Revenue automation self-assessment
What should you expect when you’re automating revenue processes?
Despite a spike in revenue automation investments over the last few years, 65% of CFOs are struggling to digitize or automate more than half of their teams’ processes. While finance leaders are historically reluctant to “trust the robots” when it comes to managing data, they are often in a difficult spot when CEOs and boards expect them to take on additional complexity and workloads without increasing headcount.
As companies grow and introduce new revenue models and expand offerings, finance leadership teams often scramble for solutions that can reduce manual tasks and prevent human error without introducing new risks created by poorly structured automated workflows.
As Zuora prepares to roll out a new research survey of CFOs and CAOs , we took a look back at the challenges finance and accounting leaders told us they were facing in our last report and ideas for how to address them.
Challenge 1: Misstatement insecurity
Only 44% of finance leaders surveyed reported feeling “confident” in their revenue data. Less than half! We found that even among those leaders who were confident in their data, there was still concern about the risk of misstatement (65% of respondents). While automation can’t resolve every concern, knowing where you are relative to best-in-class companies is a good place to start.
Below is a chart that showcases the scope of capabilities these companies have built into their revenue management systems.
Revenue automation self-assessment
Rate each capability on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = No automation, 5 = Fully optimized automation)
10-20: Manual & Reactive
Heavy reliance on manual processes, high risk of errors.
21-30: Basic Automation
Heavy reliance on manual processes, high risk of errors.
31-40: Moderate Automation
Key processes automated, but gaps remain in integration and reporting.
41-45: Advanced Automation
Strong automation capabilities, minor areas for refinement.
46-50: Best-in-Class
Fully optimized automation, leveraging AI and predictive insights.
These scores are just a high-level assessment to help you understand where you are currently. No company is perfect. The next task is to decide what to prioritize and when.
For example, if misstatement insecurity tops the list of things to be addressed, then focusing first on Automated Revenue Recognition, Automated Compliance & Auditing, and Anomaly Detection will have the most beneficial impact.
Challenge 2: Manual process costs
93% of accounting teams surveyed spend more than 20% of their time on manual processes in spite of automation investments. While manual processes increase the amount of compliance risk, over 70% surveyed also highlighted the negative impact manual efforts have on speed and agility when introducing new revenue models.
There is a long list of processes that fit in this category that drive costs for CAOs and CFOs, but there are four that tend to top every leader’s list. The impact of each could be incorporated into a business case to assess the benefit of any automation investments.
Manual process impact potential
Issue
Severity Level
Impact
Inefficiencies & Operational Costs
High
Inability to scale or pivot business without growing headcount to address complexity.
Error Rates & Financial Restatements
High
Damage to company reputation, loss of stakeholder trust, shareholder value, regulatory proceedings/penalties.
Compliance Risks & Penalties
High
Fines and legal costs.
Lost Revenue Opportunities
Medium
Delays and inaccuracies leading to missed opportunities to grow or expand existing customer spend.
Fraud Risks
Medium
Lack of automated controls increases vulnerability to bad actors.
Most finance leaders (75%) said they struggle to get buy-in from the organization to make investments that could mitigate these risks. When introducing automation to a specific process or workflow, be clear about which of the Three C’s (complexity, cost, compliance) are being addressed.
Interrogate your plan with questions around whether or not automation will help manage workflows like revenue deferrals and contract-based revenue recognition (complexity), speed up financial close and improve revenue accuracy (cost), and flag anomalies or potential misstatements before they become problems (compliance).
Challenge 3: Revenue teams are “feeling the burn”
Data from our survey revealed that 87% of finance professionals who work in a manual/semi-manual environment say revenue processes negatively impact their mental health. An alarming number, to be sure.
On top of this, there is a perceptional disconnect between leaders and contributors that may be driving part of this. Almost twice as many finance contributors as their leaders believe they spend between 60-100% of their time on manual, repetitive tasks.
Data from the National Institute of Health indicates that this stress is particularly pronounced among those with less than five years of experience, who report higher levels of job pressure and lack of organizational support.
How should finance leaders address this? It starts with understanding where the pain is coming from. An audit (not the bad kind) of a team’s processes that takes into account the effort required to perform routine activities can pinpoint where the most help is needed. Below, we’ve included an approach and the elements to consider including.
Revenue team effort/impact discovery
Step 1: Identify Core Processes
Question:
What’s being done?
Action:
List all revenue workflows (e.g., invoicing, revenue recognition, forecasting).
Step 2: Measure Time, Cost & Errors
Question:
Where are the problems?
Action:
Track hours spent, error rates & rework.
Step 3: Assess Compliance & Risk
Question:
Where are we most vulnerable?
Action:
Find areas where manual work creates compliance risks (ASC 606, IFRS 15).
Step 4: Survey the Team
Question:
Where does it hurt?
Action:
Ask people which tasks are most tedious & high-pressure.
Step 5: Prioritize Automation by Impact
Question:
Where will it help most?
Action:
Rank processes based on business & team impact.
Step 6: Build an Automation Roadmap
Question:
How do we implement change?
Action:
Start with one high-impact area, track KPIs & provide training.
Steps 1 – 4 will likely take the most amount of time, especially if an exercise like this hasn’t been conducted before. Depending on the size of the team, budget two or three months to conduct your discovery. Prioritization can usually be completed in a couple of weeks or less, assuming a decent amount of time and rigor was applied to the earlier phases.
Challenge 4: Shifting from “firefighting finance” to “strategic finance”
The role of finance has been evolving from one that was almost exclusively played in the back office to one that shows up more often at the table when the conversation topic turns to go-to-market and product strategy.
As finance tries to transform itself from the team that says “no” to the team that says “no, but here’s how,” CFOs are looking to expand their teams’ capabilities beyond financial firefighting to more consultative collaboration with the business.
The demand for these capabilities is so strong that even among the 51% of leaders who said they had a process automation solution in place, they still intended to hire more headcount to take on these higher-value tasks.
Moving from the firefighter to the strategist role requires understanding the starting point. The short checklist below can help you quickly get a read on where your team stands today.
Strategic finance self-assessment checklist
Rate your finance team on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree)
0-15:
Heavy reliance on manual processes, high risk of errors.
6-24:
Moderate progress—prioritize automation & analytics.
26-35:
Best-in-class strategic finance team
What’s next
In spring 2025, we will be releasing a new survey of CFOs and CAOs that will revisit these automation challenges in light of the market, technology, and geo-political shifts that have happened since our last report. We will also share the latest sentiment on the economy from finance leaders and explore how their perspective might be informing how they shape and structure their teams going forward.