Indaver plans, budgets and consolidates with IBM and Keyrus

Share this post:

Managing finance within a regionally organized group can be quite a complex process. Having the right tools at your disposal can mean a world of difference. That is what Indaver thought as well. The international waste management group recently integrated both IBM’s Cognos TM1 tool for planning and reporting, and IBM Cognos Controller for the consolidation process. We sat together with Jan de Looff, Manager Group Control at Indaver, and Marc Vanderleyden, Commercial Director at Keyrus, Indaver’s implementation partner, to discuss the project.

Indaver’s story is one of continuous growth. The group can trace back its origins to Belgium, where it managed dangerous waste in the port of Antwerp. However, it wasn’t long before Indaver expanded both its business activities as well as its regional presence. As of 2017, the group has about 1,700 employees under its wings, spread predominantly over four main regions: Belgium, Germany, Ireland & the UK and the Netherlands. Indaver’s core business is to run specialized facilities and to manage intelligent waste management systems, focusing on sustainable material and energy waste management. Jan de Looff: “It’s evident that for a group like ours, a well-structured planning and budgeting process and swift consolidation are key. In the past, we used an outdated and rigid consolidation tool, for which there was virtually no expertise available on the market – let alone in-house. Moreover, we had already been receiving requests from different regions to introduce more structure in the planning and budgeting processes (for which we did not have any tools yet). That is when we decided to start searching the market for tools that could help meet these demands.”

The road to implementation
Three main criteria drove Indaver’s search:

• The new tools had to be user-friendly;
• The finance department should be able to maintain them with little to no help from IT;
• A trusted implementation partner was crucial

Indaver decided not to rush the process, so as to avoid making any hasty decisions. With Keyrus as implementation partner by its side, Indaver identified two subprojects – one for consolidation, and one for planning and budgeting. A thorough scoping study in close collaboration with Keyrus lead to an own set of evaluation matrices, guaranteeing more objectivity in the vendor’s sales pitches. Jan de Looff: “The help from Keyrus was very useful here. Together we identified three potential vendors, but at the end of the day, it was obvious that IBM’s solutions were the best fit for Indaver’s specific needs. ” After IBM came out on top in the scoping study, project leaders from Keyrus and Indaver worked in close collaboration on the implementation project – from functional design up to realization.

Planning for a new tool…
With regard to the budgeting and planning tool, implementation was not straightforward. Indaver did not have a planning and budgeting tool before. Jan de Looff: “We weren’t entirely sure if we would do a shadow-run first, or immediately integrate the upcoming budgeting cycle into the tool. We went for the latter option of the two, as Keyrus ensured us timing would be tight, but not impossible. I must admit that we worked long days to get everything in order on time, but in the end we succeeded in completing the full budget cycle that ran until the end of December, including the consolidation of the budget in Controller. In fact, we were able to maintain the deadlines for our usual planning, even with the integration of the new tool: that can only be described as a big success. An additional advantage is that we now already have a good view on the areas of improvement in the tool – mostly just minor details that make the tool even more user-friendly.”

… and replacing another one
As far as consolidation is concerned, the tool that replaced an older one has been up and running for about a year now. Jan de Looff already sees progress: “Prior to the implementation of IBM’s consolidation tool, the whole process took place in the background: we received data from subsidiaries and regions and then processed that data, the results of which were not shared with those who supplied the initial data.” Now, all data is uploaded to a reporting system on top of the ERP systems. Then, for monthly consolidation, a central upload of the financial data to Controller is conducted. Group Control asks the company responsibles to validate and complete the data where necessary. This constitutes an extra step, Jan admits – “but by now, the benefits obviously outweigh the risks. Having the same data and the same numbers in the same format really allows us to better consult with the different subsidiaries and regions.”

“A fool with a tool is still a fool”
Indaver intended for IBM’s TM1 planning and reporting tool to become a tool of the regions – which is why they made the explicit choice to engage the regions from day one of the selection and implementation project. “The selection of this particular tool was not a central decision,” says Jan. “Giving all potential users of the tool a voice was important for us, as it fostered the broad basis of support that is needed for such a large-scale tool deployment.” Keyrus can only agree. Marc Vanderleyden: “lots of companies are looking for a tool, while they should be looking for a business solution, in which a tool can play a crucial role. Another client’s VP of controlling once told me that a fool with a tool is still a fool. And he’s right: if you only concentrate on the tool as such, you tend to forget that change management and creating a basis of support for buy-in are equally as important. Don’t forget that you have to get all your people on the same wavelength if you want deployment to be a success. You can never forget the people who, at the end of the day, will have to be working with the tool.”

“Do not underestimate the importance of creating a broad basis of support within your organization.”
Jan de Looff
Manager Group Control at Indaver

Different tool, same expectations
Indaver has the outspoken ambition to continuously grow, both organically and through acquisitions. One of the most important goals of the new tools was to make the process of future growth unfold as smoothly and seamlessly as possible. Integrating companies has to happen both fast and accurately. Since implementing the tools, there have been a couple of minor acquisitions and organizational changes that helped Jan and his team get used to the tool, giving them the experience needed for bigger acquisitions in the future.

Getting used to the tools, Jan admits, was something his team and the regional users of the tool needed some time with. Certain requirements helped ease that transition: “We all know that traditionally, finance professionals work with spreadsheets a lot. A good integration with Excel, for example, was one of our criteria. Every finance professional knows that program, so the seamless integration in both TM1 and in Controller of spreadsheet technology makes the tools extremely user-friendly: you can still make reports in Excel, with a link to the database, which makes the exchange of data from and to the database extremely convenient.” What was really important was the continuity of the processes. Over the course of the years, Indaver had acquired a wide range of companies who all had their own manner of reporting and consolidating. Jan and his team ensured that all teams could keep working in their own familiar way. But, and that was a novelty, all ledgers are linked now, and will culminate in a corporate reporting, with a clear link between business reporting and consolidation reporting.

A single version of the truth
Jan de Looff: “An agreement with the regional teams stipulated that the budget would only be composed in the planning tool, before being copied to all other systems. That way, you guarantee a single version of the truth, avoiding lots of unnecessary analysis and discussions. Moreover, we used to sometimes receive budget and outlook in a different level of detail and format than the actuals, which made it difficult to compare data. Now, for budget and outlook the same building blocks are used as for actuals. Jan: “The data we have at our disposal now is much more detailed, uniform and accurate, avoiding labor-intensive manual editing and formatting. Not that we had major problems with that in the past, but small problems such as Excel tables with a different structure can already cause lots of delay and inconvenience.”

IT with a walk-on part
The fact that IT only played a walk-on role in the setup and maintenance of the new systems is an added benefit, Jan de Looff admits: “Sure, IT was there when we needed to set up the systems, ensuring interconnectivity and compatibility with our other systems, but the lion’s share of the work was done by the finance team, in close collaboration with consultants from Keyrus and IBM. Maintaining the systems is a task of the master users at Group Control exclusively, who have the responsibility to keep the system up and running.” Jan recognizes that a small amount of IT affinity is required from the finance users, who do have to fill in and understand the underlying tables. Jan applauds the fact that he can always rely on the external expertise of IBM and Keyrus should support be needed after all: “Feedback is always very fast, and knowing that we have this safety net to fall back on gives us peace of mind.” Marc from Keyrus confirms that in general, now that Indaver has surpassed the learning curve, they don’t really need any help anymore for small tweaks and edits: “It’s the big structural changes in particular that would still require help from an external specialist. But for now, daily running is fully done by Indaver’s business and finance community.”

Three key takeaways from Indaver’s story
Concluding the conversation, we asked Jan to offer three key takeaways to other organizations that are exploring the implementation of similar tools. He didn’t have to think very long.

“I would strongly advise taking the opportunity to learn from your subsidiaries in different regions. Also: look beyond the one specific project itself. When we got together on the occasion of discussing the tool selection and implementation, we simultaneously reviewed and reconsidered a wide range of different processes. We learned an awful lot from our regional colleagues. There was an amazing exchange of knowledge. And sure, you can look at the differences, but you must also consider the similarities: the new tools helped in ordering those, and making sense of them. It’s not something you would immediately think of, but that knowledge exchange between different regions (or departments, for that matter) can be a real driver of added value. This project didn’t just stop at the go-live: we’re working with a tool that is continuously improving, and we need all the experience and knowhow we have – both internally as well as externally.”
“Speaking of which: another key takeaway would be to choose an implementation partner you feel you can trust. Keyrus never shamed that trust: what’s more, they’ve always contributed excellently, actively thinking with us to get the job done within both time and budget limits. It sounds self-evident, but it certainly isn’t. There was a certain connection we didn’t have with others.” “But,” as Jan concludes, “the most crucial takeaway of all: do not underestimate the importance of creating a broad basis of support within your organization. Communication and solid change management are key here. We were lucky that we had high-quality tools to begin with, but it are the people who ultimately have to do it, together.”