Three Chartered Accountants tell us how they use performance metrics to enhance organisational efficiency beyond traditional benchmarks Niamh McCarthy Finance Business Partner Primark Relying solely on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) can mean ignoring the human elements that impact performance. Focusing only on a project’s outcomes might meet KPIs, but it can also make people feel that their wellbeing or personal development is not a priority. In my experience, the best way to ensure a balance between quantitative metrics and qualitative assessments is to set clear expectations when setting annual goals, provide feedback and coaching more regularly than in one-off annual reviews so that everyone is aligned, and add weighting to both quantitative and qualitative metrics based on their importance to the company.  Subjective factors such as employee behaviour, teamwork and communication skills are crucial in performance evaluations.  These measures can influence a company’s culture as employees feel heard and that they can collaborate with their peers. These positive behaviours drive a positive culture. The more positive employees feel, the more productive they tend to be.  Careful consideration is required before implementing alternative performance measures to ensure clear definitions of the metrics. Transparency is a must to ensure everyone understands the metrics that are being used.  A standardised approach is also needed for all employees. To achieve this, the managers setting these performance measures need adequate and uniform training to ensure consistency for everyone.  Employees should be involved in their goal-setting every year, of these goals must align with the company’s values and objectives. There should be a sense of ownership over these so that they are not just ‘given’ to the employee but they instead feel that they have created them, can drive them and ultimately achieve them.  These goals should be reviewed regularly – not just annually – to ensure that they are still relevant. Otherwise, you risk employees feeling disconnected from their own objectives or those of the business.  Unlike traditional performance metrics focused solely on quantitative outputs, alternative performance measurement methods often take a more holistic approach.  Various factors are considered, such as skills, behaviours, contribution to the team and alignment with company values. This comprehensive assessment provides employees with a more nuanced understanding of their strengths and potential areas for improvement, facilitating targeted development efforts.  Employees who feel they can grow and develop within a company are more likely to actively contribute to the business. The more you give back to employees in terms of recognising their development and wellbeing, the more they will give back in turn. Mark Riseley Strategic and Financial Consultant/Fractional CFO My lens is formed from a career working for high-growth scale-ups where change is constant, requiring systems, data, processes and (most importantly) people to flex as the company grows.  Traditional KPIs are often unsuited to measuring capacity to scale efficiently, for both people and companies, and do not capture a company’s true enterprise value along that path. Some alternate measures of performance include: Time management – In high-growth environments, time may be a team’s most valuable commodity. Does the company measure time, quantity and output generated by meetings?  Data – What is high-quality data, and what is just noise? Instead of just measuring data output, measure the speed and efficiency of decisions to determine which data is worth keeping. Adaptability to a culture of change – Identify, hire and measure based on key personality traits, such as decision-making capacity, adaptability/flexibility, resilience, trust, diligence and communication skills, rather than just the known skills of the profession. Effectiveness of organisational design – Is the organisation’s design scalable, or does it need to pivot to enable growth? Does it allow executives to delegate/empower decision-making? Check employee turnover to determine the effectiveness of your organisation’s outlay. Common goal – Is the common goal clear? Do companies measure the clarity of messaging, such as doing spot checks on the elevator pitch, for example? Do performance measures flow from the corporate to departmental and individual level? Make sure all messaging is aligned. Enterprise value – Is enterprise value (EV) clear, measured and reported? Is there a consequence to hitting forecasts? The ability to do this can mean the difference between a rear-view EV and a front-view EV. Are margins increasing, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of scaling systems, processes and people? To ensure that alternative performance measures align with organisational goals and contribute to overall success, companies must clearly define their goals, objectives and values so that employees fully understand and can align them with their own goals, objectives and values.  Alignment and collaboration between different departments and teams within the organisation will ensure alternative performance measures are consistent and mutually reinforcing. Success is more likely if all employees feel they are working towards a common goal aligned with the company’s goals.  Yier Hu Senior Associate in Management Consulting KPMG   There are certain limitations to relying solely on KPIs for performance measurement. Although KPIs provide quantitative metrics to measure performance, they tend to overlook crucial perspectives essential for a comprehensive evaluation.  At KPMG, we recognise the importance of looking beyond KPIs to ensure a thorough approach to performance measurement. The quantitative matrix can fail to account for a series of subjective factors, such as employee behaviour and communication skills. These intangible elements offer valuable insights into employee performance and should be considered alongside quantitative measures. KPMG employs its own separate benchmark for performance measurement, analysing performance from six distinct perspectives: client, people, innovation, financial strength, public trust, quality and development. We advocate for measuring performance from multiple perspectives, recognising the importance of a holistic approach. These alternative measurements assess the benefits an employee brings to clients while also evaluating their contributions to the working environment.  From the people perspective, we focus on how the team studies and improves, how to be a strong mentor to the team, how to build internal communication and culture and how to make everyone feel like a part of the team.  From an innovation perspective, we prioritise building trust with the team and client, supporting the team to identify opportunities, and leading by example. This is crucial and creates long-term value while also enhancing overall satisfaction within the company.  By embracing a multi-dimensional approach to performance measurement, organisations can gain a more nuanced understanding of their employees’ contributions and foster a culture of continuous improvement and growth.

Growing support for extremist and smaller parties across Europe could change the fundamental composition of the new European Parliament, writes Judy Dempsey Elections to the European Parliament (EP) take place every five years. Until recently, the outcomes were predictable. The conservative European People’s Party has dominated with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists, albeit with declining numbers, and Democrats (S&D) coming in second.  Their decline reflects waning support for mainstream parties and an increasing fragmentation of European party systems at national and European levels.  This time round, the EP election is about how the growing support for extremist and smaller parties across Europe could change the composition of the parliament and the EU. Integration is taking a back seat. The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) reckons the major winner in the EP elections will be the radical right Identity and Democracy (ID) group.  “We expect it to gain 40 seats and, with almost 100 MEPs, to emerge as the third largest group in the new parliament,” states ECFR.  The political elites across Europe are nervous as far-right parties in France, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Hungary, Italy and other countries are campaigning hard to strengthen their presence in the EP. And, despite backroom deals and trade-offs taking place inside the EP regarding which countries will become EU commissioners, a different political constellation could upset the way things have been done in the past. The political status quo across Europe is changing. The 2009 global financial crisis dented the belief that the EU was on a permanent trajectory towards prosperity. The wars in Syria that led to well over a million people seeking refuge in Europe in 2015 created divisions inside the EU regarding identity and values. COVID-19 and Russia’s war in Ukraine dented the unity and self-confidence of the EU even further.  More importantly, as EU leaders grapple with these global issues, they must respond to their electorates back home.  Citizens want security, affordable housing, better access to good schools, healthcare and other public services. These services are under pressure as governments, struggling with inflation, weigh up the cost of spending or saving more.  The far-right, nationalist and far-left parties, from the comfort of not being in office, exploit these crises. They want their governments to stop sending weapons to Ukraine; to stop the inflows of asylum seeks or refugees fleeing wars, famine and the effects of climate change. They question the costs of protecting the environment.  In short, the sense of security that characterised most of (Western) Europe after 1945, and even after the reunification of Germany after 1991, is being replaced with an uncertainty that populist and far-right and far-left parties are tapping into.  They challenge the status quo that oversaw the establishment of today’s EU.    If they gain many seats in the EP, they will not want to leave the EU. The financial benefits are too big and support for the EU is still high across the bloc. Instead, they want to change the EU from within.  The issue for these parties is sovereignty. Like Brexit, they want to ‘regain’ their national sovereignty but remain in the EU.  Yet EU membership requires ceding some sovereignty in return for certain benefits. With few exceptions, EU leaders shy from selling those benefits to their citizens. Their reluctance plays into the hands of the far right and the far left.   Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe

Patrick Gorry delves into the findings of the European Commission’s Market Monitoring Report and revisits the broader context and impact of EU audit reform On 5 March 2024, the European Commission published its triennial Market Monitoring Report, analysing Public Interest Entity (PIE) audit data from 2019 to 2021 across 27 Member States as well as Norway.  A decade after the enactment of European Union (EU) audit reform legislation, the report underscores the persistent market dominance of the main firms in PIE audits, resulting in limited choices for auditors. Background and objectives of EU audit reform The introduction of EU audit reform stemmed from several key drivers and broader contextual factors.  Amidst the global financial crisis of 2008, weaknesses in financial reporting and corporate governance practices were exposed, prompting the EU to prioritise enhancing the integrity and transparency of audit processes.  In 2014, the EU adopted two legislative instruments: Directive 2014/56/EU, which amended Directive 2006/43/EC on the statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (the Audit Directive), and Regulation No. 537/2014 on specific requirements regarding the statutory audit of PIEs (the Audit Regulation).  The legislation was led by several key EU institutions, including the EU Commission, EU Parliament, EU Council, European Securities and Marketing Authority (ESMA) and national regulatory authorities in EU Member States.  While the overarching goal was to increase the quality of statutory audits, the four primary objectives set out for the reform were to: Reinforce auditor independence; Promote market competition; Enhance transparency for investors; and Strengthen pan-European supervision. Measurement of success  To evaluate the legislation’s effectiveness, we must examine each objective. Reinforcing auditor independence The legislation mandates the rotation of audit firms for PIEs after a specified period to help address familiarity and independence issues, promote fresh perspectives and improve audit objectivity.  It also restricts audit firms from providing certain non-audit services to their audit clients and imposed limits on fees for such services.  These measures aim to promote independence, prevent conflicts of interest and uphold audit integrity. The legislation has strengthened auditor independence by enforcing mandatory rotation for auditors of PIEs. This has reduced conflicts of interest and enhanced audit objectivity.  Stricter rules regarding non-audit service provision have further bolstered auditor independence, ensuring a focus on high-quality audit services. Mandatory rotation has, however, faced criticism for potential unintended consequences, such as increased costs for companies and concerns about the disruption of longstanding audit relationships.  The Market Monitoring Report revealed limited choice in tenders within the EU audit sector: 16 percent of the tenders had just one bid and 59 percent left PIEs with a limited choice of two to three bids.   In the same report, 51 percent of surveyed audit committees that had undergone auditor changes indicated that it was too early to evaluate the impact of auditor rotation or that no assessment had been made at the time the Commission issued the questionnaire.  Furthermore, 22 percent of audit committees rated the impact of auditor rotation as ‘neutral’, while 12 percent rated it ‘positive’. Promoting market competition The legislation aims to promote market competition and diversity in the audit sector by encouraging smaller audit firms to participate in PIE audits. It is meant to drive innovation, enhance audit quality and offer clients a broader selection of service providers. To achieve this, the legislation mandates regular rotation or tendering of audit engagements to stimulate competition.  It also promotes joint audits to facilitate smaller firms’ involvement and enhance market competition.  Additionally, the legislation aims to increase transparency in the audit market by publishing data on audit firm market share and concentration. Despite these efforts, market concentration remains a challenge. Larger firms continue to dominate, limiting the entry of smaller firms and hindering diversity among service providers.  While the largest firms’ dominance in the number of PIE audits has fallen slightly, they still control a significant portion of the market from a fee perspective.  Interestingly, a growing demand for joint audits indicates a potential shift in the market landscape toward increased diversity. The Market Monitoring Report highlighted the continuing imbalance: In terms of total turnover among audit firms, the largest four firms collectively accounted for approximately 80 percent of the market, consistent with previous reports from the European Commission. Despite a decline in their share of PIE audits, these firms still hold a dominant position, capturing 86 percent of revenue from this source.   Joint audits now account for 16 percent of the PIE market, up from nine percent in 2018. This trend is evident across an increasing number of Member States, with five additional countries adopting joint audits since 2018, bringing the total to 13. Among the six Member States with the most diversified PIE audit markets, joint audits are prevalent in five: France, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Greece. The findings relating to European market concentration are replicated in the Irish market. The Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority’s most recently published Annual Audit Programme and Activity Report put the market share of the four largest firms at 87 percent.  Enhancing transparency for investors The legislation mandates increased audit reporting transparency, requiring additional information disclosure.  This increased transparency aims to improve communication between auditors, clients and stakeholders, providing a more comprehensive view of the audit process. The new rules have significantly improved the informational value of audit reports, which is a key success of the legislation.  The mandates have improved communication between auditors, clients and stakeholders, ensuring investors can access relevant information to make informed decisions.  However, challenges remain in effectively communicating audit findings to investors. Discussions are ongoing concerning further enhancements to meet the investors’ evolving needs.  Strengthening pan-European supervision The reform introduced measures to enhance governance and oversight of audit firms, including establishing regulatory bodies and oversight mechanisms to monitor compliance with audit standards. The objective was to improve the consistency and effectiveness of audit supervision across Europe. The legislation has undoubtedly increased cross-border cooperation and information sharing among national competent authorities.  Harmonising audit standards and practices across Member States has aligned regulatory requirements, fostering a unified framework for audit supervision while improving quality and consistency at the European level. However, one of the main challenges of strengthening pan-European supervision is the divergence in implementation of the audit regulation and oversight practices across Member States. Future audit reform EU audit reform represents progress, but there’s still work ahead. While successes are evident, challenges persist, notably the dominance of major audit firms. The 2022 EU Commission study on the impact of the audit reform highlights improvements in harmonising national frameworks. However, it underscores lingering disparities in the transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU audit legislation across countries. The legislation has profoundly impacted audit firms and the profession by reshaping regulatory requirements and enhancing independence, quality standards and transparency within the EU.  Yet, ongoing evaluation is necessary to ensure continued progress in the improvement audit quality, transparency and governance. Recent high-profile accounting scandals, such as the Wirecard bankruptcy in Germany, underscore the need for further reform, especially amid increasing demand for sustainability reporting and digital audits.  With a new EU Commission and Parliament taking office imminently, however, further legislative developments are unlikely in the near term.  On the other hand, the Market Monitoring Report identifies potential challenges, including inflationary pressures, rising interest rates, geopolitical instability and the growing use of data analysis tools and artificial intelligence, which will require attention sooner or later.  One thing appears certain – what audit will look like in another 10 years will dramatically differ from what it looks like today. Whether an EU Audit Reform 2.0 is one of key change drivers remains to be seen. Patrick Gorry is a Partner in the Audit and Assurance Financial Services Group of Mazars Ireland

John Hansen talks us through his career as a Chartered Accountant and new role as Chair of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland John Hansen is the newly appointed Non-Executive Chair of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland. Formerly Partner in Charge at KPMG in Belfast and KPMG’s international representative to KPMG Greece for two years, Hansen is also currently Non-Executive Chair of Titanic Quarter Limited. He sits on the business funding committee of Invest NI and holds directorships in several other companies. Tell us a bit about yourself and why you became a Chartered Accountant?  I grew up in Belfast. My father worked at the Ulster Museum and my mother at the Royal Victoria Hospital. I am married to Linda and have two daughters and four grandchildren. I studied economics with accountancy at Queen’s University but wasn’t really sure at that time what I wanted to do after graduating. I drifted towards accountancy because people told me it was a versatile qualification that could provide a solid grounding for lots of different business-related careers and would give me options. They were right!  I took part in the graduate recruitment process in my final year at university and opted to join Coopers and Lybrand, which would eventually morph into PwC.  I started out working in insolvency for a year or so, which I really enjoyed. Then I requested a move so I could gain more accounts experience and was sent to Omagh for a year – another great experience. After that, I returned to insolvency and stuck with it for the rest of my career, eventually moving into forensic work, which became my greatest interest. I went on to head up Coopers and Lybrand’s Insolvency Division before joining the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland (now Invest NI) on secondment. The secondment opportunity gave me fantastic consultancy and commercial experience and became a real turning point for me professionally.  I was able to expand my skill set significantly, learning so much about business and what makes companies ‘tick’. I also met some wonderful people during that time, some I still count as friends today.  Did you have a career plan starting out? Has your career unfolded as you anticipated? I wouldn’t say I had a career plan as such. I wanted to pass my exams – and I did, apart from one small hiccup, which I put down to too much partying! – and then see where opportunities might take me. Work life led me down the insolvency and forensics path, and my career sort of developed from there. I recall when I was approached with an offer to join McClure Watters by the firm’s two partners. The idea of moving from a safe environment to a start-up division was daunting, but I decided to accept and believe it was from there I developed a reputation as a leading insolvency practitioner. Due to the firm’s relatively small size (compared with the Big Four), the really big jobs didn’t tend to come my way. So, when I was approached to join KPMG in Belfast to head up its restructuring and forensics division, I again opted to make the move.  It wasn’t an easy decision from a personal perspective. I had a wonderful time working with McClure Watters, but my time with KPMG turned out to be equally fulfilling, and I ultimately became Partner in Charge of KPMG in Northern Ireland. On retirement from that position, I was approached to take on the role of KPMG International’s representative to KPMG Greece for two-and-a-half years during the Covid pandemic. Some of the biggest challenges for me in my career have been the difficult decisions to leave existing roles and move to new organisations. It wasn’t easy. Every move involved serious soul-searching, but with hindsight, each move propelled my career forward.  What is your proudest achievement during your tenure as Partner in Charge of KPMG in Northern Ireland? I was Partner in Charge at KPMG in Northern Ireland from 2015 to 2019 and, during that time, we moved the business to fantastic new premises in the Soloist Building at Lanyon Place while also delivering business growth of over 30 percent.  Relocating to the new office really reinvigorated our people and allowed me, in part, to leave a legacy for those who continue to work with KPMG in Northern Ireland now and in the future. Among the people you have worked with, who has been your biggest inspiration?  I remember my first meeting with John Ross, my boss at Coopers and Lybrand. He asked me a technical question, I answered it and he then enquired as to whether I had checked all relevant legislation, guidance notes and checklists before arriving at my response. There was just one technical note I had overlooked. John told me to go away and research the subject matter “properly”.  My answer to the issue remained unchanged, but this time around, John accepted it because I had done the research “properly”! Never again in my time with him did I make the same mistake. Since then, my approach has always been to leave no stone unturned in arriving at any decision. Is there any career advice you would offer your younger self if you could? Do whatever you can to surround yourself with good people, whether you are starting out (which can be challenging, as you tend to inherit people at this point in your career) or when building a team.  I have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with fantastic people and that has only ever benefited me.  It is important to be transparent and open in your work and to operate with integrity at all times. Your reputation is everything.  I have always worked hard to build lasting relationships and have always picked up the phone to answer calls – you just never know who might be calling!  What I’ve learned is that the smallest leads can develop into the biggest assignments. I have also tended to deal with what I can see in front of me – viewing each ask as a number of small, manageable tasks, even when others may have viewed it as a major challenge. As a result, throughout the years, I hope I have developed a reputation as someone who can solve difficult problems and who is honest, trustworthy and direct. I consider myself commercially minded and have always had a reasonable amount of common sense (I hope!).   The experience I gained in my career, together with the esteem in which the Chartered Accountant brand is held, are the reasons I believe I’ve been approached to take on non-executive roles in the years since leaving KPMG.  In your experience, how has the role of the accountant evolved since you first joined the profession? The accountancy profession has become more regulated over the years and accountants today tend to work in silos more than might have been the case when I started my career, driven by considerably more lines of business. With the emergence of new service lines and increasing public and professional accountability, the role of the accountant – in Northern Ireland, in particular – has become more challenging. I would view the whole area of risk management for accountants in a very different light today than I did when I started out. What prompted you to become involved in non-executive directorships? My first directorship was with Wilsanco Plastics in Dungannon, Co. Tyrone. I had worked with the owner previously and he got in touch.  I remember the conversation well. I said, “You want me to help you and you will pay me for something I have never done before?” and he said, ‘I trust you,’ – end of conversation!” I have been Non-Executive Chair of Titanic Quarter Limited for close to three years, working with two great executive directors pioneering sustainable development at Belfast’s Maritime Mile. We have an ambition to increase investment to over £2 billion. I am now also taking on the role of Chair of the Institute of Directors (IoD) in Northern Ireland. I have been on the committee of the IoD in Northern Ireland for four years and I am looking forward to my new role. I find non-executive work very enjoyable. I don’t need to be ‘full time’, and I enjoy the interaction with executive teams.  I can focus on strategy, relationships and the bigger picture – knowing the detail, but without having to get into the execution of that detail.  Being able to advise and challenge based on the experiences I have gained over the years really allows me to add value.  Tell us about the work of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland? The Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland has a small team of great people delivering big things, led by Kirsty McManus and Heather White who are fantastic.  We represent our members’ views on policy, economic and business activity in Northern Ireland.  We offer great networking opportunities covering topics like governance, legislative and governmental developments, which are essential to ensuring that those who hold directorships do the best job possible.  We take ‘the pulse’ of our membership and represent their views, needs and priorities in the political arena.  We also offer professional development opportunities and a pathway to achieving Chartered Director status.  Gordon Milligan, the outgoing Chair of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland, carried out fantastic work in developing the organisation during his tenure.  I want to continue to grow our membership and continue to develop the fantastic training and certification opportunities we offer our members. Ultimately, we are all about connecting, influencing and developing. 

New technologies are transforming the way accountants work and the profession must adapt to and embrace this sea change to foster future success, writes Conor Flanagan How people interact with technology is changing as it becomes increasingly powerful, and our expectations of what it can and should deliver continue to rise.  In our profession, the risk does not come down to a lack of technological literacy or the complexity of new accounting technologies; the risk is that we might ignore the wave of change sweeping through the profession.  If you ride the wave, however small, you will grow and develop with the changing industry. But ignore the wave, and you risk being left behind in the shallow waters of a pre-digital world. Investing in the future Digital transformation should not be viewed as a cost, but rather an investment in the future of your business – an investment that can improve processes and ensure your business is at the cutting edge of technology and the benefits that come with it.  A successful digital transformation can unleash the potential of your business and your team by freeing your time to focus on strategic and value-added tasks, ultimately driving growth. We are all aware of digital transformations that have gone wrong, however, costing some organisations dearly, so what measures can companies take to ensure success? The key to success starts long before the implementation itself begins and relies on: Successful system selection;  A clear understanding of existing business processes;  Key user/management buy-in;  Selecting the correct partner;  A willingness to embrace change; and Understanding your data. Taking time before implementation to focus on the above will help ensure you enter the transformation prepared for an optimal outcome.  This will not only result in a smooth implementation, but by understanding your data and your business requirements, you will also be able to see the true potential of your new solution and help drive your business forward. At the recent Chartered Accountants Technology Conference, held in January 2024, we had the pleasure of hearing from two Irish organisations that recently underwent significant digital transformations.  We heard their stories, alongside the lessons they learned from their own implementation projects and the benefits each delivered. Glanbia’s HANA solution First, we heard from Eoin Butler, Finance Systems Centre of Excellence Lead with Glanbia plc, who shared the global nutrition group’s experience implementing the SAP S/4HANA solution.  S/4HANA is a ready-to-run cloud-based enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. With operations in 32 countries and annual group revenue exceeding $5.4 billion, Glanbia needed a scalable solution with proven capacity to handle the needs of a complex global business.  The vision at the outset, Butler explained, was to “digitise the Glanbia business to drive value”.  It was agreed early on that a brownfield approach would be used for the engagement. This is usually the case if the existing system has been in use for some time and may require significant modifications or integrations during the migration.  In Glanbia’s case, Butler noted that the brownfield approach was one of the key reasons for the project’s success. Although a complex global business, Glanbia opted to work with just one single global instance of SAP ERP Central Component (ECC).  Because the project involved significant customisations and integrations with Glanbia’s existing system, these requirements were considered as a key aspect of the solution selection process.  Already a SAP customer for over 20 years, Glanbia opted to stay within the SAP ecosystem and migrate to a newer version of its existing solution. A significant challenge that emerged at an early stage in the project was the data already held on the existing system. An engagement was required to cleanse and fully understand this data before migration could take place.  Understanding your master data, and multiple data sources, is key to ensuring a successful migration or implementation. Taking time to understand and cleanse this data put Glanbia in a much better position to be able to improve reporting and efficiency.  Finally, Butler pointed out that any implementation on this scale cannot be done alone. A strong internal team, hardware and software partners, as well as helpful buy-in from SAP resulted in a successful implementation for Glanbia. Although there were benefits in finance, such as upgrades to the credit function, the new general ledger module within the SAP solution and profitability analysis, most of the benefits were technological and under the hood, laying the foundation to make Glanbia tech-ready for years to come. Cullen Cleaning Services Cullen Cleaning Services (CCS) is a commercial contract cleaning company operating across Europe. Headquartered in Dublin, its clients include household names such as Primark, River Island and H&M.  At this year’s Chartered Accountants Ireland Technology Conference, Brian Flannery, Chief Financial Officer with CCS, outlined the company’s experience implementing a Dynamics 365 Business Central solution with a business intelligence (BI) warehouse reporting solution on top. Flannery covered the evolving role of today’s finance leader in such a project, which involves leading people through digital change.  In the case of CCS, Flannery noted that the implementation had “accelerated the digital transformation in [the] business”.  Pivotal role of finance leaders The top priorities for CFOs set out in a 2024 Executive Priorities Survey by management consultancy Gartner included: transformation; improving finance metrics; leading change management; and  improving the finance function.  As accountants and finance leaders, we have the skillset to deliver on these priorities. More than that, there is an expectation that we play a central role in leading digital transformation and driving high standards in systems and reporting. Before its migration, CCS had a mainly paper-based solution, requiring team members to enter the same data multiple times while also relying heavily on Microsoft Excel for data manipulation and reporting. It was identified that the move to the cloud would help reduce manual labour by integrating with other solutions. Ultimately, integration improved the accuracy of the company’s data, thereby facilitating greater collaboration between departments. Integrating previously isolated data sources and reducing data entry time provided deeper insight to company management, improving the speed and quality of decision-making. Flannery emphasised the importance of treating system selection and partner selection as two distinct processes.  Although the first partner you speak with may have the solution that meets your needs, it is still worth talking to additional partners.  The partner you choose will become a key player in your implementation journey and, as Flannery put it during his presentation, “becomes an additional employee”.   Like a disruptive employee, a disruptive implementation partner can cause damage that no amount of planning or preparation can help you recover from. Finally, after ‘go live’, Brian stressed the importance of taking time to conduct a review: has the project been a success, and have your goals been met? It is quite often the case that system implementations go live even though parts of the team using it still have unmet requirements.  Review and improve It is important to track additional requirement gaps that arise during the implementation and address them after the new system has gone live as ‘phase two’ of the project.  Scope creep is a looming risk for every digital project; focusing on the key deliverables and timelines is paramount.  The additional scope should be noted and readdressed after the go-live date, if not business critical, because you are never truly finished with digital transformation. So, where is CCS? The company has a fully integrated solution using modern Application Programming Interface (API) integrations. It relies heavily on Optical Character Recognition to automate the accounts payable and data entry processes.  In addition to a Business Central solution, CCS has implemented a full BI reporting solution, sitting on top of the ERP solution and assisting with the preparation of management accounts.  This has taken one day off the month-end close process – an additional day for finance staff to focus on other value-added tasks. Focus on people After reviewing the project, Flannery noted some key takeaways he would keep in mind for any future transformation projects.  The key point to note here is that all these takeaways are people-focused – not technical-focused. For a transformation to be successful, it will be entirely dependent on people.  These systems work. There are thousands of references and case studies worldwide attesting to this, but whether your solution works for you depends entirely on how you approach soft skills and the implementation process itself. The four key points to remember are: Do not under-resource; Communicate clearly and thoroughly; Remember, change does not equal transformation; and Celebrate the wins. To finish, Flannery shared a quote from Albert Einstein: “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence.” Reluctance to embrace technology and change will be the number one occupational hazard facing accountants over the next decade, but it will be people and relationships that drive the successful implementation of new technology.  Future leaders may not intimately understand this technology, but they do understand the importance of embracing a change mindset and working with their colleagues and partners to achieve it.    Conor Flanagan is ERP Lead with Storm Technology and a member of the Technology Committee of Chartered Accountants Ireland

Cormac Lucey outlines his suggestions for an election manifesto that, he believes, would protect and sustain the Irish economy into the future  This June, voters in the Republic will go to the polls to vote in local and European elections. What would represent a sensible pro-business agenda to promote in these elections? Here are my ideas: 1. Tackling skewed public debate While media debate understandably focuses on public questions that often revolve around public spending, the simple fact of the matter is that far more people work in the private sector than in the public sector.  CSO data indicates that, at the end of 2023, just 20 percent of employees worked in the public sector. Given that the private sector generates our income and our wealth, why are its concerns so overlooked in public debate?  2. Cutting down on public spending High public spending, even through the exchequer, is heavily dependent on tax revenues from the multinational sector. My estimates suggest that in 2022, just over half of Ireland’s total tax take came directly (corporation tax) and indirectly (PAYE, VAT, etc.) from the foreign direct investment (FDI) sector.  Even though some of these FDI tax revenue streams may prove temporary, the Irish State has entered ongoing spending commitments based on the assumption that they will continue indefinitely.  3. Promoting indigenous business Economic and commercial policy should be primarily directed at promoting the indigenous sector. Our current national prosperity depends on revenue streams from FDI that are ultimately controlled by people outside the State. We should use those streams to invest in our future and build up our economic capacity.  4. Holding public officials to account The primary job of elected political officials is to hold unelected public officials to account. The recent RTÉ saga has, at its heart, been a story about the failure of those who were supposedly directing the organisation to adequately hold executive management to account. Was the lack of managerial accountability at RTÉ an exception or the rule? I fear it was the rule. 5. Improving State performance Why is State performance so lamentably weak across so many important areas? When we examine the public management of key national issues – such as housing, health, crime and immigration – our leaders demonstrate powerlessness and ineffectiveness.  Confronted by a complex web of constraints – managerial, legal, administrative and economic – public service leaders have repeatedly displayed a worrying incapacity. 6. Reducing public sector pay Why are Irish public servants paid so much? In the fourth quarter of 2023, public sector workers were paid, on average, €35.08 per hour. This was 32.6 percent more per hour than the €26.45 their private sector counterparts received.  These figures are before we take into account the gold-plated pensions public sector workers get. 7. Curbing inflated costs Ireland was named the most expensive country in the EU for goods and services by Eurostat in June 2023, with prices a staggering 46 percent higher than the average across the bloc. How can the State address the high costs of the Irish economy if it is the direct cause of high costs? The focus of Irish politics needs to change. It seems to me that our political class is looking in the wrong direction. Rather than investing in the future, it is focused on short-term results. A new approach is needed. *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the April/May 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland