Representative case study • Anonymized engagement
Finance Automation Health Check
A practical, four-week diagnostic to reduce manual reporting, clarify ownership, and build a prioritized automation roadmap.
For CFOs, Finance Directors, FP&A Managers and SME Owners
Book a Health Check Call Back to Case Studies
All estimates on this page are illustrative. Results vary by data quality, scope, tooling, and adoption.
Executive summary
This engagement was a Finance Automation Health Check for a growing SME that had invested in an ERP but still relied heavily on Excel-based reporting. The goal was to identify where time was being lost, where control risk was building up, and which automations were realistic in the next 90 days vs. longer-term.
Over four weeks we mapped reporting workflows end-to-end, clarified process ownership, reviewed sample files, and created an opportunity matrix ranked by value, complexity, control risk, and readiness. The output was a prioritized roadmap, plus an optional proof of concept for one high-impact workflow.
Engagement snapshot
- Format: representative, anonymized
- Duration: 4 weeks
- Focus: reporting reliability + automation roadmap
- Outputs: matrix, roadmap, governance & adoption plan
Client profile
- Company type: growing SME
- Finance team: 6 people (mix of accounting, FP&A and reporting)
- Systems landscape: ERP + many Excel files and exports
- Reporting: recurring month-end pack, ad-hoc analyses, cash forecasting
Challenge (symptoms we observed)
- Repetitive reporting with high manual effort and limited re-use.
- Unclear process ownership across data sources, transformations, and final outputs.
- Duplicate data cleaning performed by multiple people in parallel.
- Fragile key-person dependencies (knowledge living in individual spreadsheets).
- No prioritized automation roadmap—everything felt urgent, but not everything was valuable.
Health-check scope
We kept the scope intentionally practical: focus on repeatable workflows that consume real time each month and influence decisions.
Included
- Core reporting workflows (monthly + weekly)
- Data inputs, transformations, handoffs, approvals
- Controls and auditability of key numbers
- Quick-win automation opportunities
Out of scope (for this phase)
- Full ERP redesign or re-implementation
- Large-scale data warehouse build
- Complex cross-department change programs
Where deeper work was needed, we captured it as longer-term roadmap items with clear prerequisites.
Discovery approach
- Stakeholder interviews (users, owners, decision-makers)
- Workflow inventory (what gets produced, how often, for whom)
- Process scoring (value, effort, risk, readiness)
- Sample-file review (structure, error patterns, manual steps)
Principle: we only recommend automation when the underlying workflow is clear, owned, and stable enough to sustain.
The four-week process
A structured diagnostic that balances speed with enough detail to be actionable.
Week 1
Align & inventory
- Success criteria & constraints
- Reporting catalogue (monthly/weekly/ad-hoc)
- First-pass owners and stakeholders
Week 2
Map workflows
- Inputs → transformations → outputs
- Handoffs and approvals
- Where errors appear and why
Week 3
Score & design
- Process scoring & opportunity matrix
- Target-state workflow sketches
- Controls and audit trail requirements
Week 4
Roadmap & decisions
- Prioritized roadmap (quick wins → longer-term)
- Proof of concept option
- Governance, roles, adoption plan
The process is designed to support confident decisions—not to create documentation for its own sake.
Opportunity matrix
Each opportunity was ranked so finance leadership can prioritize with a consistent lens.
| Dimension | What it means | How we assessed |
|---|---|---|
| Value | Time saved, decision impact, and frequency. | Hours/month estimate + stakeholder impact rating. |
| Complexity | Implementation effort, dependencies, and change required. | Data sources, transformations, integration needs, and testing effort. |
| Control risk | Risk of errors, rework, or inconsistent numbers. | Manual touchpoints, reconciliations, auditability, and approval steps. |
| Readiness | How ready the process and data are to automate now. | Ownership clarity, stable definitions, data quality, and access. |
Scoring is a decision aid. It does not replace finance leadership judgment, constraints, or timing.
Budget vs Actual
Standardize mapping rules, automate refresh, and add simple variance commentary prompts to reduce manual copy/paste.
- Value: high
- Readiness: medium
Sales margin reporting
Unify product/customer mapping, reduce duplicate cleansing, and improve traceability from ERP exports to the final margin view.
- Value: high
- Control risk: high
Cash forecast
Define a repeatable driver-based template, automate bank/AR/AP inputs, and introduce a lightweight forecast accuracy review.
- Value: medium–high
- Readiness: medium
Month-end pack
Reduce manual consolidation, create a controlled data model, and streamline commentary and approval steps.
- Value: high
- Complexity: medium
Examples are representative. The best first steps depend on your data, tools, and stakeholders.
Optional proof of concept (PoC)
Where a quick validation is useful, we can implement a small proof of concept for a single workflow (for example, one recurring report). The aim is to prove the approach, confirm time savings, and surface data issues early—without committing to a full program.
- Focuses on one priority workflow
- Delivers a repeatable refresh process
- Includes a short handover and operating guide
Roadmap
Quick wins (2–6 weeks)
- Standardize templates & definitions
- Automate data refresh and validation checks
- Remove duplicate cleansing steps
- Introduce simple owner/approver roles
Longer-term initiatives (6–24+ weeks)
- Consolidate a controlled reporting data model
- Reduce manual spreadsheets where risk is high
- Improve master data and mapping governance
- Scale automation across reporting domains
The roadmap includes prerequisites (data access, ownership, definitions) so initiatives don’t stall mid-flight.
Outcomes (illustrative)
- 35–50 hours/month of potential time savings identified across recurring reporting and data preparation.
- A first proof of concept showed 8–12 hours/month saved on a single recurring workflow after stabilization.
- Reduced key-person dependency through clearer process steps, named owners, and a repeatable refresh approach.
Note: These are illustrative estimates based on observed steps and stakeholder inputs. Actual results vary.
Deliverables
- Workflow inventory with owners, frequency, and consumers
- Opportunity matrix with rankings and rationale
- Prioritized roadmap (quick wins and longer-term initiatives)
- Controls checklist (validation, reconciliation, approval)
- Governance & adoption recommendations
- Optional proof of concept and handover pack
Governance & adoption recommendations
- Name owners for inputs, transformations, and outputs (not just “the file”).
- Introduce a single source of truth for mapping tables and definitions.
- Add lightweight controls: validation checks, exception logs, and sign-off points.
- Create a short runbook so the process survives team changes.
- Use a monthly automation backlog review to keep prioritization current.
Lessons learned
- Automation works best when you standardize the workflow before you optimize it.
- Most “time savings” come from removing duplicate cleansing and clarifying handoffs.
- Readiness is often the blocker—ownership and definitions matter as much as tools.
- Quick wins build trust, which makes longer-term changes easier to adopt.
Want a Finance Automation Health Check for your team?
We’ll help you identify practical automation opportunities, clarify ownership, and build a prioritized plan that your finance team can actually execute.
No exaggerated promises—just clear workflows, credible estimates, and a roadmap you can defend.