Still Using Excel for Manual Budget Consolidation? Large Enterprises Are Gradually Phasing Out This "Data Grunt" Model_News_北京智达方通科技有限公司

"At a group company's quarterly business review, the profit figures presented to the CFO differed by 8% from the totals reported by the various divisions. The finance team spent three days investigating, ultimately discovering the issue stemmed from inconsistent classification of 'administrative expenses' among three subsidiaries – some included IT operations expenditure while others did not. In practice, this is not an isolated case among enterprises of similar scale."

For many finance departments, monthly closing and report preparation remain a protracted and resource-intensive battle. When business units request ad-hoc analysis, finance personnel often need to manually export data from multiple systems, repeatedly reconcile and consolidate, and only provide an answer hours or even days later. The key performance indicators management is waiting for also require additional calibration time due to inconsistent reporting definitions across subsidiaries.

In this state, over 60% of the finance team's working hours are consumed by data preparation, severely compressing the time available for analysing business drivers and assessing operational risks.This dilemma is not caused by a lack of individual team capability, but rather by a systemic failure of the Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) system as business complexity increases and organisational scale expands. Based on transformation practices across numerous enterprises, successfully shifting from a "data processor" to a "decision support" role requires navigating four progressive stages.

Stage 1: Diagnosing the Predicament - Identifying the Dual Risks of Legacy Systems in Data and Compliance

Many enterprises' core financial reporting systems still rely on BI tools deployed over a decade ago or data processing workflows built by internal IT departments. These systems were originally designed to serve only a single business line or a few legal entities.As enterprises expand through mergers and acquisitions and establish new branches, the number of data sources continues to increase, yet the system architecture has not been upgraded correspondingly. Typical issues include: manual Excel adjustments required in multiple rounds for consolidated reporting, differing definitions of the same accounting account across subsidiaries, and a lack of automatic linkage between budget preparation and execution tracking.

More concerning is the accumulation of operational risk.The operational maintenance skills for these legacy systems are typically held by a small number of senior employees. The related configuration logic, data cleansing rules, and exception handling procedures have never been systematically documented. Once key personnel are transferred or retire, the system's sustainable operation is directly threatened.At the same time, Xinchuang (domestic substitution) policies have set clear timelines for the localisation of enterprise management software. As the central hub carrying core financial data, the technological independence and data security of the EPM system have become key areas of compliance review.

The critical task at this stage is not to immediately seek a replacement, but to comprehensively assess the specific shortcomings of the existing system regarding data accuracy, operational sustainability, and compliance.

Stage 2: Preparing for the Breakthrough - Building Collaborative Consensus Amidst Diverse Organisational Structures and Interests

EPM system transformation inherently faces complex coordination costs within the enterprise. Large enterprises typically have multiple business divisions, regional branches, and recently acquired subsidiaries. Each unit shows significant differences in financial management maturity, reporting habits, and system preferences. Some regional teams have already developed localised reporting tools or data middleware to address their own business pain points – while these systems meet local needs, they increase the difficulty of group-wide data integration.

More critically, different stakeholders in a transformation project have substantially different definitions of success.A steering committee composed of senior management often takes whether the project is delivered on time and within budget as the primary evaluation criterion. In contrast, frontline finance personnel who use the system daily for budget entry and report preparation are more concerned with whether the new system reduces repetitive work and integrates with existing workflows.If this misalignment of objectives is not fully exposed and reconciled early in the project, it often leads to low actual usage after system launch – the enterprise invests substantial resources, only to end up with an unused system.

The key to breaking through at this stage is to involve key users from different business units and levels in the selection and design process before the project formally starts, and to formally incorporate their feedback into the project milestone evaluation system.

Stage 3: Building a Solid Foundation - A Phased Implementation Strategy Starting with Core Modules

At the start of a transformation, some enterprises are easily attracted by vendors' demonstrations of advanced features such as intelligent forecasting and automated operational analysis report generation, hoping to cover all functional modules in a single project.However, from the perspective of actual implementation results, this approach has a very high failure rate.

The accuracy of advanced analytical features is entirely dependent on the completeness and consistency of underlying data. If foundational data suffers from definitional confusion and inconsistent standards, running complex forecasting models will only amplify errors – not only failing to guide operations but potentially misleading decisions.A pragmatic choice is to compress the scope of the first project phase.Prioritise the modules most critical to enterprise management, typically comprehensive budget management and statutory consolidation reporting. These two modules directly serve annual operational target setting, resource allocation, and external disclosure – they are the most important information outputs for management.

During implementation, the unified governance of core master data (such as chart of accounts, organisational structure, and product line classification) must be completed simultaneously. Only when data definitions are consistent across the group can subsequent management reporting, rolling forecasts, and scenario simulations have a reliable foundation.

The core concept at this stage is: without a solid foundation, no building can stand firm.Domestic practice cases are available for reference. For example, large central SOEs such as SDIC Luobupo and SDIC Bioenergy have adopted a phased approach, starting with Intcube EPM's comprehensive budget and consolidated reporting modules. They first established a unified group-wide data view and budget preparation process, before gradually expanding to multi-dimensional profitability analysis and operational forecasting.

Stage 4: Decisive Communication - Embedding User Adoption and Sustained Operation Throughout the Transformation Lifecycle

System go-live is far from the end of the transformation.The long-term success of the project hinges on whether finance personnel and managers at all levels are willing and able to continuously use the new system. During the initial system transition, users are highly prone to resistance due to increased learning costs and disruption of established operating habits.An effective approach is to establish a multi-layered communication mechanism from the project initiation stage.

For senior management, communication should focus on how the system shortens reporting cycles, enhances data transparency, and supports faster business decisions. For system administrators and IT departments, detailed technical documentation and operational training are required. For the wider user base, role-based, scenario-specific hands-on training should be provided.

At the same time, clear feedback channels and incentive measures should be established to encourage users to propose improvements, and to recognise employees who actively use the new system and help others.The ultimate test of transformation is not whether the system launched successfully, but whether it is truly embedded in every aspect of daily work.Intcube's approach during client implementations emphasises role-based training and sustained user support to enhance system usage stickiness and long-term operational effectiveness.

The transformation of an Enterprise Performance Management system is a systematic undertaking encompassing technology selection, data governance, organisational coordination, and change management.Enterprises that successfully navigate the transformation often do not choose the most feature-rich software. Rather, they make clear decisions across four key areas: accurately assessing the real risks of the existing system, resolving internal misalignment of objectives before the project starts, building a trustworthy data foundation through a phased, pragmatic strategy starting with core modules, and elevating user adoption and sustained operation to the same level of importance as system development.

Currently, the domestic EPM field is at a critical window for domestic substitution. Local solutions with independent multi-dimensional database technology, such as Intcube EPM, have already demonstrated successful smooth migration implementations in large central SOEs.For enterprises planning or advancing a transformation, the focus should not be on the initial decision of "which vendor to choose." Instead, it should first examine their own readiness across the four stages above. With a clear path, the tool selection will naturally be well-targeted.