| If you don't have an account, Register here |
Nearly 90% of finance executives agree that driving growth for the enterprise is the raison d’être for the modern finance function beyond cost reduction and compliance. Yet, our research reveals that only 12% of finance organizations have realized their ambitions around cost, control, business outcomes, and influence.
This session unpacks what finance superheroes are doing differently and what it takes to get there:
You can listen above or watch this HFS Videocast here:
Moderator:
Panelists:
You can also listen on:
• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify
• Google Podcasts
• Anchor
This transcript was auto-generated from the original recording and lightly edited for readability. We've done our best to catch errors, but names, technical terms, and company references may be misspelled or imperfectly captured. For the definitive version, please refer to the original audio or video. Views expressed are the speakers' own.
Coffee was good. All right — so, look, we’re going to talk about this digital dichotomy that Phil was describing: there’s this big slowdown, and there is a big hurry, and both are happening at the same time. And actually these four people are at the center of that, because finance is at the center of helping organizations navigate that digital dichotomy. So I’m very glad to have all four of you, and I’d love it if you could introduce yourselves. Maybe we’ll start with you, Tim — very quickly, what you do and where you are.
Yeah, thanks. So I’m Tim Hammonds. I’m responsible for finance shared services at Stellantis, which is probably the largest car company most of you have never heard of. It was created a couple of years ago by the merger of Fiat Chrysler and PSA, the company behind the Peugeot, Citroën, Opel and Vauxhall brands.
I’m Joe Anichebe. I run a small boutique consultancy firm. I spent 25, 30 years in the city doing various roles — IT, CFO, running shared services, running global finance systems and projects — and for the last 10 years I’ve been doing the consultancy work.
Hi, I’m Carolina Romero. I’m the CFO for Global Private Banking and Wealth at HSBC. Prior to that — which is a new job, three weeks in — I was the COO for Global Finance, and before that I was in Asia as the CFO for commercial banking and global banking in our Asia operations.
Hello everybody, I’m Michael van der Steen. I work at the coolest company in the world, I think, which is Adidas — you can see my shoes. I’m responsible for plan-to-invoice strategy and operational excellence within GBS. Plan-to-invoice is supply chain and customer service, so it’s not necessarily finance, but I’ve spent over 25 years in order-to-cash, so I know a little bit about finance as well.
Look under your chairs — Michael is sponsoring sneakers for everyone! Look, and you’ll get them. I was about to say you’ll get a Maserati, but everybody knows that at HFS you won’t get that, right? So I thought Adidas might be a little more believable. You’re not sponsoring, though, so even here…
Well, if you download the app, you can actually put new virtual shoes on your feet, right? So I’d recommend you download the app, have a look, and buy some shoes. No, no — we need the money!
All right, let’s start with a poll — and I have to come up here because I can’t see very well. I’ve been doing finance research for donkey’s years now, 25-plus years, but I’m more confused than ever today about what the role of finance is. So I thought I’d ask this audience: what do you think is the role of finance? Is it bottom-line impact by driving down costs? Is it managing risk and compliance? Is it driving outcomes — working capital, DSO, DPO, all these funny-looking acronyms? Is it making progress on ESG? Is it improving the company’s overall valuation and driving shareholder value? Or is it everything at the same time? It seems the consensus is all of the above at the same time. So let me ask you, Carolina — is that true? Is that what you feel?
Yeah, definitely. The role of the CFO across different organizations, and particularly in financial services, has been quickly evolving over the last 10 to 15 years. The world when I started my career — and the things you needed to learn and develop to become the CFO of a company — have massively changed, not only in terms of the actual skills but in how you approach the job and your relationship with other areas of the company. It has moved from very strict reporting, compliance, regulatory requirements, and capital and liquidity protection to actually the strategic usage of our resources, while at the same time being immersed in the key decisions around new technologies, new ways of working, and how to translate that into value — not just profit but value for our stakeholders. We play much more of a glue and connectivity role than before, while that change is demanding that finance professionals develop and get up to speed on different skills that in the past were probably not necessary.
That’s what we are finding. In our research we reached out to about 400 Global 2000 enterprises and asked them what the role of finance is, and it came down to these four things you can see here: cost control, outcomes, but also influence — and influence means influencing business strategy and business growth. What’s interesting is that only 12% of them said they are able to achieve all four. So while the ‘why’ is fairly clear, the ‘how’ — getting to five on five on all four dimensions — is seemingly very, very hard. So, Joe, if I can ask you: why do we see only 12% finance superheroes? Why can’t there be more?
I apologize, I’ve got a cough, so I’m sucking a sweet — it’s not that I’m being rude. If I look back to when I started, I’d say 95% of my role was in books and records, making sure everything ticked and tied. What I’ve found, especially in the consultancy work I’m doing now, is that when you go out to different organizations they’re at different levels of maturity. So what I think we’re finding with the 12% is that people have a desire to be more in the influencing piece, but they’re stuck in the books and records. That’s why there’s a big influx in ERP — people hope it’s going to be the silver bullet that gets them out of the books and records and gives them time to do more of the influencing. As we go forward, that’s where we as a finance function need to be, and if I look at the people I’m trying to recruit, I’m looking for people who can do the books and records but also have the ability to step in and do the influencing, because that’s where finance will go, and should go, in the future.
And Tim, do you think it’s possible to find that kind of set of people?
I’ll be controversial — it all depends on how you set up your ERP. Quite often people start off viewing ERP as the silver bullet. I don’t think they spend enough time trying to understand what good looks like for them in terms of an ERP system, so they implement stuff they think is going to resolve their issues when in reality it’s solving a problem they haven’t got. That’s where I’d spend the time focusing. When I go into companies, usually it’s because the finance transformation is not working, and I go all the way back to step one and ask, well, what is it you actually think you want out of it? And the number of times people are scratching their heads saying ‘I thought I wanted this,’ and then you start challenging them and they realize they want something different — but they’ve set the system up based on what they thought they wanted rather than what they actually need.
So Phil talked us through this whole concept we at HFS are calling the digital dichotomy, where there’s a big slowdown driven by macroeconomic factors — UBS getting acquired, SVB collapsing, layoffs, inflation not slowing down, supply-chain issues, a war going on, and so on. But at the same time, the hunger to grow and innovate hasn’t gone away — there’s a big hurry; everybody wants to do it faster. So as a finance leader, how do you balance and influence your organization? Michael, maybe I can start with you, because Adidas is in that space. You can’t escape the macroeconomic headwinds, but at the same time you’re into the metaverse — you were just promoting your app for digital shoes. How do you balance this as a finance leader?
First of all, I’d like to link it to the previous question. If the CFO has global business services as part of their remit, it automatically means you become multifunctional — you get supply chain, finance, HR services, procurement — so you can start to build the connections. So if you as a finance leader want that influence, GBS is a really good element to bring into your organization to make it more multifunctional and to start looking at the end-to-end. We’re introducing SAP S/4 at the moment — we call it ‘Transform’ — as a facilitator of actually making that change and starting to talk about the end-to-end. How do you balance the two elements? Everybody always has this cost drive, and on the other side you need to go faster and faster. So we’re doing a couple of things that are fairly traditional. We just brought 500 of our FTEs into our India hub that we’re building together with a partner, and we believe that will bring us the talent and capability we need to be faster in our responses to what’s happening in the outside world, but also with a lower cost base. So we believe in looking at where we can find those capabilities, buying them, bringing them together with our partners, and then driving the innovation from there. For our S/4 program we have about 700 people sitting in India that we built up over the past two and a half years to facilitate that, so you can reduce costs, get the right talent — because the talent is there — and then also deliver on your innovation.
That’s interesting. Tim, I wanted to get your thoughts on balancing this. Tell us a little bit about Stellantis, because as you mentioned it’s one of the least-known, most-famous car companies, and you’re trying to sell luxury cars. How do you balance these things in your finance organization?
I’m going back to the earlier slide about the four factors and whether you can do all of them at the same time. From my experience over the last few years, the priorities of the organization change depending on the context. Going back to the start of the pandemic — we sell quite a lot of cars to rental companies, and when the pandemic hit, no one was flying, airport parking lots were full of our cars, the rental companies were getting no revenue and therefore had no cash to pay us. So our focus at that time shifted onto more mundane stuff like collecting receivables, which normally is a pretty straightforward back-office function the CFO would never get involved with. That then became a weekly or fortnightly meeting with the CFO reviewing line by line what your receivables are — which the year before the pandemic would never have happened, because it was completely under control. So things do change. Now, as we’re in a constrained production environment, the focus is much more on profitable growth — maybe not selling as many cars to low-margin channels, trying to maximize the revenue of every vehicle. A little bit about Stellantis: the company is made up of three predecessor organizations. My involvement started in 2017; I came from the Opel Vauxhall side of the business, which used to be owned by General Motors. GM sold its European operations to Groupe PSA in 2017 — PSA being the company behind Peugeot and Citroën. After that merger, the legacy GM business was on a journey to adopt all of the Groupe PSA systems, whether they were better or worse than the ones we had previously. The one real exception was around our ERP, where we decided to go for a single version of SAP S/4, and we’ve been gradually implementing that since 2019, when we went live with our first pilot. For at least the legacy PSA companies, we’re quite a long way down that line. And then a couple of years ago we merged with Fiat Chrysler to create Stellantis, and now we’re thinking about how we adopt all the work we’ve done on this SAP S/4 system and bring the other group companies into that journey — but we still haven’t finished the previous integration, so it’s ever-changing.
Can I just chip in as well? One thing the pandemic has really highlighted is the need to be on top of the fundamentals. I’m old, and I always remember when I was doing my accounting exams the big thing was ‘cash is king.’ The last two or three years have really highlighted that. As you were saying, previously it was below the radar — it was coming in and it wasn’t a problem. I found myself, and I’m sure you did as well, just concentrating on making sure the money comes in, because if the money comes in, you can pay the wages and pay the bills.
Carolina, I want to come to you. We’re facing a lot of macroeconomic headwinds, and this survey was done about two months back — and it already seems old, because it didn’t capture the SVB failure or the UBS situation. But before I get into it: should we be worried? Because any time a bank failure happens, the whole world gets tremors — ‘oh man, is it going to be another recession?’ What do you think?
Even before the recent events, we all knew we were heading into a pretty difficult economic environment with high inflation. And I’d say not just the unemployment level but the change in employment patterns — the shift toward skills and toward employee interest versus employer needs — is at a big tangent at the moment, and it’s very interesting to see how that evolves. So we all knew that was coming. On top of that you now have the pressure these two recent events have added, and the rethink among regulators — particularly the US regulator — around the different rules applied to different tiers of banks. So perhaps one of the biggest concerns is what’s going to happen in terms of regulation, and more regulation, which is something the financial industry has been through over the last 10 years. That definitely requires a lot of investment and cost, in a world where that is already under significant pressure, and that’s the balancing act we need to do. The Fed announced 25 basis points today, but we’ll see how it evolves. I do think the way the industry, particularly the banking industry, has responded this time is very different and a lot more comprehensive — there’s a lot more rigor on the fundamentals, particularly for the systemic banks — so the risk can be contained much more effectively than before. But that’s not going to change the fundamentals of the macro environment in terms of the actual impact on the everyday citizen from inflation and cost of living, so that’s going to remain.
I would also say — should you be worried, or concerned? If you go back to 2008, when Lehman’s went bust, in that week or two afterwards I sat on the trading floor and watched some very, very senior traders look scared. The fact that Credit Suisse went bust and HSBC has just bought SVB — or the UK arm of it — and taken it in its stride is promising. So it’s a concern rather than a worry, because an event has happened and yet business is carrying on. If you go back to 2008 when Lehman’s went bust, for four or five weeks it was touch and go whether the whole thing would collapse.
So, Michael, do you sleep well at night these days?
Yeah, no problem. The way to address all of these changes, in my view, is to create agility and empower your teams. In the end it’s about making sure your teams have the capabilities to respond, and really pushing it down low in the organization. We have a process we call Objective Key Results — we copied it from some of the big tech companies — and that’s how we align within our teams on how to prioritize when certain things happen. We review it every three months, and we have three- or four-week sprints where we can review again. So we’re constantly fine-tuning what we’re doing and what we’re prioritizing, and if something in the outside world changes we’re able to respond fairly quickly across all our businesses and departments. It’s not just a tech thing, which it is in many companies — it’s something we believe we need to ingrain into the rest of the business, across supply chain, finance, HR, procurement and sales. What are our priorities? What are we going to work on, and how are we going to deal with this challenge? Some things you can’t avoid. If China suddenly locks down and you have a certain percentage of your revenue there selling to retail stores, there’s not a lot you can do — you can be as agile as you want, but you just need to deal with it. Or if somebody says something on social media that affects what used to be a big part of your revenue, that’s a thing you need to deal with as well, and then you make the right decision. I’m very proud that Adidas made that decision, but it’s also a decision that cost us almost $1 billion in sales — a lot of money that you lose, but you deal with it and move on, and you have the agility within the team to adapt as soon as you can. So for me the answer is: I sleep better, because I feel we have an agile organization. We can do even more — we’re not there yet — but that way we can respond to these changes fairly quickly.
That’s great. Tim, are you sleeping as well as Michael?
Yeah, I think so, but mainly just out of tiredness from all the hassles of implementing our new IT systems. On this we’d probably pick out a few of the themes as well. Certainly supply-chain disruption has been a significant issue for us for a number of years. Going back to the pandemic, we closed the factories and stopped ordering microchips, and then lots of other industries started ordering those microchips and sticking them in laptops and tablets. We had some fires in some of the factories, and when we wanted to bring production back up, the supply wasn’t there — and we’re continuing to see the impact of that. The other thing that impacts our panel as a whole is the regulatory oversight front, particularly on emissions. The emissions landscape in Europe in particular is changing, and there’s quite a big debate at the moment on future emissions standards for combustion-engine vehicles. Does it make sense to spend a lot of money to comply with new emission standards when you’re going to be phasing out combustion-engine vehicles in a few years’ time, so you’ve got a relatively short life cycle to recover the cost of that investment? Those are quite difficult decisions we’re having to toy with at the moment.
I think the interesting thing is that the number of these bars is increasing every day — if I had to write this question again, I could add five more. That itself is perhaps the biggest challenge: the number of things hitting us is just increasing every day. So, Michael, I’ll skip some of these — I wanted to talk about global business services. For those who don’t know, there’s a definition on this slide in the italics. I wanted to ask the audience before I ask the panel: is this concept of global business services more important or less important compared to pre-pandemic versus where we are today? It would be great to have a debate. Is it becoming more critical to have a GBS function, or does GBS not really do much beyond cost? What’s the general opinion here? Some say GBS is more important than it was three years back — that it’s hygiene. Others take the contrary view that it’s as important. Do you guys agree GBS is more important today?
I would say yes — not because I’m in GBS, but because of what I explained earlier on being cross-functional. If you want to create that agility and you have an organization like Adidas that’s active in over 80 countries, with teams sitting in those 80 countries, and we say ‘everybody’s going to use S/4 now,’ I’d have to go into 80 countries and take two weeks in each to introduce the system. If I have it in three hubs, I can do it in six weeks. So my speed to market to make the change, introduce it, and tweak the process is significantly higher. Plus I can do it more efficiently, because within my hubs I can create delivery excellence, automation, process owners, product-led teams — a product owner together with tech, sitting with the SME and the process expert, further improving and transforming the process — and doing that across the board, not just with one function but with all the functions under one operational leader. And it’s not finance transformation — because I saw the questions you sent us in advance and everything had ‘finance’ in it. For me it would be enterprise transformation, much broader. It’s not just focused on finance, because then we go into the silo again, which is what got us into some of these predicaments. So we need to think more end-to-end, and that requires us to let go — really let go — of this silo thinking of ‘this is my department.’ I’m very glad to say that Adidas is the first of four companies I’ve worked with on GBS where I actually see this change-readiness and collaboration mindset, where you can talk to sales and they’re open to talk to you, and they want to work with you to further improve the way of working. That’s what gets you the value out of GBS. So for sure it’s more important, and for sure it can still deliver a lot of value to any enterprise.
I 100% agree with everything you’re saying, and I genuinely believe that’s the way forward, particularly when we’re trying to move to a customer-centricity approach — outcome versus activity management. It’s not possible unless GBS is fully embedded into the end-to-end activity but also understands the role it has to play in terms of the final outcome, product or service, and how it’s integrated through the whole chain. The other thing I’ve seen is a lot of entrepreneurship mindset in GBS, which is different from before. Before, there was a bit more reactiveness to what the business asked, as opposed to proactively proposing and finding new services the company could create. That’s a very interesting shift. I can definitely see it in the bank, and how the profile of the teams has elevated to truly form part of the decision-making on the key considerations where we’re delivering or driving new products and services, or even improving the old ones, which we do quite a lot. So it’s perhaps not the activity itself that is more important — it’s the connectivity and the collaboration that has gained a lot more relevance, and we now understand and see the value of driving it.
At HFS we’ve created three horizons for finance transformation. Horizon 1 was just optimization — whether it’s order-to-cash or procure-to-pay — and if you’ve not done that, you need to; it’s necessary for survival. Horizon 2 is similar to what both of you are saying: how do you connect finance with the rest of the organization and create these end-to-end flows, which is what we call the OneOffice? You can’t say finance is a back-office function — it isn’t, let’s be honest — and you need to look at finance impacting customer experience. If you start to look at it that way, the way you approach finance transformation is going to be very different. And then the third wave is the ecosystem: how do you connect not just inwards but outwards, with other partners, technology providers and service providers, to really drive that? Which leads me to my next question: emerging technologies. A lot of emerging technologies are trying to create finance use cases — automation, blockchain, which is really distributed ledger. Almost every emerging technology being sold out there has its first business use case in finance, but very few people have been able to scale these technologies in finance functions — probably analytics is the exception. So this is a two-part question. What’s the most sexy technology — what excites you as business leaders? And then, why can’t we scale it up? What’s holding us back? Maybe, Tim, I’ll start with you.
I’m not sure we’re really into sexy stuff, but from my perspective — we did implement an RPA Center of Excellence five or six years ago, and had some quite good initial successes. Why hasn’t that scaled more? A couple of reasons, and they both relate to the historical context of the company with the two acquisitions we’ve had. We end up with so many disparate systems that you automate a process in one system and then have to keep repeating that robot across multiple different instances of SAP, and that becomes quite hard work. The other practical point is that we have a limited number of people with a limited amount of time, and our priority at the moment is trying to move everything onto as close to a single system as possible. So that’s probably more the focus right now than some of this other sexy stuff. Maybe in a couple of years, once we’ve got our basic house in order, that’s the time to start looking at some of this.
Yeah. Joe, what do you think?
My vision of finance is that finance is a business enabler, so any technology that facilitates that, I’m into. The one I’ve delved into a lot recently is data and analytics. I used to work at HSBC about four or five years ago, in a group called Data and Information, and they created the app — you know, when you go to HSBC you’ve got the app that shows you how you spent your money and helps you create vaults to save. All of that was part of the group that was helping develop it, and that was brilliant, because it helped visualize what people were spending money on and helped them. So I love all of it — but I want the stuff that’s here and now, ready and available, that I can plug in and use.
Carolina?
The scalability point is an interesting one. I agree it comes down to limited capacity and limited time, but it also brings out another problem we’re facing today, which is active prioritization. When you have too many balls juggling in the air with so many risks, no wonder it’s difficult to prioritize, because you have too many pressures coming at you at the same time, plus your non-negotiables — things you can’t fail at. How does that translate into creating extra capacity? One of the ways to move forward is two main concepts. One is seed funding and starting small. In big, complex organizations it’s sometimes difficult to move at pace, and agile is a really good way of doing it — implementing agile as a mindset, not just the framework, which takes time because it’s about culture, about people trusting and collaborating, forgetting that ‘you’re not my boss’ and instead ‘we’re in this together.’ It’s a big shift. This piece around starting small — almost identifying agents of change, people who have naturally developed that growth mindset and the ability to work in a very different way — can be a good space to start, tackling relatively targeted problems and then thinking about how to scale up. Because otherwise too many of the problems we have are too big to handle quickly without a multi-year program. The reality is that data — cleanliness of data, availability of data, management of data — is one of the key problems all organizations are facing, and finance is a key recipient, creator and translator of that data every single day. But the problem is really massive, so unless you break it down and start with a smaller, faster, seed-funding approach that doesn’t require more than a few resources you ring-fence, I don’t think it’s going to happen. The second thing I mentioned, around prioritization, is having to risk-accept that some things are simply not possible if you want to create that capacity — and that’s a bigger decision, bank-wide, industry-wide, company-wide, to define those priorities.
Michael?
I get excited about all the technologies, actually. But the trick, in my view, is what you take out of your backpack as a tool to use for a problem. If everything looks like a nail and you use RPA everywhere, it’s not going to get you anywhere — you need to choose the right tool. On the prioritization you just mentioned: yes, it’s really important, but what we try to do too much, in my view, is have VPs and SVPs prioritizing things when they don’t necessarily have any clue what the real value is. And value is not making a business case — it’s very simple. Apple, strawberry — which one is bigger? You know which one is bigger, so choose the apple. You don’t need a VP or SVP to make that decision; let your product owner make it and decide what adds the most value for the company. What we should do as leaders is say what the big pockets of value are, identify them for our teams, and let them make the right decisions to deliver against that. Don’t micromanage — just let them make those decisions, and maybe they’ll do something with these technologies that you didn’t think of, and that brings you to the next level — the new Google, the new ChatGPT, whatever. Let them go into the rabbit hole and identify different options. Does that cost money? Absolutely. Does it deliver? Not always — 90% of the cases it might not deliver. But if it does, it might be something you’re really glad you invested in, and with these technologies it doesn’t need to be a lot of money; you can do it with small investments within the team. So utilize the knowledge of the people you have. I really liked what Phil showed on the slide: 90% of people are open to making that change and getting empowered, but we don’t empower them — so what do they do after two or three years?
That’s a really good, different conversation, if you don’t mind me saying. What I mean is you’re talking about a learning culture, where you empower people to learn and develop. One of the problems senior people have is that they don’t distill that all the way through the organization, so where people are in a good place to make those decisions, they don’t feel like they can — and that’s maybe what was coming out of the survey a bit earlier.
Yeah, and what we’ve seen in finance and GBS organizations is that every decision needs to have a spreadsheet behind it based on a balanced scorecard. Even an apple versus a strawberry will have 20 different columns of the different things, five different people rating them, and then the weighted average taken to get to ‘the apple is probably bigger, with some degree of confidence.’
But isn’t the term ‘fail fast,’ or ‘fail quicker’ — that ethos?
Yeah, exactly. I think we’re pretty much out of time, but I’d love to get some audience questions in for our panel before we move on to the next session. Does anybody have any questions? As an analyst, I have 20 other questions I could ask anybody. I see — oh, there’s one question.
[Audience question] More of a comment to this gentleman here, on trying to move all the different tool systems into one single ERP — that actually ends up taking a lot of the use cases away, is what we find. So RPA is destined to be that bridge between the different systems. In an environment, for example, like Hilti, where the majority of tools run on SAP and then we purchase a lot of the productivity add-ons — for example, BlackLine — what we find is that ends up eating into the RPA pipeline. So I was wondering whether you’re starting to come up against that, and what your thoughts are.
Tim, do you want to try?
Yeah, I mean, we’ve got a whole host of subsystems that feed into the various different ERPs. So I agree — that’s one of the things we’ve used RPA for, particularly after the PSA acquisition, to get the data out of our legacy GM systems and reformat it into the language our new owners would understand. Very often it’s a lot quicker to do that using some RPA on the user interface than spending a lot of time and money developing new reporting out of some quite old legacy systems that were very costly to change. I agree.
All right, I think that’s all the time — oh, Carol, one last question, if you could just add a couple of minutes. You mentioned, from a finance perspective, the project around data that you had at HSBC. I’m curious: how did you set that up for success? Who led the initiative?
First of all, we moved away from having data strategies in the different businesses and functions and now have a centralized chief data officer across the entire organization — but not just the CDO, an organizational structure that almost enforces that connectivity, because more often than not you’d discover finance was doing something that risk was doing too, on the same attribute we were looking to remediate. So this new, holistic approach — one single strategy, customized to different needs but based on the same principles of data refineries, controls, data lineage and so on — is the right one. The second thing we’re doing is a bit of prioritization of what’s more important, because obviously all of it is urgent and important, and prioritizing not every single use case against each other — because some items aren’t comparable — but what is for value generation, what is for mandatory activities, and so on: different buckets of cases that let us make decisions faster in the different areas, and therefore split the focus and time of the teams in a much more effective way. And the third element is upskilling. Data skills are in high demand, and many new joiners to the workforce don’t want to work in a bank — they want to work in a much cooler, more attractive tech or startup environment. So how do we position ourselves as a great place to work, because it has so many interesting challenges that can be very exciting for people who are curious and want to do things that add value and see the difference? That’s for me the other critical part.
I’ll just chip in as well. One of the things you’ve seen an increase in is CDOs — chief data officers — to drive that consistency. It’s moved on since I left HSBC, but initially there were CDOs in all the businesses, and, as you say, now they’re being pulled in and globalized to drive the consistency.
Well, that’s all the time we have, but we have a lot more networking breaks — we have lunch coming up, and we can all talk, so we can continue this dialogue. But thank you, everyone, for sharing your experience.
Your account has been created. You can continue exploring free AI insights while you verify your email. Please check your inbox for the verification link to activate full access.
With the exception of our Horizons reports, most of our research is available for free on our website. Sign up for a free account and start realizing the power of insights now.
Our premium subscription gives enterprise clients access to our complete library of proprietary research, direct access to our industry analysts, and other benefits.
Contact us at [email protected] for more information on premium access.