The CFO as the conductor of change management in (Finance) Transformations

This first statement, introduced by TriFinance Client Partner Annemie Pelgrims, immediately resonated with the group: Finance transformation doesn’t fail because of technology, but due to a lack of leadership. As a result, the CFO of tomorrow is less of a number cruncher and more of a change leader.

The finding that 58% of survey respondents believe the CFO should take the lead in transformation projects was widely supported. Still, the group agreed the CFO can’t shoulder that responsibility alone. “Support from the entire executive team is essential,” one participant noted, not just from a change management standpoint, but also because these initiatives often impact the broader business, not just Finance.

“Everything is connected to Finance,” stated a participant from the steel industry with conviction. “That’s a major challenge, because it means Finance must have a clear understanding of how every process in the organization works. And that requires strong relationships with every department.”

That dynamic goes both ways, added a representative from a major retail group. “If Finance is a true business partner, the business will quickly notice any changes to financial systems. Open, transparent communication is essential.”

But it’s not just about communication after implementation. There must first be meaningful dialogue to ensure that system improvements actually add value on the ground. “Is the business really being heard?” asked Filip Ceulemans (TriFinance). The examples of well-established evaluation practices that followed made it clear that many organizations are actively working to foster a healthy feedback culture.

According to the survey, effective communication was identified by 80% of respondents as the most important trait for a transformation lead, just behind integrity at 81%. Other high-scoring qualities included expertise in change management and the ability to express positive emotions (both at 61%). These qualities are essential for transformation leaders, with communication consistently at the core.

“It’s crucial to gather the right input first in order to initiate the right changes,” said an FP&A specialist from an HR services company. “But things often go wrong at go-live, when the real-world impact starts to hit. You can’t just roll out a new time-registration tool without considering the consequences for employees or without proper support for the rollout.” The group nodded in agreement.

Many participants recognized how difficult it is for employees to let go of old habits and acquire new skills overnight. Sometimes, people work faster with outdated software they know inside out than with a newer, objectively better system, especially during the “first, difficult months” after the switch.

The TriFinance study confirmed this. One in five C-level executives cited resistance to change as the main obstacle to improving finance operations. Conversely, 25% saw strong change management as the key to a successful transformation. “But do people actually know what change management really means?” asked an experienced CFO. “Sending out an internal newsletter and scheduling a few training sessions just doesn’t cut it.”

The question lingered in the air: what does effective change management really look like?

Two key terms emerged from the discussion: proactive and holistic. Change management, the panel agreed, must be on the agenda from day one, and approached as an integrated whole. “Organizations often implement partial transformation solutions,” said Johan Reunis (TriFinance), “but these are too often disconnected, with no structure or follow-up.” His summary of the panel was clear: “A solid change plan is needed right from the start, fully embedded in the overall project plan.”

Transformation initiatives should be rooted in real needs on the work floor, with implementations that include a change component from the very beginning. The message from the seasoned voices around the table was unanimous: change must be continuous, with no long pauses between early input and final rollout. “Bring people along for the entire duration of the project,” they advised. “That way, support for the change grows naturally over time.”

The discussion surfaced a few additional change-related insights. One key takeaway: the importance of key users who act as internal catalysts during system implementations. Another: the need for strong support in the critical first weeks after go-live.

“At our company, two external consultants just weren’t enough,” shared the finance director of a legal services firm, reflecting on a major transformation. “By the end of each day, they were exhausted from all the feedback about what still wasn’t working in the new software package.”

Even during the chaotic phase of testing and fine-tuning, when employees are getting to know new systems and feedback pours in, listening remains essential. “You can’t tackle every issue at once,” someone noted. “It’s about setting priorities and being honest about them. That’s one of the toughest parts of change.”

“Honesty really is the key,” Johan Reunis (TriFinance) confirmed, a sentiment echoed by the group. “It creates clarity and trust. As long as people know improvements are on the way, they’ll stay willing to move forward with the change.”

There was less agreement, however, on the timing of the go-live. Some advocated for delaying until everything has been tested and all possible issues addressed. Others preferred a faster rollout, citing the costs of waiting. In a shifting environment, they argued, it’s better to adapt on the fly than to hold out for a certainty that will never fully come.

One thing became increasingly clear during the discussion: in any transformation journey, technology is never far off and automation is always part of the conversation. But as Annemie Pelgrims emphasized, technology should never become an end in itself. Every implementation must aim to deliver real, measurable value.

“Organizations need to stay focused on the end goal: greater efficiency, increased agility, or other tangible improvements,” she said. “If you simply automate inefficient processes without fundamentally rethinking them first, you’re likely to end up with suboptimal results.”

“Processes must come first—they are the foundation, not the systems,” added the finance executive from the steel industry. He illustrated the point with a familiar example: copying an ERP system directly into another market rarely works well.

“Even minor process variations or different local conditions can cause the system to break down,” a colleague from a competing firm noted. The takeaway was clear: the more you automate, the greater the need for robust, well-designed processes.

Reevaluating processes also requires the courage to cut what no longer serves a purpose. A system can only create value if the underlying processes themselves contribute meaningfully to the organization.

One telling example from the discussion? A 2,000-page report printed daily, stacked neatly, only to be ignored and forgotten in a back room. No added value means no reason to exist, whether digital or on paper.

. “A CFO who wants to be seen as a strategic business partner must be willing to push back,” said Annemie Pelgrims, introducing the third and final statement that neatly tied the conversation together.

Data and data quality are essential, not only to make informed, critical decisions, but also to ensure smooth, reliable processes. Both the TriFinance survey and the roundtable discussion at Domein Kattebroek confirmed this.

“Our organization runs on data,” said one participant, a sentiment that was widely echoed. And yet, there’s still a long way to go. Only 19% of survey respondents say that data and analytics are truly embedded in the organization’s DNA. Another 30% have a data strategy in place, but lack confidence in its actual value. 27% describe fragmented, uncoordinated initiatives limited to individual departments, while 10% admit that a data culture is simply non-existent.

The conclusion was clear: the importance of data is widely recognized, but the approach remains too often fragmented and noncommittal. For an organization to become truly data-driven, buying tools isn’t enough. It requires a clear vision, strong leadership choices, and cross-functional collaboration beyond organizational silos.

When it comes to systems, the roundtable participants tackled a classic but complex question: do you choose custom-built software tailored to your organization, or opt for a standardized solution? It’s a decision with far-reaching consequences and one of the key calls CFOs and their teams must make.

Cloud-based systems in particular make customization increasingly difficult. “Updates are constant, and the more you deviate from the standard, the more adjustments you’ll need,” was the near-unanimous view. The preference leaned toward a standard core package, supplemented by a few smaller, specialized tools—together forming a flexible ecosystem. As one participant dryly put it: “In the end, finance is fairly standard. We’re really not that special.”

But standardization doesn’t come without its own challenges, as the VP of Finance at a global tech company pointed out, linking the discussion back to change management. “What about people who’ve spent years working in Excel, building their own efficient tools and workflows? A standard solution likely won’t replicate all of those capabilities. And even a modular ecosystem can become overwhelming if it includes too many standalone tools—then you risk losing oversight.”

These reflections reinforced two things: the need for balance and the critical success factors of effective change management. They also set the stage for a clear final message: Start with your processes, involve your people from the beginning, and keep it manageable.
Because if one thing was certain, it’s this: “The goal is never to burn out the organization—or the people in it.”