Why the Finance Partnering Framework Fails Without CFO Ownership

In a North American boardroom, organizational leaders convened for their fifth finance transformation initiative in less than a decade, approaching the effort with a mix of optimism and skepticism. Over the course of these unsuccessful attempts, the organization invested more than $25 million and over 30,000 employee hours without achieving the intended outcomes. The escalating costs, diminishing momentum, and leadership fatigue transformed each new launch into an indicator of systemic failure rather than a genuine opportunity for renewal.

The company, a publicly traded entity led by an experienced executive team, engaged new consultants and implemented another change to its technology stack. Previous challenges were attributed to Oracle, while SAP was expected to resolve them. The latest Enterprise Performance Management platform was introduced with promises of automation, transparency, and enhanced control.

The CFO started the meeting with confidence.

“This time, we will get it right.”

Eighteen months later, dashboards displayed real-time data, and monthly reports were delivered with exceptional speed and accuracy. However, the organization's fundamental issues remained unaddressed.

Budget discussions remained politicized. Profitability reports continued to obscure cost-related concerns. Business unit leaders persistently questioned allocation methodologies. Incentive structures continued to prioritize volume over value. The finance function remained focused on retrospective analysis rather than actively influencing decision-making.

The technology changed...

The consultants changed...

The results did not...

The recurring underperformance of Enterprise Performance Management initiatives in large organizations suggests a deeper challenge. Finance transformation is frequently perceived as a systems issue, when in reality it is rooted in management, accounting, and leadership structure.

The Finance Partnering Framework provides a comprehensive model for integrating mandate, information, and talent across an organization. While the framework is conceptually robust and effective in practice, its most significant benefits—such as accelerated decision-making, enhanced accountability, and substantial improvements in enterprise value—are realized only when the CFO maintains ongoing, visible ownership.

This level of ownership cannot be mandated by any framework.

CFOs can demonstrate such commitment by personally leading cross-functional design sessions on profitability models, conducting regular decision-architecture reviews with business partners, and ensuring that the redesign of finance KPIs remains a consistent agenda item in executive meetings.

The Pain Point: Delegated Transformation

A common pattern appears in finance transformation efforts at publicly traded companies.

The CFO may endorse the project but often delegates day-to-day leadership responsibilities. As a result, the initiative is positioned primarily as a technology upgrade. Enterprise Performance Management becomes an IT-driven reporting tool rather than a comprehensive redesign of management accounting. Decision rights remain ambiguous, KPI ownership is unclear, and incentive structures remain unaltered.

To avoid this delegation trap, CFOs must establish recurring checkpoints to facilitate direct discussions on financial modeling and decision rights, ensuring sustained visibility. Visible CFO engagement throughout the transformation process sets a tone of organizational commitment, reduces the risk of reverting to previous practices, and sustains momentum until new structures are fully embedded.

Authority stays at the top.

Ownership is spread out.

This contradiction weakens the transformation at its core.

The framework assumes that the CFO will actively drive culture, shape information quality, and strategically deploy talent. In practice, many CFOs adopt a supervisory posture. They evaluate outputs, question variances, and approve milestones. They do not immerse themselves in redefining cost structures, contribution margins, capital allocation logic, or performance incentives.

When transformation is handed off, systems simply make old habits happen faster instead of solving them.

The Illusion of Automatic EPM

Enterprise Performance Management systems are powerful tools. They make data flows consistent, connect planning cycles, support driver-based forecasting, and enable scenario modeling.

But only deliberate leadership choices create discipline.

They rarely redefine how contribution margins are calculated.

They rarely clarify decision rights.

They rarely fix entrenched budgeting habits.

They rarely align incentives with long-term value creation.

When management accounting architecture remains unchanged, EPM simply automates incremental thinking.

This false sense of automatic transformation is common. Once dashboards are in place and workflows are automated, leaders expect decisions to improve.

But that rarely happens.

Without leadership ownership, three problems weaken transformation:

Mandates become just words. Culture is discussed but not embedded.

Information becomes technical. Dashboards improve while profitability logic remains opaque.

Talent stays focused on compliance. Finance teams care more about accurate reporting than about strategic modeling or cross-functional collaboration.

The framework itself is not the problem.

The real issue is the lack of ownership.

What the Framework Assumes But Cannot Enforce

The framework emphasizes mandate, information, and talent. Each presupposes a leadership posture that cannot be codified.

It assumes the CFO actively drives cultural alignment, that information systems reflect deliberate management accounting design, and that talent development supports decision-making across the entire company.

Frameworks help guide action.

Leadership brings them to life.

Without visible CFO engagement in redesigning decision architecture, the mandate becomes rhetorical. Without involvement in redefining measurement logic, information becomes cosmetic. Without accountability for capability development, talent remains static.

The Mental Shift: From Authority to Architecture

Transformation requires a new way of thinking.

CFOs need to move from relying on formal authority to taking an active, hands-on role in shaping the organization.

Figure 1. CFO Leadership Matrix: Authority vs Real Involvement

Only the Decision Architect role leads to lasting transformation.

The Decision Architect personally leads the redesign of profitability models, cost-visibility frameworks, capital-allocation discipline, and KPI ownership before selecting new technology. This leader sets an example for learning and aligns incentives with strategic priorities.

Technology can help spread discipline.

But it does not create discipline.

When Management Accounting Is Not Redesigned

A finance transformation that ignores management accounting is incomplete.

If contribution margin definitions are inconsistent, dashboards will simply reflect those inconsistencies.

If shared service allocations are still decided by politics, EPM will move those debates online rather than resolve them.

If rolling forecasts are layered on top of outdated budgeting assumptions, forecasts may become more accurate, but the organization will not become more agile.

Real finance partnering means redesigning:

• Customer and product profitability models

• Driver-based planning assumptions

• Strategic cost management visibility

• Capital allocation thresholds

• Incentive alignment mechanisms

Without these changes, EPM becomes an efficiency upgrade rather than a strategic transformation.

A North American Case: Five Failures, One Pattern

At a publicly traded consumer goods company, five transformation attempts failed over ten years.

Technology vendors came and went. Consulting firms changed. ERP modules were upgraded.

But the same structural issues persisted:

• Business units distrusted profitability reports.

• Allocation logic lacked transparency.

• Incentives rewarded volume expansion over margin discipline.

• Decision rights in capital allocation remained unclear.

During one executive session, a business leader asked, “Who owns the profitability architecture?”

There was no clear answer...

The breakthrough occurred when finance leaders personally led cross-functional workshops to rethink contribution logic, redefine cost pools, adjust capital thresholds, and clarify KPI ownership. Only after this redesign did they implement new technology.

The change was about behavior, not technology.

What CFOs Must Do Differently

CFOs who want to create lasting impact should:

1. Redesign decision architecture before selecting technology.

2. Personally led cross-functional modeling sessions.

3. Align incentives with value creation.

4. Replace evaluator language with architect language.

5. Establish accountability loops.

6. Model intellectual humility.

7. Elevate management accounting to board-level dialogue.

These actions unlock the framework’s potential.

The Leadership Imperative

The future of finance is not defined by mastering technology. It depends on the willingness to reclaim the architect role for enterprise decision systems.

In many organizations, expanding compliance responsibilities have shifted finance capacity toward stewardship and reporting. The Finance Partnering Framework reflects an effort to reposition finance as a strategic partner.

Figure 2. Framework Effectiveness Depends on CFO Ownership

But partnership is not a title or a structure.

It is a way of leading.

Technology can enable scalable performance.

Consultants can facilitate the process.

But none of these can replace true ownership.

When CFOs act only as evaluators, transformation becomes another initiative.

When CFOs become architects, transformation reshapes the organization.

That difference determines whether Enterprise Performance Management initiatives become completed projects—or the foundation for sustained enterprise value creation.

About the author

Pedro San Martín is a finance transformation leader specializing in Enterprise Performance Management, profitability strategy, and decision architecture. With more than 25 years of experience across PwC, IBM, Deloitte, and Asher Analytics, he advises CFOs on redesigning management accounting to drive enterprise value. He is currently with Asher & Company, where he leads a joint venture responsible for the PwC Strategic Finance Center of Excellence for PwC Interamericas. He can be contacted at psanmartin@asher.company