This document summarizes a webinar on leveraging industry benchmark data to optimize finance shared services. It discusses how top performers deliver services at lower costs with fewer resources than lower performers. Common key performance indicators for finance are presented, such as cycle times, invoices processed per FTE, and total function costs. Examples are given of how benchmarking identified opportunities at one company to reduce headcount by 49 FTEs and save $2.5M annually through consolidation and automation. Common mistakes in benchmarking are also reviewed along with frameworks to properly conduct benchmarking.

1. F&A Benchmarks: Prophecy or Pretense?
Leveraging Industry Data to Drive Shared Services
Optimization
Eric Liebross
Senior Managing
Director of Business
Transformation
Rachele Collins
Principal Research
Lead, Financial
Management
Enrique Martinez
Finance
Transformation
Managing Director
Cortney Dominguez
RPA Strategic
Consultant
WEBINAR Wednesday, October 21st
12:00pm to 1:00pm EST

2. 2Cost Containment remains the top action (80%) Finance
Executives are considering in response to COVID…
Sources:
- PwC CFO Pulse Survey 2020
- APQC 2020 Study
- The Hackett Group 2019
Top benchmarking performers
deliver services at 46% lower
cost with 52% less FTEs than
their lower performing peers
World-class organizations
traditionally have maintained an
operating cost that was 40-45%
below their industry peer groups.
Companies that benchmark
processes externally reported
14% higher business processes
management effectiveness scores
53%
17%
13%
6%
11%
SSC established but looking to optimize
Considering establishing an SSC
SSC established and fully optimized
I don’t think SSC applies to my organization
Other

3. 3Three Key Levels of Performance in
Benchmarking..
0.7%
1.2%
1.9%
Top performers Median Bottom performers
Cost of the Finance Function as a % of Revenue (APQC)

4. 4A Balanced Set of Key Performance Indicators
Effectiveness vs. Efficiency
EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY
• Total cost includes both the Personnel
Cost as well as the cost of the systems
infrastructure needed to run the function
• Quality can include the accuracy of invoice
processing and payments for AP, or DSO
for AR
• It is important to compare organizations based
on their industry and revenue size
• The assumption is that higher revenue
companies will have a larger number of
transactions being performed, necessitating
more people to manage them
KPIs focus on the number of FTE’s (“full
time equivalents”) performing the work and the
productivity levels of those resources
Metrics focus on the operating cost and
quality for the various functions

5. 5Common Set of KPIs for Finance
Number of FTEs per
function
Month-End
Cycle Time
AP Invoices
Processed per FTE
Total cost to
perform a process
Benchmarks to provide Operational Visibility and Accountability
• Cycle time in days to complete the monthly consolidated financial statements
• Number of AP invoices processed per FTEs in one month.
• Number of FTEs who perform the process
• Total cost (fully-loaded personnel, labor, systems, outsourcing, and other
cost) to perform a function
Efficiency
Primary Focus
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Efficiency
Customer Receipts
Processed per FTE
• Number of AR customer receipts processed per FTEs in one monthEfficiency
More detailed KPIs by tower (P2P, O2C and R2R) provided in the appendix

6. 6
Polling Question 1
Have you used benchmarking to help define process optimization
initiatives in your finance organization?
• Yes, I’ve made extensive use of benchmarking
• Yes, I’ve used it but it’s not been a major factor in my analysis
• No, but I would like to
• No, I don’t see value in benchmarking

7. 7Benchmarks can illuminate areas of opportunity…
Let’s look at one real-world example
Based on benchmark data, the company is more than double the Bottom Performer level!
• $600M multi-national
CPG company
• 7 different countries
across North America
and LATAM
• F&A department
totaled 110 FTE’s across
the R2R, P2P, O2C and
FP&A functions.
27.0
2.6
6.1
12.9
13.0
3.6
7.4
15.5
57.0
3.8
7.6
17.9
13.0
0.7
1.5
2.9
110.0
10.7
22.6
49.2
Company
Top
Median
Bottom
F&A FTEs for a $600M Organization
Total FP&A R2R O2C P2P/T&E
Sounds high, right?

8. 8But what was the opportunity?
Benchmarks can guide the focus of your optimization program
110 FTEs
Total 96 FTEs
in Scope
14 FTEs
Retained
19 FTEs
30 FTEs
47 FTEs
Total of 49
FTEs reduction
2 Retained
FTEs per
Country
In Scope for
Optimization
20% efficiency
gained through
consolidation
Optimized
Organization
40% reduction
through intelligent
automation
$2.5M
in Annual
Savings

9. 9What Should YOUR aspirations be?
Top vs. Medium vs. Bottom Performer
Top performer is not always the right
answer. You need to balance the
investment and effort required versus
the business value you will get…
Top Medium Bottom

10. 10Framework to Benchmarking
Guiding Principles
1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8.
Align on Your
Key Drivers for
Success
Determine Key
Performance
Indicators
Measure Current
Performance
Conduct a Gap
Analysis
Develop an
Improvement Plan
Measure Results
and Recalibrate
Repeat!Execute

11. 11
Polling Question 2
What is the most pressing pain point you are trying to address in
your finance organization?
• Achieving a cost reduction target
• Freeing up my team for higher value work
• Improving quality, speed and service to the business
• Scaling to absorb future growth
• All of the above

12. 12
Panel Discussion

13. 13
Industry Trends

14. 14
Real-World Examples of
Benchmarking

15. 15
Common mistakes and
how to avoid them

16. 16
Aspiring to Top, Medium
or Bottom?...

17. 17
Proven Optimization Strategies
The Role of Automation & Outsourcing

18. 18
Polling Question 3
Are you considering Intelligent Automation and/or Outsourcing your non-core,
transactional functions as part of your optimization initiatives next year?
• Yes, I am considering both
• Yes, I am considering Intelligent Automation only
• Yes, I am considering Outsourcing only
• I’m not sure and need guidance
• No, I’m good

19. 19
Final Recommendations
and Lessons Learned…

20. 20
Polling Question 4
Would you like to schedule a complimentary
consultation with Auxis to discuss your current
finance operational performance and brainstorm
about your optimization initiatives for 2021?
• Yes
• No
What you can get from it:
• High-level benchmark
comparison against your
industry peers
• “Size of the opportunity” ($$$)
• Recommended actions for 2021
• Potential business case
• Estimated timeline & effort

21. Thank you for joining us today!
Eric Liebross
Senior Managing Director of
Business Transformation
eric.liebross@auxis.com
Rachele Collins
Principal Research Lead,
Financial Management
rcollins@apqc.org
Enrique Martinez
Finance Transformation
Managing Director
enrique.martinez@auxis.com
Cortney Dominguez
RPA Strategic Consultant
cortneydominguez@gmail.com

22. 22
Appendix
(Other valuable resources)

23. 23Shared Services SLA Framework
SLMs
(Contractual
Standard)
Operating KPI
(provides insight into business
operations, not contractual standard)
• Our philosophy on Service Level Metrics (SLMs) is
that there should be a range of measures that
define operational performance at the
contractual level, and in addition provide other
measures that are considered operational key
performance indicators (KPI’s) that serve to
provide more visibility and insight into operations
• We recommend that we use 2-3 SLMs per
function, with the additional measures serving as
operational guardrails, providing insight into
performance
• SLMs should be the primary metrics driving
performance and can vary from organization to
organization, depending on the priorities
established
Auxis Service Accountability Hierarchy Highlights
Satisfactory Service Levels: are the levels which, by mutual agreement of both
Parties, are satisfactory and sufficient levels at which the SSC shall provide the
Services
Minimum Accepted Service Levels: are the levels which, by mutual agreement of
both Parties are marginally satisfactory levels at which the SSC shall provide the
Services, and are an agreed upon percentage below the established Service Levels,
but above unsatisfactory performance levels, as detailed in the SLA. We propose a +-
10% of the Satisfactory Service Level
Unsatisfactory Service Levels: are levels which, the SSC fails to achieve the
Minimum Accepted Performance Levels under a given SLM
The SLA is the core document that not only defines the performance of the SSC organization, but also provides high
level transparency and visibility into daily operations

24. 24Finance Service Level Metrics - Examples
SLMs Calculation Method Target
AR
AP
GL
 DSO
 % AR Balance within terms
 Cash applications on time
 Invoice posting on time
 Payment on time
 Payment errors
 Master data response
 Month-End tasks on time
 BS Reconciliations on time
 Average days from reception to posting
 Payment date against payment terms
 Number of incorrect payments
 Average hours from request to creation
adjustment
 % of task completed before or on due date
 % of Recs completed before or on due date
 Open Items against due date
 % of AR Balance within terms (Current)
 Average hours from payment received to
posting date at the invoice level
 5 Days
 85%
 2 per month
 72 hours
 45 Days
 80%
 72 hours
 95%
 95%
Division 1
Source
 VIM*
 SAP
 SAP
 MDG**
 SAP
 SAP
 SAP
 SharePoint MEC List
 SharePoint MEC List
Division 2
Source
 Concur
 JDE
 JDE
 BI
 JDE
 JDE
 JDE
Tax  Tax filing on time  % Sales and Use Tax returns filed on time  100%  SharePoint MEC List
SLAs will be defined with FirstMark as part of the transition process and will be customized to your business and needs.

25. 25Other Common Finance KPIs - Examples
In addition to contractual SLAs, other operating KPIs will be also defined with you as part of the migration and
stabilization process.
KPIs Calculation Method Target
AR
AP
GL
 Release orders from hold
 Aging Detailed
 Unapplied cash balance
 Daily cash receipt
 Average Days to Pay
 Inquiry response time
 Invoice processing volume
 Invoice processing backlog
 POT Excluding Net 0
 Reconciling items
 Timely Closing Calendar
 Journal entry accuracy
 Items volumes
 Average days between pay and due date
 Average response time to AP inquiries
 Quantity of invoices received/processed
 Quantity of invoices pending processing
 Payment on time excluding Net 0 vendors
 Quantity, amount and aging of open items
 Corporate Calendar against MEC due date
 % of accurate
 Quantity of activities performed per month
 Time from request date to release date
 AR aging amounts by date ranges
 Amount of cash applied at the account level
 % of payments worked the day of receipt
(action was taken on every item)
 7 Days
 72 hours
 Volumes
 Volume
 85%
 72 hours
 Volumes
 <$250K
 100%
 <30 Days
 0 Days
 90%
 Volumes
Division 1
Source
 SAP
 Pending Implementation
 VIM
 VIM
 SAP
 SAP
 SAP
 SAP
 SharePoint Task Manager
Division 2
Source
 JDE
 Concur
 Concur
 JDE
 N/A
 JDE
 JDE
 SharePoint MEC List
 SharePoint MEC List
 SharePoint MEC List
 SharePoint MEC List

26. 26More Resources on Finance & SSC Optimization
Surveys & Reports
• The Rise of Shared Services in Latin America Survey Report
• Finance Labor Savings Report – US versus Costa Rica
• Auxis RPA Survey Report: Where Are We With RPA
• 60 Processes to Consider for RPA Automation
• The Future of Work by UiPath & Forrester
Blogs
• Benchmarking Your Finance Department Size & Cost
• Captive vs. Outsourcing – Which Shared Services Model is Right For You?
• 7 Key Considerations When Building Your Business Case for Shared Services
• F&A BPO: What To Outsource and What To Retain
Case Studies
• RPA
• Shared Services Strategy
• Nearshore Outsourcing
Webinars
• Watch other webinar recordings on AP Automation, RPA and more