Will AI Replace Enterprise Performance Management? | David den Boer
In this episode of FP&A Unlocked, host Paul Barnhurst sits down with David Den Boer to debate the future of enterprise performance management, Excel, and AI. They explore whether traditional EPM platforms are being disrupted, how AI could reshape forecasting and finance workflows, and why governance, transparency, and accountability still matter.
David Den Boer is the CEO and Founder of Column5 Consulting and Darwin Analytics. He began his career as an EPM administrator at a Fortune 500 company and later worked with OutlookSoft, which was acquired by SAP and became part of SAP BPC. With more than 20 years of experience in EPM, David works with large enterprises on performance management and develops practical solutions designed to help organizations get more value from their EPM environments.
Expect to Learn:
Why Excel and EPM platforms may be harder to replace than expected.
How AI is changing the build-versus-buy decision for finance technology.
Where AI can support forecasting without removing human accountability.
Why reproducibility, auditability, and governance still matter.
How finance teams should balance AI innovation with existing EPM systems.
Here are a few relevant quotes from the episode:
“There’s really no benefit to avoiding Excel.” - David Den Boer
“Everyone has to have an AI strategy as far out as they can see, which might be six months.” - David Den Boer
David explains that AI can significantly reduce the cost of building and extending finance solutions, but large organizations still need deterministic calculations, multi-user workflows, auditability, and clear accountability.
Follow David:
Website: https://column5.com/
Disclosure: Portions of this episode (such as the introduction or promotional segments) use AI-generated voice narration produced under human editorial review.
Explore Lineos Reporting Intelligence:
Ready to transform financial reporting? See how Lineos Reporting Intelligence helps finance teams connect ERP data directly to Excel, access current data, and spend less time assembling reports.
Watch the Reporting Intelligence demo:
https://www.insightsoftware.com/lineos/resources/Reporting-intelligence-demo/?utm_source=thefpaguy&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=lineos-influencer-oct&utm_content=newsletter1
Earn Your CPE Credit
For CPE credit, please go to earmarkcpe.com, listen to the episode, download the app, answer a few questions, and earn your CPE certification. To earn education credits for the FPAC Certificate, take the quiz on earmark and contact Paul Barnhurst for further details.
In Today's Episode:
[00:00] - Trailer
[03:46] - What Great FP&A Looks Like
[04:08] - Is Excel Dead?
[06:50] - Is EPM Dead?
[14:18] - Build vs. Buy
[18:40] - AI-Led Forecasting
[26:22] - Reproducibility & Auditability
[31:33] - The Cost of Change
[39:06] - AI & EPM Together
[45:24] - Skills & Closing Thoughts
Full Show Transcript:
Guest: David Den Boer (00:00):
I think that with AI, the cost to build in the past, you would buy any software package because the cost to build was prohibitive. You would rather just buy something off the shelf that just works for a specific purpose. It's supported and you can involve the vendor in configuration and building out new features and all of that. And you knew that by partnering with the right vendor, you were going on this journey and they were going to be investing in their tool. With AI, the bar, the cost of that is lowered to nearly zero and you can build your own.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (00:32):
Welcome to another episode of FP&A Unlocked, where finance meets strategy. I'm your host, Paul Barnhurst, AKA the FP&A guy. And each week we bring you thought leaders, industry experts, and practitioners who are reshaping the way we think about FP&A. Today, I have with me David Dan Boer. David, welcome to the show.
Guest: David Den Boer (00:55):
Hi Paul. Thanks for having me.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (00:57):
Excited to have you. So just so everybody knows in this episode, David's been dealing with some voice challenges. So if his voice sounds a little soft or a little scratchy, go with it. We think the conversation will be worth it. So we're going to record anyway, but just so everybody's aware upfront and you're not wondering what's going on. So David, let's start with, how about you give us a little bit of your background, tell our audience about yourself, and then I'll set up the topic we're going to cover today.
Guest: David Den Boer (01:24):
Sure. Long time ago, I started out as an EPM administrator at a Fortune 500 company working with a tool that has been bought and sold numerous times now. And I started out working with a software vendor with a company called OutlookSoft, which was acquired by SAP to form BPC, one of the leading EPM tools for large enterprise. BPC has come to the end of its life. And over 20 years ago I started a consulting practise called Column five. And I also have a software business called Darwin Analytics. The services side implements EPM primarily for large enterprises. We have a global customer base. And on the software side, we build practical solutions that help customers get more value much more easily out of EPM.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (02:23):
All right, perfect. Well, I appreciate that intro. So our audience knows we're going to do a little different today. We're going to discuss enterprise performance management. David's going to kind of take the position of the traditional players in the space, what's historically been out there, that that's what we need, that's where we're going. I'm going to argue a little bit toward the AI side and why do we need these tools anymore as we see AI continuing to grow? And what we're hoping is you listen to us take each position, you'll be able to form your own opinions of where we're going. We're not saying one opinion's right or wrong, but we're going to take these two sides and have a little fun in this debate. And the right answer is everything I say, just so people know. I'm just kidding. But with that, before we get into the EPM discussion, I like to ask every guest this question.
(03:14):
So it's kind of my go-to. What does great FP&A look like?
Guest: David Den Boer (03:18):
I think great FP&A gives you transparency between the narrative and the details. I feel like some users produce a narrative and it doesn't necessarily tie directly to the details. I like to see a seamless cascade from the story down into the numbers as low as you want to go with everything corroborating that narrative that you've produced.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (03:43):
So narrative with the details so you can understand the full buildup.
Guest: David Den Boer (03:48):
That's right. And especially if you're looking at predictions or the future, EPM focuses, there's a lot of consolidation of course, which has to be 100% accurate. We also talk about the future plans. Where did you get these assumptions from? What is the thinking behind it? And that has to corroborate as well.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (04:08):
Got it. All right, that's helpful. And I can see where the EPM background comes in because EPM often the detail has to match the top line number.
Guest: David Den Boer (04:20):
Right. At least be directionally accurate and you have to show your work behind the story.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (04:26):
Yeah. Alrighty. So let's jump into this EPM conversation. So we've been hearing a lot of FP&A software, SaaS software, EPM software, Excel. They're all dead.
Guest: David Den Boer (04:42):
Yeah. I think their death is a bit premature. Yeah.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (04:47):
All right. So I'm going to ask, share some of your thoughts there. Why do you think we hear that? Why are they not dead? Why is that a premature statement? Are they dying? Give your take here.
Guest: David Den Boer (04:59):
Take
Host: Paul Barnhurst (04:59):
Your position.
Guest: David Den Boer (05:01):
I've heard Excel is dead really for over 20 years now. I think that this tool's the next Excel or Excel on the web and yet Excel persists as the common language. I think that's really the need is to have this common portable format that everyone can understand. It's kind of like this universal language where one analyst, maybe from a partner, a bank, a customer produces an output in some format, hands it off to another group and they can look at it and see exactly how they got to the numbers, how it works, where the calculations are. And even inside a company, it's that same universal acceptance of the same model that makes the most sense. I don't see anything else coming close to challenging that. And when I look at, from my perspective, which might be a bit unique when we're implementing a tool, so many of these tools have kind of a proprietary syntax or interface.
(06:08):
If you've been around a long time, you have to ask yourself, is it worth learning this unique interface or should I just do enough to get it into Excel and then I can work in my familiar environment? And I think that the greater the Excel compatibility, the lower the bar gets for more people to participate as developers, the more esoteric and specialised and rare the skillset is, it just alienates users, cuts down on portability. And I don't see it as adding rival functionality. I've yet to see a tool that has a larger function library than Excel. There's really no benefit to avoiding Excel. It continues to grow. And if that's the main output format, then that's pretty strong. Obviously there's BI tools that have a different purpose that are also strong and Power BI is becoming ubiquitous there somewhat for the same reasons as Excel.
(07:14):
So those tools are really the toolkit of your average FP&A worker these days.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (07:22):
Okay. So get the argument on Excel. What about the argument that FP&A EPM software is dead? What's your position on that?
Guest: David Den Boer (07:30):
I think that with AI, the cost to build in the past, you would buy any software package because the cost to build was prohibitive. You would rather just buy something off the shelf that just works for a specific purpose. It's supported and you can involve the vendor in configuration and building out new features and all of that. And you knew that by partnering with the right vendor, you were going on this journey and they were going to be investing in their tool. With AI, the bar, the cost of that is lowered to nearly zero and you can build your own. You can add your own features. You can do all these great things that are really specially tuned to your industry, to your models, to your culture even, and have that be exactly what you need. So it's very attractive to say maybe building my own is something that is better than buying off the shelf.
(08:34):
We don't have to make as many compromises, but on the other hand, you don't get support and all that. So I think that some companies are concluding that building a custom solution where it might have been prohibitive before, they're not a software shop, that's not their expertise. They don't have a huge group of developers sitting around that would've made them lean towards buying a product. Now they might be concluding, we'll just make our own. So I would say that's why they would say it's dead. I know that Microsoft CEO said a couple of years ago that SaaS is dead. Add that to the pile of quotes that we've seen, but I'm not so sure. I definitely think there's a place for it.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (09:20):
I'm going to take the different argument here. Let's break down Excel first, then I'll get to the FP&A software. The spreadsheet is not dead. I think Excel is dying. And here's the argument. I mean, we make the spreadsheet ubiquitous with Excel, but it's a 40-year-old architecture. It has limitations. I think we're going to see Claude or ChatGPT or whoever the big anthropic, these big model winners are release their own spreadsheet. They have all the training data. They can copy every formula. Nothing in the syntax of that formula is proprietary where somebody can't just create that. We see it all the time in other tools. They can create a better IDE. They can add HTML dashboards, better connectors because they can build it all native versus having to go to a separate application like Power Query. So I think it's just a matter of time, especially when you get more used to it, it's all right in that Claude desktop and the Claude code.
(10:25):
How about a third button that's spreadsheet and all your connectors come in and it can allow you to do things switching back and forth easier. So I don't think the spreadsheet goes away. I think it's a fabulous use case, but I could easily see one of these AI tools. And I wouldn't say easy, it would take time, but I could see them displacing the current version of Excel we have today.
Guest: David Den Boer (10:46):
Well, I think there's going to have to be a lot of work done on trust and transparency, being able to trace precedents and things like that where you really trust exactly what's happening with the familiar Excel environment, even though it can be challenging, is that level of familiarity and just swapping it out for anything new is going to meet some resistance.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (11:12):
And I'm not denying that, but I think there's definitely a case to be made where we could see it being replaced. When it comes to EPM software, where the future's going in my mind is, again, as long as we can have a governed data layer, we can have that context, that schema, we can start to build within tools. There's more and more tools coming out with saying, "Hey, we're going to manage your vibe coding." I have a friend who built an application that's designed for finance people to help with the governed and the compliance and the security and the OAuth, all well vibe coding. So kind of checks for all those things and helps make sure in that environment you're building something. So the EPMs are limited in this new world, I think many of them, and we're seeing them try to adjust that. They're all racing to change saying, "Hey, we're the decision layer.
(12:00):
We're the intelligence layer. We have all that finance context." The problem is the typical EPM doesn't have the operational context. So I think you're going to see a governed layer and more and more AI and some vibe coding. And I think EPM as it sits today is in trouble. Now, could it adjust? Sure. Will it change? Yes. Are we seeing, I think, a growth in things like fabric planning because they are BI tool with that semantic layer, kind of the warehouse, that whole thing that all the context is there to be the decision layer and they're giving you planning on top. I think that grows along with the AI and the vibe coding. And I think the traditional EPMs, if they don't adjust, are in trouble.
Guest: David Den Boer (12:45):
I have to agree with that. I do think that there is also a system of accountability where as you're making a plan, you're kind of establishing a contract. Often compensation is tied to it and all these variables that are being controlled, like these are the assumptions as of the time that you're committing to deliver whatever KPIs you own as part of your role, that has to be sort of frozen in time so that I can go back and look at what those assumptions are to be able to assign who is not necessarily delivering. I'm not saying these other tools can't do it, but as of now, if you view the EPM function as primarily uploading data or just getting data into the database rather than managing those contracts for performance with management and assigning accountability, I think there's a lot more rigour that needs to be added to the data wrangling that some of these data platforms like Fabric and even others are making progress.
(13:58):
Snowflake is moving in that direction. Databricks as well. All of them are blurring the lines for sure, but there's more to it than that. I think EPM platforms have to do more to own the accountability part of it and not rest on their laurels of being kind of the broadly accepted way of uploading data for plans. So whoever can expand and own that area better, and I agree, operational data as well is something that has not traditionally been a strength of EPM. And I know that some of the products are expanding in that area, supply chain, SNOP, other things that they're doing. Whoever can get that one-stop shop where you can get a full view of what's driving the enterprise will be very appealing to the market.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (14:50):
Today's sponsor is Lineos. Most finance teams I've talked to have built something impressive in Excel. Real models with years of institutional knowledge sitting in the formulas. Then the data underneath goes stale the moment someone posts a journal entry and somebody spends a morning rebuilding it. Lineos provides reporting intelligence by connecting your ERP data directly to Excel. Reports refresh with current data, your formulas stay exactly as you built them, and you can trace any number back to the transaction behind it. Everyone works from one version of the numbers, including whoever is building the board deck. Your team moves from assembling reports to analysing them when you leave it to Lineos. Learn more at www.insightsoftware.com/lineos/solutions/reporting-intelligence. That's www.insightsoftware.com/lineos/solutions/reporting-intelligence. And my argument here on that is, so I get it, it'd be great for the EPMs to do that, but these are all bespoke tools. You got to implement them.
(16:11):
If they're already bespoke tools and we can build so cheaply with software now, why not just build a custom solution internally? You got great Excel, you got BI, you got data warehouses. You can get that governance and security. Why the additional cost and why a dedicated tool? With AI and with where we're heading, I think it becomes much easier for companies to say, "It's bespoke. It takes months anyway. I'd rather just put it cost me 100, 200,000. Why don't I just put that toward developer, write my own requirements and build something internally that I own that's customised to my needs?"
Guest: David Den Boer (16:47):
Well, I definitely think that it's possible to vibe code anything as you know, but I do have a considerable respect for the rigour in the system. The way that auditability is handled, I think there's something about deterministic engines that are not just logic, but it's also the mapping and the workflow and other things. You can't just vibe your way through a planning process that has up to a thousand users collaborating, working together. Some of our customers have that many in different countries with currencies and different gap rules. There's a lot of sophistication there. I'm not saying AI couldn't do it, but when you have transparency questions about how AI gets there and a little bit of hallucination, making a lot of inference-based assumptions along the way rather than working on static plumbing that has been established, I think I have way more confidence in the EPM tool getting to a more precise result that I can rely on than the vibe coded.
(17:59):
And to answer your question about the implementation costs, yes, that is a problem. It's not only the cost for the initial implementation, but it's the cost of ownership and expansion and even switching. It tends to lock customers in that they don't appreciate, but huge strides have been made adding AI as a configuring agent that configures these robust platforms that give you the precision, the reliability, the transparency that the EPM tools are known for, but they give you that AI agility on the initial configuration, but on the ownership and extension and perhaps switching if you want to... My own market that I know very well, BPC is kind of end of life right now, and a lot of my customers are switching by being able to apply AI to that. We can lower costs and build that independence so that you can configure something cheaply initially and then adjust it very efficiently over time.
(19:07):
So AI is influencing every step of that process.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (19:11):
I think we're both on the same page that there's no question AI is going to change things. It's a question of how much does it disrupt the market? And so we'll let our audience decide what they think, but I want to keep going on some other themes around this. We're starting to see more and more... Previously we saw some people doing statistical modelling, machine learning modelling. Now we see, "Hey, I can give inputs to AI and it can really quickly build a mop." And even before all this, I still remember going to an AFP conference where Microsoft was sharing. They had done a bunch of statistical modelling on their revenue. I think they were using it for real estate. It was more accurate than the human. So why do we continue to need the human to forecast it? Can't we just go to a default where AI does all the forecasting, maybe human reviews it versus it being human led?
(20:05):
What would your argument be to that?
Guest: David Den Boer (20:07):
Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that there's no place for AI. I think the most prudent place for AI right now, and I'll go back to that accountability, as long as we have human managers, and unless you're arguing that we don't need people in companies, as long as we have people owning the data and the responsibility to drive these numbers and being held accountable, they have to own the numbers. If you have a black box generating what your targets are and it's landing in your lap, hey, this is what you have to deliver, Paul, you're not going to feel that ownership. If that number came from you where you said proactively, I can deliver this number, now you're on the hook. And that accountability is at risk of being lost if we go completely AI. Now, where I would put AI is to challenge those human numbers because part of...
(21:05):
I think when you say people are involved and it's more accurate, there's two sides to that coin. You have some people that are not incompetent, but these are complex workbooks and concepts and they make an oversight, something doesn't get updated, there's just an error. There's a darker side. The darker side is the motivation. You have the ownership, you have people that sandbag forecasts. They could deliver a higher number if they stretched, but they try to obscure what they can do, set expectations low, over deliver so that they get a higher bonus or have some other motivation. And I expect AI to uncover some of those things to work saying, "Hey, you're only putting in two thirds of what I think you can do." That'll flag to leadership where to press for better performance. It will help that partnership between AI and human motivation elevate the company's performance.
(22:04):
That would be a more positive use case, I think.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (22:07):
So I'll take the devil's advocate position here. A lot of studies have shown 50% of people, sometimes even more, are unhappy with their jobs, 20% do 80% of the work. We've all seen the million dollar Excel errors. Every budget and forecast has a mistake in any company of real size. So why is it not AI creates it all, you give it the inputs, you still need that human. They review it at the end, but you really remove the human doing probably 80% of the work. I don't think we're quite autonomous. I'm not going to say, "Hey, it should be 100%." I see no reason AI can't lead it with having what you call the human in the loop and us moving much more toward an AI. There are some exceptions. I'm not ready to say the robot overlord should run the whole company. I'd love to take that position, but I don't think I could argue.
(23:02):
I'd be laughing. But I'm trying to go as close as I can, and I think that's where we can go, especially in stable, mature companies where there's not a lot of change.
Guest: David Den Boer (23:17):
Well, when you have a million dollar error on a spreadsheet today, you know who to hold accountable for. Who do you hold accountable when AI hallucinates?
Host: Paul Barnhurst (23:29):
I think you still have to own... The finance department still has to be accountable.
Guest: David Den Boer (23:33):
So what kind of control and transparency do they need to accept that accountability? It's not zero, but they might need their own. No, it's not
Host: Paul Barnhurst (23:42):
Zero. I would agree with that.
Guest: David Den Boer (23:43):
They might need their own AI. I
Host: Paul Barnhurst (23:44):
Couldn't argue that one.
Guest: David Den Boer (23:45):
Yeah. They might need their own AI that they trust to double check the numbers on their side. It comes down to that transparency and
Host: Paul Barnhurst (23:54):
Accountability. Correct. I would recommend that every model that's built, you're going to have some kind of adversarial agent that goes through and argues against everything that's been built, and somebody's going to need to review that, but I still think you can have AI lead the process in the sense of doing the forecast, doing the first round, giving you everything. There still needs to be a human in the loop. I'm not ready to say we see a lot of companies claiming, "Hey, it's autonomous. You don't need anyone involved in a lot of things right now. We've all heard the autonomous finance." I'm not to that point yet. I'm not ready to make that argument for sure.
Guest: David Den Boer (24:31):
I do think you want agility, but what is your risk tolerance for that level of agility? Because look at the headlines from this week alone and next week, spoiler alert, AI is going to be doing some crazy things with a high degree of autonomy, whether it's hacking a rival AI company or it's making huge errors. We're going to continue to see that. So that human in the loop, that adversarial agent, I think for some of the things we're building, building an LLM council that constantly is debating and fact checking and looking for errors and checking for risk, that's prudent. And I think you can add that to an EPM solution and get the combination of the ownership, the transparency, the boost from AI for agility with the fact checking, get that AI hallucination as low as possible, get the human approvals as high as possible, and move with agility.
(25:40):
I think it's a combination.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (25:42):
Yeah. I was just thinking we should have agreed to run the transcript for each of our different phases of our argument through three different LLMs and let him grade and see who the winner is. Might have to do that on the back end just for fun.
Guest: David Den Boer (25:55):
Okay. Do I get to pick which one?
Host: Paul Barnhurst (25:58):
You can pick the LLMs. I'll run the
Guest: David Den Boer (25:59):
Transcript. All right. I want to provide my own prompt, if that's all right.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (26:04):
Oh, I'm
Guest: David Den Boer (26:05):
Not sure
Host: Paul Barnhurst (26:05):
I'm ready. You get to do the prompt.
Guest: David Den Boer (26:07):
Look, when you're talking about planning, there's gamesmanship. Do you think that AI will ring out gamesmanship? I don't think so. I think there's - I
Host: Paul Barnhurst (26:16):
Was planning on gaming it with my prompt. What are you kidding?
Guest: David Den Boer (26:18):
Well, exactly.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (26:21):
All right. So let's talk, I think some of the other areas that we're seeing a lot about. So we've obviously covered AI versus human, everything is dead arguments. Let's talk reproducibility. This is a big thing we hear. We hear the audit trail, all these discussions around it, and it's one of the biggest arguments you hear for the traditional players. Hey, there's governance and there's auditability and traceability. So what's your position there? Talk to that.
Guest: David Den Boer (26:53):
I think it comes down to this deterministic versus probabilistic. If you rely 100% on inference, then you have a problem. You can have two users asking the same prompt, getting different answers because it's opaque what the assumptions are on either side. You have to control it, and I think you have to not leave to inference things that are known. So whether it's a formula, that's the most obvious example, where A times B equals C, you don't ask AI, "Hey, what happens if I change B?" Well, if you can run through a calculation engine, you should do that. That's reproducible. But then you get into other areas where deterministic concepts also apply mapping of dimension members, workflow, validation, certain things that need to be done that can be rules-based and reproducible precisely every time. I think what you have to have is removing as much of that from the inference engine and doing it in a very deterministic way for that reproducibility and precision.
(28:11):
And I think that over time you're going to see AI generating that deterministic rule on the fly and it'll make the decision that you've asked me five questions and four of them are the same. I'm just going to create a rule. I'm going to run that rule for reproducible and transparent execution of that same question. In the fifth case, it's softer. I don't have all the data that I need. I'm going to run it through the inference engine. I'm going to tell you that, and I'm going to tell you that I used AI to generate this one, so it might not be exactly correct.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (28:54):
Yeah. I think on this reproducibility, I 100% agree with you that AI is going to write deterministic. We're seeing it today. I'll share an example. I did some training this morning with a company in Germany and shared an example of I asked Claude to help me build something and it went through and said, "Hey, for this, I'm going to build Python script." That's basically a deterministic rule. It's running the exact same thing every time. It said, "That's how I should do it." It created its skills file, but both reference files that it asked to use were scripts and they were Python scripts. And so I think we're already starting to see that. So I think the reproducibility, the audit trail, all this argument that it can't be transparent quickly going away, I think the key is if you want to have AI that's reproducible, that's transparent, the logs, you need to build that into how you build your agents.
(29:52):
And more importantly... Well, I'd say there's three things. You need to build that into how you build your agents. You need to build in deterministic to And you need a good data and schema layer. If you do those three things, I think you can get the reproducibility out of AI and you can get it close enough that the cost savings and everything are probably worth not having to have maybe all the tools you have today. Time will tell.
Guest: David Den Boer (30:20):
Sure. You can reduce the tools, but when you get into multi-user, how do I know that your Python script is going to be called by some user in Australia when they need the same answer? I need that schema is going to have to know where to find that script. And I think that's where the EPM tools have a strength. They're designed for multi-user and it's regardless of how many users you have or where they're located or what the assumptions, the same script's going to run in a very consistent way. I think unless you have your AI, it's going to work great for one person, but when you have it set up for multi-user, you're going to have to have more sophistication than is averagely available today.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (31:08):
I mean, you could have org level skills and that could be a challenge, but I think we'll get there. I think it's where
Guest: David Den Boer (31:14):
We're heading. You get engagedly close to building your own platform then, and it needs a lot of thought to get that level of accuracy. And I think the EPM tools deliver it today.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (31:26):
But I like building.
Guest: David Den Boer (31:30):
That's you. I think some customers would prefer for it to just work. But yeah, that's
Host: Paul Barnhurst (31:37):
Building. I can't even argue with that one. I'll give you that one. Score one for David there. So the reproducibility is an interesting one. All right. So couple other areas and then
(31:51):
We're going to wrap this up with some thoughts in general. So next position we're going to argue about here is this whole idea of cost of change, moving fast versus slow is... My position here is companies can't afford not to be moving fast in this environment. They're going to get left behind. EPMs are a lot of big companies that often move slow. So I think the more and more you adopt AI, the better off you're going to be to prepare yourself for the future. And sure, there might be a little bit of pain along the way, but there always is with adoption. That's just life. So what's your argument to that? Today's episode is brought to you by our sponsor, Lyneos. Lineos brings live ERP data directly into Excel, allowing your team to build reports with fresh data. No stell files in sight. More on that in a few minutes.
Guest: David Den Boer (32:51):
Well, I'm not going to argue for pain. I agree. I think there's more to it when you talk about large enterprise and I don't want to alienate any of my partners, but I think that companies that have traditionally relied on a high cost of change as a moat to lock people in to a particular stack are going to be most under attack. Customers have never appreciated that, never felt that being held hostage was to their advantage. And the more that companies have policies that penalise companies for experimenting on the outside and moving data that they should own outside of that stack to experiment, I think they're going to get backlash. I think that's already started to happen. I've seen AI definitely play a role with MCPs and other connections that allow for flexibility. But here again, the openness plus AI inevitably will lower those switching costs and will enable what I would call innovation agility, which is a new skill that companies need to embrace via AI.
(34:16):
In the old days, it would take six months or a year, sometimes longer to implement EPM and forget EPM. It's just, let's say implemented change in your finance process and you'd have this long process to implement it. I would argue that there's a long tail effect where because it's change, all the people with their manual process had years to adapt and get to the level of proficiency from wherever they came from, whether it's Excel or a different version of a EPM tool. Three year adoption and proficiency cycle is intolerable now. They need to have the ability to change much faster and get to a level of proficiency within months or even faster. I think that companies that in the past would measure value based on operational agility, how automated am I, how many manual hours are needed to execute a process are going to shift and look at innovation agility where they say, "I want to experiment with a new AI that maybe I built.
(35:35):
I want to replace part of the process with something and see if I can't speed up a painful aspect of our process that handles it with more autonomy, more agility and moves faster." I think once you understand that, there's no argument for standing still and staying on the sideline. I think what gets in the way is the people. You said 20% to 80% of the work. I don't know that organisations are ready to start calling the 80% of the people that are delivering only 20% of the work and relying heavily on AI, but inevitably that's coming.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (36:19):
So I say to that 80%, I just keep pushing AI, force them along. I mean, change is about technology and the reality is the cost to do nothing is too great. Everybody hated the lock-in. Everybody hated when you felt you had your strong arm by the vendor. I worked for a company where we had a, I won't name the tool, but insert big finance tool here, mitigation strategy. The goal was to get ourselves completely off their tool. We didn't quite accomplish it, but it was because of the way they worked in this case. And so just deal with a little bit of the challenges and the pain and start adopting more and more in as much AI as you can. Make sure you have that good data layer, you have a good context layer and start automating. So that's what I'll say there on the change.
(37:14):
I think in the long run it will pay for yourself, but I'd be naive to say there won't be bumps in the road. There's going to be bumps in the road if you go slow. So why not just break a few eggs along the way and get there?
Guest: David Den Boer (37:25):
That's kind of like up to each organisation what their risk tolerance is. I don't think the answer is make no change, but the pace of change has to be in alignment with their culture. But change is inevitable. AI is inevitable. And moving in that direction, relying on highly governed AI, highly embedded and maybe a familiar EPM tool that provides the audit and all that, that's right for some personalities of an organisation. And the Wild West with vibe coding is maybe more acceptable in other organisations.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (38:07):
We all romanticise the Wild West, so why not just continue?
Guest: David Den Boer (38:10):
I can think of a lot of million dollar spreadsheet errors that are the downside of that Wild West.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (38:16):
All right. So we've both taken a different position here. And so we're going to kind of wrap this up by talking about a little more of what I say, a little more nuance. I've been very much AI, AI, AI. David's probably meant a little more nuanced in his arguments here than I have. So where does the crossover sit? Let's just talk for a minute, ignore the positions we've take. I'd love to get your take. I'll share mine and we'll wrap up here. From your view, how should they be thinking about AI EPM software? How do you think that sweet spot comes together?
Guest: David Den Boer (38:50):
Well, I think that there have always been something that bothered me about EPM is when you lay out an ideal, say on the services side, here's the ideal project with finance transformation and implementing the tool with maximum automation, training, support, all this. You present that to the customer and the customer gets out their red pen and says, "Okay, let's take this out. Let's take that out. Let's cut these corners." And inevitably that would reduce the value that they would get. I think at a minimum, AI allows us to not cut corners and implement things the way they always should have been. And I think that if you accept that, you would say that EPM by itself in its current state is not something to be protected and unquestioned that I want to replicate what I'm doing today in AI and replace it. I think that there's a much higher level of proficiency that is available now because of AI, even within EPM tools.
(40:02):
You mentioned statistical modelling and you talk about the depth of modelling. Most companies don't do that. Most companies are just doing basic financial statement production even now, even with EPM tools that are capable of a lot more sophistication. So let's use AI to expand the value with the tools that you have as a starting point before we start talking about switching. Switching to AI to me is often replicating the status quo. The status quo is a product of corners that have been cut and opportunities that have been missed. So I think you got to look at what is truly possible, where to apply AI to get to a higher value state, more agility. I mentioned operational and innovation agility, and then decide how am I going to get there best? Is it by more fully exploiting the tools I already own or could easily acquire?
(41:08):
Or is it something I need to build or do I add something to the layer on the outside maybe with a MCP working to configure and connect and orchestrate multiple components? And I think that's what each organisation needs to understand.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (41:26):
Great points. And as I think about this, obviously I've argued all AI. I think the EPMs are adjusting. I think we're going through a changing time. I think that data layer becomes more and more important. I think small businesses, in all honesty, they'll be able to push out when they need a tool longer and longer with AI, with Excel agents, with ERPs that are much better at consolidation with these newer ERPs and accounting tools that are coming out. I think it gives you more of a runway before you need one. Really large companies, the calculation, the context, the governability I think is still needed, but the tools are going to have to figure out how to be more operational. It's why we're seeing things like fabric planning, K4 analytics, a lot of BI tools that sit in the warehouse. I'm seeing more and more tools designed to be that governance layer.
(42:12):
And we're seeing things get combined and if the tools don't adjust, they're going to die. I know one tool we just interviewed, a company comes out on future finance will actually be out before this one. So if you want to listen to it, go listen to the CEO of Farsir where their goal is, "Hey, we want our customers to be able to build their own software within our tool." And it's an EPM. Basically saying, "We're going to open it up to JavaScript. We're opening it up to SQL and the technical people, you go build what you want. We're going to give you the modular capability to have people have built ESG solutions and other things." And I think we'll see more and more of that. So I think it's a blend and that context and schema is going to be more important than ever. So I think we're in a similar spot.
(42:57):
I don't think either of us honestly think it's all AI or that the EPMs are dead. If the EPMs don't adjust, they will die. I think we could both agree on that. I think we both agree AI is not going anywhere. And I think the final thing that's critical to all this, the technology's moving much faster than the people. You go to LinkedIn and you get this idea that everybody's automating everything and that's just BS. That's a bunch of marketing hype. I do training and the reality is a lot of people, oh, you could do that with AI. Oh, I should be doing more than prompting. Agents, skills, most people are here at the beginner level. The marketing's over here almost beyond what the tool could do and it takes time to move. The prime example I give, Excel's the default spreadsheet in the world, has been for 30 plus years now.
(43:54):
And yet Power Core has been out for 15 years and maybe 10% of people use it. Fabulous tool. The adoption rate's been horrible. Yes, AI is quicker, but this idea that I've seen people, we're going to fire 50% of all people and everybody's going to be autonomous AI in 18 months, nothing moves that fast. Are you kidding me? These are big, huge organisations. So I think we can both agree there's time, but don't just sleep on AI and think, I don't need to change my tech stack.
Guest: David Den Boer (44:26):
I agree with a lot of that. I do think you're touching on something about ripping and replacing and are you better served by a monolithic tool or approach or are you better served by phasing in, starting out hybrid, phasing it in and kind of orchestrating or connecting these various components? I think that's what's more likely to happen. And over time, AI will continue to expand and the tools will get better obviously. So I think everyone has to have an AI strategy as far out as they can see, which might be six months and things are changing very quickly.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (45:08):
No question. I think everybody has an AI strategy. I think AI adoption should be owned by the CFO. I agree with Glenn Hopper. His new book comes out arguing that. We won't get into that today, but another episode we just did. And so I think that's a fascinating subject. But as we wrap up here, we just have a few minutes left. I ask every guest these questions, so just looking for some short answers, kind of one, two sentences why. What do you think is the most important technical skill an FP&A professional needs?
Guest: David Den Boer (45:36):
I think they have to understand the data. Something about almost like SQL skills, but understand where data comes from and how to manipulate
Host: Paul Barnhurst (45:46):
It. A foundation of data, how it works, what good data normalisation is. Do you have to be an expert in SQL? No. Do I think it's helpful to learn? I think everyboy should understand the basics. I do. So if I had to give an answer, that's where I'm at now. It's data. I would agree with you. My data background's been incredibly helpful. I usually don't give my opinion, but I figure I'll agree with you on one here. All right.
Guest: David Den Boer (46:07):
Take it.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (46:08):
What is the most important soft skill?
Guest: David Den Boer (46:11):
Well, I have to agree with you on this one. I think you hit this often, is storytelling where you have to create a narrative out of the numbers. You can't start out by reading every line of a report. You have to make it say something and have a point and call out what is this data telling me to do? What action is this telling us to take?
Host: Paul Barnhurst (46:33):
Storytelling is always an important one. It's definitely near the top of my list. All right. This one I thought I'd asked you since we have an EPM specialist here, what's the number one thing an FPNA professional should do in order to have a successful implementation?
Guest: David Den Boer (46:49):
I think they should gather a wide variety of opinions, and that could be AI, that could be interviewing a number of vendors, could be interviewing customers, could be attending a conference, for example, like our EPM summit. But the more you know, the more equipped a buyer you can be. A lot of people have agendas, that should not be a surprise. And vendors want to lock you in. They want to convince you. Their tool is the end all be all. And the more breadth of opinions that you have, the more your aperture opens up and that's only going to serve you better.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (47:30):
All right. And where I want to finish is you have a big conference coming up in November. We're recording this in September. It'll be released in October, but tell people what the conference is, how they can learn more about it if they want to attend. You have an EPM conference in Vegas. So go ahead and take a moment and tell us about that.
Guest: David Den Boer (47:47):
Sure. It's the EPM Summit. You can read about it at epmsummit.com. And it's the largest gathering of EPM tools with the most in-depth agenda. We have hands-on. We have panels with multiple vendors on the stage at the same time. We have over 120 sessions. So if you want that combination of breadth and depth for this technology, which is obviously a hot topic, and to see how it's evolving with AI, whether you're moving away from an older tool like BPC or Hyperion, or you just want to know what's available out there, it's the best place to come to get educated and inspired in this area.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (48:32):
Yeah. And anyone who's listening to this episode have been listening to prior ones, you probably heard some of my ads about that. So go ahead and check out EPM Summit. I think it'll be a great event. You'll learn a lot there. And David, thank you for joining me. I've enjoyed our chat and getting to spend some time with you.
Guest: David Den Boer (48:46):
Thank you so much, Paul. Thanks for having me.
Host: Paul Barnhurst (48:49):
That's it for today's episode of FP&A Unlocked. If you enjoy FP&A Unlocked, please take a moment to leave a five-star rating and review. It's the best way to support the FP&A guy and help more FP&A professionals discover the show. Remember, you can earn CPE credit for this episode by visiting earmarkcpe.com, downloading the app, and completing the quiz. If you need continuing education credits for the FPAC certification, complete the quiz and reach out to me directly. Thanks for listening. I'm Paul Barnhurst, the FP&A guy, and I'll see you next time.