtable
participants were able to share global
and industry leading practices as well
as educate themselves by comparing
and contrasting approaches and
experiences.
Operational controllership functions
today are not consistently defined
so they can encompass a variety of
roles, including but not limited to

technical accounting and financial
reporting support, implementation of
new accounting standards, simplification, process improvement, internal
controls, and finance initiatives—all
with a critical focus of managing risk.
Today the landscape is changing, as
the operational controllership function
is less about technical accounting and
financial reporting support (handled
by specialist technical teams) and more
about creating value for the company
while managing risk. The operational
controller roles across the companies
have evolved into new focus areas, such
as reducing legal entities or improving
shared services or working proactively
with deal and commercial teams—all
designed to drive more simplification, standardization, cost savings or
revenue growth.
This evolution of the operational
controllership function presents
opportunities for companies to better
leverage and enhance talent by
providing controllers with cross-disciplinary experiences that allow them
to work more effectively and bridge
gaps across commercial, finance,
operational and systems initiatives.
With these opportunities come challenges of where to effectively position
the operational controllership function
within the organization, what cultural
changes may be needed and how to
create a career path to attract and
retain these controllers as they take on
more strategic roles across companies.

We want to thank our participants for
sharing their knowledge, insights and
experiences with us. We believe you
will find this roundtable discussion
enlightening and useful.
PwC is assisting our clients around the
world in their efforts to create the most
efficient and effective finance organizations for their businesses and to position the controllership organization to
be strategic and global partners with
their businesses.

John Klee
Management Consulting Partner

Farhad Zaman
Deals Partner


5


The quiet evolution

Summary
An open discussion of
the challenges, changes
and future direction of
operational controllership
PwC recently hosted a number of senior
executives from leading global companies to participate in a roundtable
discussion on what operational controllership means today. The operational
controllership roundtable discussion
surfaced a wide range of challenges
which these executives have tackled
as they helped create, oversee, and
interact with other finance executives and business units around the
world. Key among these challenges
are authority within the organization;
clarity of borders with other functions,
such as technical accounting controllers and financial planning and analysis
(FP&A); resources and career paths;
cultural factors affecting employee
“buy in” for necessary change; and
the five-year vision. A summary of the
discussion is provided below, followed
by more detailed commentary from the
roundtable.

becoming more of a business partner
with commercial teams to enable
growth while still managing risk.
These days it seems to be less about
the technical accounting and financial reporting support (which is being
handled by specialist technical controllers or accounting policy team), and
more about how to drive a company’s
top and bottom lines, which is creating
greater opportunities and challenges for operational controllership.
Operational controllers are bridging
the gaps between and crossing over
into commercial, finance, process
excellence, and systems initiatives.

Operational controllership is not a
new concept—the function varies
from organization to organization
from supporting technical accounting
and financial reporting matters to
managing operational and compliance
risks across the business, to supporting
the finance teams on special projects. However, today that landscape
is changing into a more dynamic one
where the operational controller is
taking on more strategic roles to drive
global process excellence, simplification and standardization efforts,


7

Companies are starting to evolve various
organizational structures and roles to get the
maximum leverage from these deep and broad
skills as they are transferable to other crossfunctional business initiatives.

The operational controller function
has evolved quietly into new focus
areas such as reducing legal entities, or
improving shared services, or running
enterprise resource planning (ERP)
integrations after an acquisition—all
designed to drive more simplification, standardization, cost savings or
revenue growth across the company.
With this evolution of the controllership function come challenges to
navigate (and possibly change) existing
organizational structures, corporate
cultures and career paths to achieve
success and be recognized as a corporate leader.
Organizing operational
controllership
Operational controllership functions
today are not consistently defined, so
they can encompass a variety of roles,
including but not limited to technical
accounting and financial reporting
support, implementation of new
accounting standards, simplification,
process improvement, internal controls,
and finance initiatives—all with a
critical focus on managing risk. As a
result, it was agreed that operational
controllers must possess both deep and

8

broad skills in technical accounting;
project management; transactional and
process standards; internal controls
and procedures; metrics and reporting;
and risk monitoring. Companies are
starting to evolve various organizational structures and roles to get the
maximum leverage from these deep
and broad skills as they are transferable to other cross-functional business
initiatives. Various organizational
models exist today but it’s difficult to
identify which model is paving the way
for the future as each company defines
the operational controller function
or role somewhat differently. In some
companies the business or divisional
controllers take on the operational
controllership function in addition to
technical controllership and report
in to the corporate controller. In
other companies, the operational and
technical controller roles are separate with both roles reporting into a
corporate controller. Finance leaders
may have the responsibility for planning and stewardship in accounting
in some businesses, but will consult
with controllership teams embedded
in regions at the corporate level. In
another model, business finance
directors/business unit CFOs may in
fact function as controllers with cost
accountants aligned to them.

Operational Controllership: The Quiet Evolution

Cultural challenges to changing the
focus of controllership in organizations. While operational controllership responsibilities expand to engage
with more functions, new systems and
structures are being created to support
those functions. Often they require
significant cultural changes that may
be challenging to achieve for those
who are comfortable in the old ways.
“We’ve always done it this way” can be
a tough obstacle for controllers to overcome as they attempt to drive change
across their organizations. And many
employees may have judged their own
value in terms of the amount of data
they could find and report on, causing
them to feel threatened by new systems
which provide this data. Turf battles
between businesses and functions
may develop, and issues of trust can
emerge. At times, pilot programs may
be challenged before they have had
sufficient time to get up and running.
Particularly in a matrix organization,
duplication of effort and prioritization of competing initiatives become a
challenge, further exacerbating issues
of trust and reliability. And traditional
training, focused on making individuals be owners (rather than trusting
the team to own and deliver), may no
longer be adequate.
The importance of the CFO. In most
companies, controller functions—as
well as shared services—ultimately
report to the CFO. For enterprisewide undertakings, the CFO is always
engaged. Challenges that the CFO
must meet in overseeing controller
operations include their scope, span

Companies are looking for talent that
possesses finance, process and systems skills,
and will hire from the outside when they are
unable to find it in house.

of control, efficiency, and cost. The
major challenge is to establish who has
ultimate responsibility for any function
or operation within the business. Often
it will be the CFO who holds the teams
accountable even if some other organization, e.g., shared services, may be
managing/performing their activities.
The CFO’s influence can have a direct
impact on the operational controller’s experiences and their propensity
for success in terms of navigating
conflicting goals between finance and
controllership. Seemingly, the driver
of controllership careers is more often
the finance organization under the
CFO, rather than the business unit or
corporate group to which the controller
is attached.

Career paths and recruiting
talent
Typically, those who choose a controller’s career may find after a number of
years that they must decide between
staying on that path or going into
business finance. Another alternative
may be to seek a corporate leadership position. For leadership roles, the

controller must demonstrate relevant
business and operational experience beyond simply being a technical
accountant or a process or project
manager, and in certain cases, may
have to pass rigorous accreditation
exams in a number of topics such as
finance, IT, budgeting, people management and accounting. Companies
are looking for talent that possesses
finance, process and systems skills,
and will hire from the outside when
they are unable to find it in house.
Controllers are expected to understand
when there’s an accounting risk, but
now they are asked to quickly learn the
business and manage the risk through
a “commercial lens.” Instead of encouraging employees to become specialists,
as most companies have done historically, some are now encouraging them
to become generalists. As an example,
shared service center jobs have become
more attractive for finance people and
controllers as they let them leverage
finance and accounting skills while
demonstrating that they can build, lead
and manage teams and/or an operation—similar to running a business
unit. This increased prominence of
such roles to drive bottom-line savings,


9

combined with the operational skills
and management credentials gained
by running a shared services center, is
providing more high-profile opportunities to controllers and further opening
the doors for controllers to obtain
leadership roles.

Focus areas for controllers
The focus of operational controllership
is on managing and monitoring risks in
the business, whether in compliance,
with simplification or standardization,
or in integration and acquisition and
divestiture situations. The following
areas are receiving increasing attention
from operational controllers as companies focus on greater efficiency and
cost savings:
M&A integration. Clearly, harmonizing acquisitions consumes much
time, depending on the size and scale
of the deals. For instance, one participant’s company “had so many acquisitions that we ended up with too many
cultures. People were working in silos,
preventing the implementation of a
common ERP and our risk strategies.”

Companies are trying to leverage
operational controllers to help drive
synergies and also to take on deal
integration issues such as systems/ERP
migration, chart of accounts alignment or process standardization with a
longer term view. Companies often lose
momentum shortly after the closing of
the transaction as the deal and initial
integration teams move on to the next
transaction.
Leveraging shared services. The use
of shared services continues to evolve
given new tools, changing cost profiles,
and the best utilization of talent in
organizations. Three key questions
must be addressed when considering
any shared services organization: i)
what functions will it contain? ii) will
it be operated by in-house employees or
third parties; and iii) what will be the
cost profile for performance?
Common functions found in shared
services organizations include orderto-cash, purchase-to-pay, and general
ledger accounting. The degree of
standardization is a consideration
that can determine whether service

The focus of operational controllership is on managing
and monitoring risks in the business, whether in
compliance, in connection with simplification or
standardization, or in integration and acquisition and
divestiture situations.

10


centers are likely to produce savings.
Issues affecting both talent availability and organizational culture
arise from any decision to use shared
services—whether in-house or thirdparty—because accountability may
be separated from performance. The
criteria the companies use to make the
shared service decisions are, in the first
case, risk-focused and cost is secondary.
And the greater risk the process holds,
the more likely it will be kept in-house.
In any event, the ownership of the
activities needs to be monitored with
clear accountability for the processes
and service level arrangements. Clearly,
operational controllership plays a
key role in managing and monitoring
shared services transaction risks.
Reducing legal entities. As a result of
global partnerships being established
through acquisitions or other means,
companies have experienced a marked
increase in the number of legal entities.
To address this complexity, some companies have created legal entity reduction
programs (LERP). Functional members
of LERP teams are often from tax, legal,
treasury, finance, and accounting, as
well as operational controllership.
Some have created legal entity stewards who do nothing but structure and
guide LERPs. Whether such actions
are necessary or even productive may
depend on what systems are currently
involved. The group agreed that being
on a single system or common platform before any legal entity reduction
program gets implemented is one of the
keys to success.

in the next five years
There was also general agreement
that today’s fundamentals of the
operational controllership role will
not change dramatically over the next
five years. The primary responsibility
will remain to identify, monitor and
manage risks in the business and in
reporting. The group did, however,
believe that controllers will continue
to become more strategic partners
with the businesses they serve. As
new opportunities emerge for growth,
efficiencies and cost savings, controllers will be needed to help drive those

benefits and monitor the potentially
increased risk profile. Emerging
markets—like the MINT (Mexico,
Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey) countries—as an example will become
increasingly important for growth
initiatives over the next five years but
also increase risk. Shared services will
continue to be a driver of change in
the companies, and there will be more
instances of controllership owning
the work that is done by others e.g.,
outsourcers. Lastly, regulation will be
a growing concern too and controllers
will be expected to be aware of financial statement, operational and reputational risks in all areas.


11

The roundtable discussion
Organizing operational
controllership
“When I entered an operational
controllership role,” said a participant, “I saw that this had a lot more
to do with simplification, process
improvement, systems, and internal
controls than it does with traditional
accounting.” Each business in his
company has a technical controllership
role as well as an operational controllership role, with the latter focusing on
internal controls and simplification.

reports. Divisional controllers have a
broad range of responsibilities spanning controls, daily accounting issues,
accounting guidance, as well as specific
reviews of issues such as impairments
and reserve restructurings.
“I work to help the company understand day-to-day accounting risk, net
reserves, budgets, and how business
deals are being transacted,” he said.
The divisional controllers report to the
controller, who reports to the CFO.

“At my company it is our finance leaders in the
various businesses who are responsible not only
for the planning, but also for good stewardship
in accounting. But they can consult with
operational controllership teams that we have
in each region at the corporate level. They take
advantage of that consultation relationship.”
Another participant reported that
his company created an operational
controllership role several years ago
“to meet the areas of emerging risks
that were bubbling up.” The company
now has a corporate controller,
a technical accounting reporting
group, an external reporting group,
and divisional controllers who are
embedded in the commercial and
finance organizations. The technical
and external reporting groups focus
on the very technical accounting and
reporting issues in external disclosures, and preparation of external

12

“Our situation is unusual when it comes
to contrasting operational controllership with FP&A,” said a participant.
“At my company it is our finance
leaders in the various businesses who
are responsible not only for the planning, but also for good stewardship in
accounting. But they can consult with
operational controllership teams that
we have in each region at the corporate level. They take advantage of that
consultation relationship.”


“My company is somewhat similar,”
said another participant. “We have a
global controller with a staff of just
less than ten people. Geographic or
functional area leadership reports up
within those teams. Our global business finance directors are, in effect,
controllers, and they may have cost
accountants aligned to them. We all
comply with the same standards across
all our work centers.” The corporate
controller has key process leaders on
staff and reports to the CFO.
Standardization, however, can present
its own challenges. “When so much
is standardized,” she continued,
“and everyone is working within
those standards, things can become
a little ‘robotic.’ That is, people may
be functioning without clearly understanding why the controls with which
they are ensuring compliance were
created in the first place—or what policies they were designed to support.”
The company tries to minimize that
through constant education.
“One of the biggest issues when using
new systems is that they require
cultural change as well as structural
change,” commented a participant.
Such change is often difficult because
it involves challenging fundament
assumptions about the work process
which may not even be consciously
realized by the employees. If “we’ve
always done it this way” is the case,
doing it some other way may never
before have been considered.

That was the challenge one participant
faced in reinventing his company’s
business planning process. Five years
earlier, their bottom-up forecast cycle
time was twelve to thirteen weeks.
By the time they got to the end of
that process, the data were obsolete.
Now, however, this process takes only
four weeks. “An essential part of that
achievement was getting people to
think differently about the process, and
consequently do things differently,” he
said. “What made that such a big challenge was that we mainly promote from
within, so people were used to doing
things a certain way. But in planning for
the new cycle, we included educating
our people not just about how these
processes would work, but also why
they must work. They understood it, so
we got the buy-in we needed.”
“Our biggest cultural challenge,” said
another participant, “has been that
we have had so many acquisitions that
we ended up with simply too many
cultures. People were working in silos,
but we had to change that because it
was preventing the successful implementation of ERP and our risk management strategies—two examples of
what we had to deal with. Now it’s all
under shared services, and we have
a common reconciliation system that
works very well.” A group of controllers who are part of the finance teams
and are embedded in each business
unit specialize in continual monitoring.
Every month they examine a selection of reconciliations. “It’s working
well, but frankly I’m concerned
about that ‘robotic’ threat mentioned
earlier: do people actually understand

those reconciliations, or are they just
checking the right box?”
“Now the culture requires that new
hires learn Excel and Workflow for
fundamental financial tasks that we
will teach them,” she added.
“But a common argument against
service centers is that if you replace
them with new people through centralization, you will not have employees
as well educated in finance. The
response needs to be that service center
employees will still learn finance, but
in a different way. They will cut their
teeth on finance by going into a shared
services organization to learn a standard operation that cuts across several
disciplines, rather than a manual
process in a particular business.”
“One cultural change that we are
sorting through results from having
implemented a standard reporting
system two years ago with key
measures for the business that you
can drill down in,” said a participant.
“Historically, our finance people have


13

the table. But we have to deal with the
mentality of ‘I run the business, and
you just account for it.’”
Pilots are one way companies are
achieving successful change. “We
created a pilot when we transferred
some financial processes,” said a participant. “Making a change in one business unit where it has some receptivity
and a higher probability of success
makes a lot of sense. It’s much better
than tackling everything at once.”
judged their ability to influence as a
function of the amount of data that they
could find, and then report on the Excel
spreadsheets. But now our CFOs have
told them that’s no longer the case;
that activity doesn’t add value since the
information is being delivered automatically. Those people need to realize
they can add more value by taking that
data now provided by the new system,
analyzing it, and then using it to make
better decisions for the business.”
In matrixed organizations, duplication
of effort is a big challenge, creating
issues of trust and reliability. “There
has always been an overlap issue
between market development and the
global business units,” said one participant. “The market development people
receive the plans from the global business units, and wonder if they can trust
those plans, since they did not create
them. So it becomes a serious issue in
matrixed organizations. You have to
trust that people will do a good job.”

14

“My CEO often says, ‘Play your position,’ said a participant, “meaning be a
good teammate, do your job and trust
that your co-workers will also do theirs.
But it’s tough because we train our
people to be owners.”
The participants agreed that being a
good teammate can be interpreted in
different ways. “In my company,” said
one, “where the businesses are not
responsible for the type of work and
compliance activity that we controllers
do, if we come into a business to examine
something, e.g., inventory re-measurement, and our opinion differs from
theirs in a negative direction, they will
complain that we are preventing them
from making their numbers. We’re not
considered good teammates. I call it ‘the
victimization game’.”
“That problem goes back to the pros
and cons of the functional vs. business ownership,” responded another
participant. “We have spent a lot of
time trying to get our CFOs to own the
accounting, and to treat their controller
the same way they would their FP&A
leader—including giving them a seat at


“The challenge with pilots,” answered a
participant, “is that you have to let them
run for a while. You can’t stop it just
because you get a couple of bad results.
For example, we ran one that people
wanted an update on after just three
months, but we hadn’t enough experience to justify the pilot at that time.”
For each company, shared services as
well as most controller functions are
led by the CFO. “In terms of how my
company is structured,” said a participant, “for big initiatives—like an ERP
implementation—the Corporate CFO
has the lead. IT reports directly there,
and so do the finance lead and the
controller. All of our shared services
report there too. So for any big initiative,
you’re going to have a cross-functional
set of teams working with the CFO.”
“What should the CFO be worrying
about?” asked one participant. “Our
business finance people are responsible
for working with the businesses for
profitability purposes and to ensure
stewardship around the operational
aspects. Is that what a CFO should be

focusing on? The controllers group, on
the other hand, is providing a service
by doing all of the compliance-related
or accounting-related tasks.”
“It’s difficult in a matrixed organization,” said another participant. “When
we look at our finance CFOs, their main
jobs are with the commercial people
in the brands. What we need is information on the commercial teams. The
biggest risk we focus on is whether
finance is tuned in on what’s happening
in the businesses.”
“Finance is finance,” said a participant,
“whether you’re in business finance or
in a controllership function. Finance is
usually driving their careers, not the
business. And finance people tend to
stay in that function.”

Career paths and recruiting
the talent they demand
“In my company someone may begin on
a controller path, but usually after ten
years or so will have to make a choice
between staying on that path or going
into business finance,” said a participant. “The model varies, however;
we’ve had controllers move into business finance just for a couple of years
before moving back. To move ahead,
it’s important to get some business
experience at a higher level than being
just a cost accountant.”
“At my company,” said another participant, “we have two basic career paths.
Everyone comes in through Finance
and Development. You can stay on

that long term, and end up a group
manager. Or you can aspire to the
senior leadership path. That’s available
to those who have been identified as
having the highest potential. Certain
skills are required to advance on that
path. For example, no one can achieve
the highest band without having
been certified in accounting skills by
our internal board. Within corporate

“In my company someone may begin on a controller
path, but usually after ten years or so will have to make
a choice between staying on that path or going into
business finance.”
accounting and tax, however, we have
not been able to get the talent we need
through our normal recruiting, so we
hire outside people—often from the
Big Four public accounting firms.”
“We find ourselves in a different situation,” said a participant, “after our
post-SOX hiring campaign, which
brought in a lot more CPAs. Now we’re
looking for process and systems experience, and have few blended skill sets
in-house.” The company is struggling
to find an appropriate balance between
promoting talent within because of
their familiarity with the corporate
culture, and going outside to acquire
some fresh thinking and that blended
process/systems experience.


15

added. “Public accounting firms are
not preparing people for operational
controllership. The audit experience
their people have is very valuable, but
it needs to be mixed with systems,
process, and communication.”
“At my company,” said another participant, “it’s a pretty standard rotation
to go through an internal audit role,
which is about a three-year commitment. That’s one of the few really
cross-functional finance development
roles that we have. It’s important that
those people not only be able to work
with the system, but understand as
well where the process came from.”
“We’ve done some of both,” said
another participant. “Our shared
services organization has been in
place since 2000, and the capability
of those people has grown a lot, for
example in systems implementation
and project management. But we still
supplement those skills by our thirdparty providers.”
“While technical controllership is
supposedly becoming more technical,
and operational controllership is
becoming broader—with controllers
trying to be business partners—where
will the talent be found for each role?”
asked a participant.
“I have a need,” answered one participant, “for people with a blend of
finance, systems, and process. I don’t
have that among my own people
now, and I don’t need a CPA for that.
I want a project manager who can

16

communicate and who understands
the systems implications and can help
drive the finance side of systems. That’s
where I want to create a career path.
They are not just finance nor are they
solely IT. In five years you can’t be a
CFO if you haven’t implemented ERP,
and you really can’t implement it on the
IT side if you don’t understand finance.
That’s a skill set that we’re looking for,
and then weave it into our company
culture.”
“When we’re looking for controllership
skills, we want someone who is wellrounded, who understands that there
are business and financial risks.”
“For years, we’ve been coaching people
at my company not to be generalists.
‘Find a specialty,’ we’ve been telling
them. But now we’re looking for
broader talent, like how to implement
a cash-flow process,” a participant


Service center jobs are growing in
attractiveness. “The two highest levels
of management in the service centers
now are coveted roles in my company,”
said a participant. “Two of our largest
service centers are run by finance
people. The role isn’t purely financial,
but rather operational, and it requires
verification of thirteen skills—seven
in finance, six in general business.”

The companies populated their various
shared services organizations in
different ways. “In our financial shared
services,” said a participant, “we have
order-to-cash processes, purchase
to pay, payroll, cost accounting, and
general ledger responsibility for the
entire company. Our businesses don’t
do accounting journal entries since
shared services—as well as corporate
accounting—can do them. We have
7,000 people in all of shared services.”
The companies also differed in the
degree to which their service centers
were outsourced to third-party
providers. “The phrase ‘shared service’
can have a variety of meanings,” said
one participant. “For example, the
leader of payable shared services is
from controllers, and we also have
responsibility for financial accounting
as well as part of the invoicing and
accounts receivable. Although we are a
shared support to the businesses, part
of what we do is either fully in-house
or is supported in the service center
models in China and India. Some in
those service centers are our own
people, but in others are third parties.”
“Although we did not move financial services to a third party, we did
outsource most of our IT,” responded
a participant. “On the contrary,” said
another participant, “most of our
IT remains in-house as well as our
shared services.”

“At my company we ask three questions
about everything we do. First, what is
the business reason for doing it? Second,
what risk is there if we do it? Third, what
is the optimality in cost structures for
doing the work? That’s how we look at a
shared services decision.”

“The challenge with outsourced shared
services,” said a participant, “is finding
a location where the cost will stay low
long enough. In Shanghai, where we
have in-house employees, the cost has
risen very high. And the same is true in
India now.”

“I have a number of shared service
responsibilities,” reported another
participant. “We’ve been working
for the last year to move back-office
processes to shared services. Then
we will get into updating our legacy
systems structures for those activities
left within the business.”

Shared services organizations are
usually justified by their cost savings.
Often that is seemingly the most
important—if not the only—criterion.
“How much investment did you need
to get the cost savings you expect from
consolidation?” asked one participant.
“Did you have trouble selling that to
upper management?”

“The biggest responsibility I see is to make sure that
you have the right monitoring controls downstream for
any outsourced service. A business leader, for example,
may notice a big swing in a receivable account that
doesn’t look right, and the work reflecting it would be
downstream, so the control must be there too.”

“My company had to integrate a large
acquisition. We declared as soon as
the acquisition was complete that we
would have common systems. And we
were helped by the acquired company’s
culture of executing a decision once it is
made, rather than continuing to debate
it. As a result, eighteen months later we
were able to get on a ‘common order
pad,’ allowing us to approach customers
as a single company globally.”

“We definitely had to sell our initial
implementation of SAP,” said a participant. “It went all the way up to the
CEO and the audit committee. But
more recent transformations have
been done in an environment where
people already believed that you had
to invest in systems to automate and
then achieve greater productivity. The
culture changed.”


17

Having an effective shared services
operation often depends on the
cultures of the businesses staffing it.
“Historically, we have always had very
strong businesses, and very independent from each other,” said a participant. “As we move toward shared
services, we need more coordination
among them, and we need a cultural
change to get there.”
“We’ve been using shared services
for a long time,” said one participant. “ERP and shared services were
enterprise-wide decisions, and they
were driven by anticipated efficiencies
and cost savings. When we needed to
know what the control risks were, we
involved the controllers.”

“We are very risk-conscious at my
company,” responded another participant, “but we don’t seem to focus much
on what the benefits could be from
shared services. I agree, we need to
prove that it works. But we first have to
realize that it can work.”
“I think there are important benefits
other than cost—qualitative benefits.
But they are harder to sell to upper
management simply because they
are not quantitative,” said another
participant.
“Our tendency is to bring more scope
into the shared service center for the
obvious benefits.”

“The biggest responsibility I see is to
make sure that you have the right monitoring controls downstream for any
outsourced service. A business leader,
for example, may notice a big swing in
a receivable account that doesn’t look
right, and the work reflecting it would
be downstream, so the control must be
there too,” said a participant.
One goal all the companies shared was
the need to reduce legal entities. For
some, however, the pressures of other
priorities have prevented them from
aligning the necessary resources. “We
are targeting about 200 entity reductions,” said one participant, “but we
still have a lot of reviews before that
can take place. And people are not
excited about doing this.”
Another company, with over 400 legal
entities, created a legal entity reduction program (LERP) several years ago
which has achieved a 35 percent reduction. “We have legal entity stewards
across the world,” said a participant
who had a hand in the reduction.
“Most of those entities we got through
acquisitions. The Corporate Finance
Committee organized the reduction
process, coming up with all the steps
we needed to take. Then the whole
thing was driven by Tax and co-led
with the accounting people.”
Each business area in my company
has a LERP team with key functional
members from Tax, Legal, Treasury,
Accounting and Finance,” said another
participant. “Their work will also
impact Supply Chain and Human
Resources, so those operations will

18


have representatives too. Together they
target the LERPs and then Tax ensures
that we don’t create any negative
impacts from the activity.”
“The decision to reduce a particular
legal entity should be reviewed in the
context of the systems it’s running
on,” observed one participant. “It may
be that those systems are creating
complexity, and not that there are too
many legal entities.”
“I agree,” responded another participant. “We knew we would have a
lot of duplication after we got a new
acquisition, so we waited until we got
everyone up on the same system before
we started our LERP actions.”

“Certainly emerging markets will
have an effect on controllership,
as the companies look for growth
opportunities and cost efficiencies in
emerging markets beyond the BRICs
(Brazil, Russia, India, China). China,
for example, has wage inflation and
the so-called ‘Post-China 16’ countries
have lower wages and, together, can
undercut China, making them increasingly attractive to companies,” said a
participant.
“We all expected IFRS to qualify as a
macro-trend,” another said. “We were
told it would take us three years to get
ready for it. We are trying to get our
general policy practice and ledger use
ready for those countries that will be

“Certainly emerging markets will have an effect on
controllership, as the companies look for growth
opportunities and cost efficiencies in emerging markets
beyond the BRICs. China, for example, has wage
inflation and the so-called ‘Post-China 16’ countries have
lower wages and, together, can undercut China, making
them increasingly attractive to companies.”

required by statute to use IFRS. We
realize that each country will interpret
certain aspects of it differently, but we
can still create a framework. So IFRS
work continues, but more quietly than
a few years ago.”
“At my company,” said a participant,
“we have already done our planning
for IFRS. The biggest change that will
occur in our financial leadership over
the next five years will involve more
decision support activity, possibly
moving into shared services centers.”
Some of the higher value functions may
have transactional components that are
repeatable tasks which could be run
out of a services center. The company
has already centralized several. “These
activities were not very glamorous,
and weren’t staffed with the best
people. But we brought them together,
scaled it, developed standardized
work processes and within 18 months
brought the headcount down 30
percent with a better service product.
I see more of that in the future.” There
may be trade-offs in centralization
and outsourcing. “You may be getting


19

savings from a centralized service,
yet part of your savings may be disappearing because of internal people
who are now required to spend more of
their time training the services center
people,” claimed a participant.
“Although that can happen,” responded
another, “you need to have a defined
time frame for your service center
activities. If the internal training
continued beyond that time frame then
you got the scope of the project wrong.”
Not everyone foresaw major changes
in the immediate future. “From an
operational controllership perspective,
I don’t see the fundamentals changing
over the next five years,” said a participant. “My company, for example, will
be focused on reacting to the risks our
businesses will face. The internal risk
is that we are going through an entire
segment reorganization, so from an
operational controllership perspective
the issue is how we should evolve with
that reorganization. If we reduce our
segments, and therefore move products
into new segments, how might that
affect us? The external risk is regulation. We must make sure that our
people understand their financial statement risk in all these areas within the
next three or four years. So while I don’t
think the fundamentals will change
much for the business over the next five
years, the focus areas are changing.”

20

Another participant believes the
impact of shared services will be a
main driver of change in the future.
“Right now,” she said, “operational
controllers are spending a lot of time on
accounting activities that are shareable,
e.g., account reconciliations. Shared
services can take care of that. The
result will be that controllers in five
years will be more focused on the right
governance, better handoffs among
organizational units, and developing
better controllers.”

controllers to our business line controllers. And as we start selling more
things in sub-Saharan Africa, there’s an
operational controllership risk function that needs to ensure that we’re
getting connected to deals in other
high growth regions, e.g., the Middle
East. The result is that there will be
a value-added role of controllership
that is much more elevated that what
they are doing today. We have a real
opportunity to leverage operational
controllership.”

“In five years you’ll see more controllers
functioning as strategic partners to the
business,” said another participant.

“Over the next five years,” said another
participant, “there will be increasing
examples of organizations owning
work which in fact others will do. Those
resources freed up, therefore, will have
new opportunities to add value.”

“We have a clear technical and operational controllership model which
works for us,” said one participant. It
removes all the transactional activity
and places it within shared services.
That frees operational controllers to
become the contact point, not only with
shared services, but also with policy
creation, technical development, supply
chain, and commercial support.
“The operational team is fundamental
in two ways: one is making connections
in process, governance, and metrics.
The other is a new role they can play in
underdeveloped markets, e.g., Africa,
where we have statutory and compliance issues, and in connecting regional


“Over the next five years there will be
increasing examples of organizations
owning work which in fact others will do.
Those resources freed up, therefore, will
have new opportunities to add value.”


21


Improving the
effectiveness and
efficiency
of your operational
controllership
organization

The evolution of the operational
controllership presents opportunities
for companies to create more effective
organizations that can better leverage
and enhance talent allowing operational controllers to play more strategically across commercial, finance,
operational, and systems initiatives.
How can you improve the effectiveness and efficiency of your operational
controllership organizations? Consider
these questions which will help you
think about how best to develop and
leverage the operational controllership.

Build the most effective
organization
Given the broad variety of roles that
operational controllers play today, it
is important to create organizations
that both focus their skills on their
most productive uses, and also provide
institutional leverage to magnify their
effects. Ask yourself:
• As operational controllership
responsibilities expand to engage
with more functions, are we creating
new systems and structures to
support those functions?
• Are there any cultural challenges to
changing the focus of controllership
in our organizations?
• How actively involved is the CFO
with operational controllership
functions, including their scope,
span of control, efficiency and cost?

Find and develop the talent
you need
Companies are looking for operational
controllership talent that possesses
finance, process and systems skills,
coupled with strong business acumen.
Questions to ask:
• Do our operational controllers
understand our businesses such that
they can evaluate the accounting
and financial risks through a
“commercial lens”?
• How are we recruiting, retaining
and developing this cross functional
skill set across our controllers?
• Are we developing leadership opportunities (such as shared service
center roles) where operational
controllers can leverage finance
and accounting skills while demonstrating that they can build, lead and
manage teams?

Several areas are receiving increasing
attention from operational controllers
as companies seek greater efficiency
and cost savings. To determine how
your team is doing in those key areas,
ask the following:
• Are we leveraging operational
controllers to help challenge and
monitor synergies in M&A integration and to help resolve deal integration issues such as systems/ERP
migration, chart of accounts alignment, and process standardization?

• How involved is our controllership
team in setting up shared services
centers, in evaluating what functions
are best performed by these centers,
and monitoring downstream risks?
• How focused are we at driving
simplification efforts by reducing
legal entities?

The primary responsibility will remain
to identify, monitor and manage risks in
the business and in reporting. However,
controllers will become more strategic
partners with the businesses they serve.
To prepare for that future, ask:
• Is our organization training our
operational controllers to become
more strategic partners with the
businesses they serve?
• As new opportunities for growth
emerge, and with them greater risks
to our business, will our controllers
be prepared to drive those benefits
and monitor those risk profiles?
• As shared services continue to
expand, is our organization ready for
controllership assuming ownership
for the work that is done by others?
Operational controllers are taking on
more strategic roles across companies. As new opportunities emerge for
growth efficiencies and cost savings,
operational controllers will become
more critical to help drive those
benefits and monitor the potentially
increased risk profile.


23

www.pwc.com/us/deals

To have a deeper conversation
about how this subject may affect
your business, please contact:
John Klee
Management Consulting Partner
PwC
(646) 471-2828
john.klee@us.pwc.com
Farhad Zaman
Deals Partner
PwC
(646) 471-5376
farhad.zaman@us.pwc.com

© 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the US member firm, and may sometimes refer
to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. NY-14-0494tp.

Operational Controllership

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to Operational Controllership (20)

More from Guillermo Velasco (15)

Recently uploaded (20)

Operational Controllership