Close on
a fixed date

Planning, budgeting, consolidation, financial close and management reporting on Oracle EPM Cloud, and support for the Hyperion estate still feeding it.

The close is a process problem with a systems component. We instrument it before we automate it.

Get in touch See how we shorten a close

ProductsEPM Cloud and Hyperion

Planning, FCCS, ARCS, Narrative Reporting, and the on-premises estate behind them.

ApproachTime it, then fix it

Every close step measured before anything is automated. Guesses pick the wrong bottleneck.

DataOne source per number

Every figure traced to a single owning system, which is most of the actual work.

OutcomeThe same date monthly

A predictable close is worth more to a board than a fast, variable one.

What we cover

Plan, close, report

The three cycles are usually run by the same small team on the same data, so they are supported as one practice rather than three projects.

Planning and budgeting

Driver-based models for revenue, workforce, capital and expense, with rolling forecasts and scenario comparison rather than a single annual set.

Models are built so finance can change a driver without calling us. That is the test of whether a model was designed or delivered.

A forecast finance can re-run in an afternoon.

Financial consolidation and close

Ownership structures, intercompany elimination, currency translation, journals and the close task calendar that sequences it all.

Consolidation rules are documented in business language beside the code, because the auditor will ask and the author will have moved on.

A consolidation that reconciles and can be explained.

Account reconciliation

Automated matching and reconciliation compliance across bank, intercompany, balance sheet and sub-ledger accounts.

This is usually where the first week of the close actually goes, and where the largest gain is available.

Reconciliations complete before the close starts, not during it.

Management and narrative reporting

Board packs, statutory reporting and management reporting assembled from the consolidated numbers with the commentary attached to the figures.

One number, one source. Version control on the pack rather than fifteen spreadsheets in a mail thread.

A board pack that assembles itself and cites its own source.

Data integration

Feeds from Oracle and non-Oracle ledgers, payroll, sub-ledgers and the data warehouse, with mapping, validation and reconciliation at load.

Loads fail loudly and reconcile automatically. A silent partial load is worse than no load at all.

Numbers that arrive complete, or visibly do not arrive.

Hyperion support and migration

Support for on-premises Planning, HFM and Essbase estates, and migration to EPM Cloud when the case holds rather than when the licence renews.

Where Hyperion is doing its job, the honest recommendation is often to leave it in place and integrate.

A migration decision made on the close calendar, not the sales calendar.

Shortening a close

StepOneTime it

Every close task logged with who does it, what it waits on and how long it takes, over two full cycles before anything changes.

Finance teams are usually wrong about their own bottleneck, and so is everyone else. The data settles it in two months.

You receive:

A timed close calendar

The critical path drawn, the wait states identified, and the tasks ranked by hours consumed against hours avoidable.

Often the biggest single item is waiting for one reconciliation nobody had ranked as important.

StepTwoFix the data

Sources reconciled, mappings corrected, and the manual adjustments that exist to compensate for bad feeds traced back to the feed.

Automating on top of unreliable data produces faster wrong answers, which is worse than slow right ones.

You receive:

One source per number

A data map showing where every reported figure originates, validation at load, and the adjustment log with each entry's real cause.

Adjustments that turn out to be permanent get fixed at source instead of repeated monthly.

StepThreeAutomate

Reconciliation matching, journal creation, currency and elimination rules, task orchestration and pack assembly, in the order the timings justify.

Automation lands one step at a time, each measured against the baseline so the benefit is demonstrated rather than assumed.

You receive:

Measured reduction

The same timed calendar, re-measured after each change, with the hours removed attributed to the specific change that removed them.

If a change does not move the number, it is reverted rather than defended.

StepFourHold the gain

Steady-state support through each close, model maintenance, statutory and structural changes, and the annual planning cycle.

Closes drift back without attention, usually after a reorganisation or an acquisition changes the structure.

You receive:

A close that holds its date

Cycle-over-cycle timing reported to the CFO, exceptions explained, and structural changes absorbed with the calendar intact.

Predictability is the metric. The fastest close in the year is not the one that matters.

Coverage

What sits in the EPM practice

Enterprise Performance Management coverage
Capability	Products	Scope	Model
Planning	EPM Planning, Hyperion Planning	Model design and build, driver libraries, rolling forecast, scenarios	Project or managed
Consolidation and close	FCCS, HFM	Structures, rules, journals, close task calendar, statutory outputs	Project or managed
Reconciliation	ARCS	Matching rules, compliance workflow, exception routing	Project or managed
Reporting	Narrative Reporting, Financial Reporting	Board and management packs, commentary workflow, version control	Project or managed
Data	Data Management, EPM Integration Agent	Feeds from Oracle and third-party ledgers, validation, reconciliation	Managed
Hyperion estate	Planning, HFM, Essbase	Application support, patching, migration assessment	Managed

What actually shortens a close

Most of the gain is not in the software

Across close projects, the hours removed come mostly from reconciliations completed before day one, from adjustments fixed at source, and from tasks that were waiting on a person rather than a system.

The software matters for the last part, which is orchestration and automation. Buying it first, and looking for the process problem afterwards, is how organisations end up with an expensive close that takes as long as the old one.

Ask for a close review

Where the hours usually goReconciliations during the close, manual journals compensating for feeds, and waiting on a single approver or a single spreadsheet owner.
What we change firstThe sequence and the data, both of which are free of licence cost and produce measurable gains inside two cycles.
What the software then doesOrchestration, matching, elimination and pack assembly, which is where the remaining hours are and where automation actually pays.

Based on close reviews generally. Your own numbers come from the first two measured cycles.

Questions we get asked

Before an EPM project

Do we have to leave Hyperion?

No. Plenty of Hyperion estates are doing their job, and where that is the case the honest recommendation is to support it and integrate rather than migrate. The cases that genuinely favour EPM Cloud are structural: infrastructure at end of life, a consolidation model the on-premises product cannot express, or a close calendar that needs orchestration the estate cannot provide.

How much faster will our close get?

Unknown until it is measured, and any number quoted before the two baseline cycles is invented. What is predictable is where the hours sit: reconciliations, adjustments caused by feeds, and wait states. Those are the areas the review will quantify for your close specifically, with the avoidable hours separated from the unavoidable ones.

Who owns the models once the project ends?

Finance does, and that is a design requirement rather than a courtesy. Models are built so a driver, a hierarchy or a scenario can be changed without a developer. If your team needs us for routine changes, the model was built wrong.

Can you work with our existing data warehouse?

Yes, and it is often the better source, because the warehouse has already reconciled the ledgers. What matters is that each reported number has exactly one owning source. Two paths to the same figure is the most common cause of a number nobody can defend.

How much finance time does this need during the project?

More than a systems project and less than people fear. The heavy demand is in the timing exercise and the rules design, both of which need the people who actually do the close. Attempting either without them produces a system that documents the wrong process.

A close thatholds its date.

Start with a close review across two cycles. You leave with a timed calendar, the avoidable hours quantified, and the sequence of changes that removes them.

Get in touch Book a scoping call

AI Solutions

Oracle Services

Salesforce

Microsoft Enterprise Services

Application Management

Managed IT Services

Managed Business Services

Close on
a fixed date

Plan, close, report

Planning and budgeting

Financial consolidation and close

Account reconciliation

Management and narrative reporting

Data integration

Hyperion support and migration

StepOneTime it

A timed close calendar

StepTwoFix the data

One source per number

StepThreeAutomate

Measured reduction

StepFourHold the gain

A close that holds its date

What sits in the EPM practice

Most of the gain is not in the software

Before an EPM project

A close thatholds its date.

Close ona fixed date

Plan, close, report

Planning and budgeting

Financial consolidation and close

Account reconciliation

Management and narrative reporting

Data integration

Hyperion support and migration

StepOneTime it

A timed close calendar

StepTwoFix the data

One source per number

StepThreeAutomate

Measured reduction

StepFourHold the gain

A close that holds its date

What sits in the EPM practice

Most of the gain is not in the software

Before an EPM project

A close thatholds its date.

Close on
a fixed date