In this conversation, Maria Lien, former Digital Transformation leader in Schibsted, shares why finance still struggles to gain real influence in digital transformation efforts. With experience leading multi-year internal digital transformation projects, she reflects on why, despite over a decade of buzz around AI, automation, and data-driven decision making, finance teams are often left on the sidelines - disconnected from product, tech and data functions.

Maria discusses why ERP modernisation is still the foundational step, what’s changing in CFO expectations and how finance can earn its seat at the innovation table.

This conversation is part of our whitepaper The Evolving Role of the CFO, exploring how Norway’s top finance leaders are preparing for the future.

Maria Lien, Designing What Comes Next while relocation to Seoul, South Korea

Maria, how has the finance function changed in the past five years, and where do you see it heading?

Maria: My thoughts are that instead of focusing only on the past five years, I look back to when I started my journey in finance and large corporations, which was around 2012.

That period marked a broader shift where businesses began taking the digitization of core processes more seriously. The term “digital transformation” wasn’t widely used yet, but it was the era when ERP modernization, cloud computing, and process automation started becoming part of my daily work life.

What’s interesting is that while the technology stack has evolved, the core conversations haven’t shifted all that much. We’ve been talking about automation, data and finance becoming more strategic for well over a decade. I remember being a young professional at a Deloitte Global Business Services conference where a robot face gave the keynote, and I thought, “Wow, what possibilities!”.

Yes, moving from on-premise to cloud ERP was a big leap and the implementation has been a tough journey for most organisations, but honestly, the progress has been more incremental than transformative.

As a tech optimist, I can now say: many of those use cases we talked about 7 years ago like actually automated transaction processing or reporting are genuinely achievable today. Until early last year, automation in finance was largely about transactions and numerical workflows. But if companies aren’t now combining this with large language models and capabilities offered by agentic AI, they’re already falling behind.

You’ve mentioned some companies are still seem slow to adopt and make real change. Why do you think that is?

Maria: One of the biggest reasons is risk, especially in operational finance, where compliance and control are front and center.

Back in 2019, we were evaluating software for our accounts payable invoice approval process. Our top choice was a startup with promising, boundary-pushing technology. But because it hadn’t yet been tested at scale by larger companies, we ultimately went with a safer option — not because it delivered a better user experience, but because the perceived risk was lower.

That kind of risk aversion is still deeply embedded in finance and in many other parts of large organisations, and it continues to limit the adoption of more advanced tools.

Another limiting factor is the systems themselves. Many companies have invested heavily in large ERP platforms that were never designed for speed or adaptability. These systems tend to lock organisations into rigid workflows, making it difficult to respond to new technology opportunities. What I believe will make the biggest difference now is a shift toward more modular infrastructure - deliberately designed in close collaboration with IT, data and security teams. That kind of setup allows finance to select the best-fit tools for specific use cases, rather than being confined to one-size-fits-all solutions.

Then there’s the pace of change. Technology is moving so fast that meaningful product updates can happen between two steering committee meetings. The traditional model of long-term investment planning just doesn’t keep up anymore.

We need a more flexible, iterative approach, one that allows for continuous adaptation. But enabling this kind of agility requires a mindset shift where decision-making authority and trust are pushed lower in the organization. It’s not just about tools, it’s about empowering people to act, not just escalate.

With technology moving so quickly, what you plan for next year might already be outdated with all the new AI and automation developments happening right now.

In light of this environment, what’s one thing finance leaders should stop doing, and one thing they should start doing?

Maria: I think we need to stop thinking about finance in isolation. In many large companies, transformation efforts have been heavily inward-facing, with the main goal of bringing the finance function into the future. In one of my previous roles, we spent nearly four years working in a very closed project setup.

When business units came to us with ideas to improve cross-functional processes or support innovation, the response was often, "We don’t have time, we’re fixing our own systems." Looking back, I think we missed out on a lot of opportunities. But at the time, it felt unavoidable. Some of our legacy systems were being decommissioned, and we had no choice but to prioritise that work.

Now that most of the foundational changes are in place, it's time to shift focus. The idea of just getting the last few people out of finance, especially on the transactional side, has run its course. Those roles are mostly gone, and that’s no longer where the value lies.

What we need now is full engagement from across the finance function. Teams should actively build partnerships with IT, product, strategy, and commercial colleagues to ensure that AI, technology investments, and business development initiatives are all viewed in an end-to-end context. These efforts must reflect where the business is heading, not just finance’s internal priorities.

This also requires a change in mindset. Too often, finance teams default to a defensive position, focusing on controls, compliance, and how things have always been done. But we need to ask how we can enable innovation rather than block it. Many new ideas don’t fit neatly within existing finance structures, and if we stay in that mindset, finance becomes a bottleneck.

It’s time to stop avoiding innovation risk and start helping the organisation manage it in a way that enables progress and growth.

You mentioned that you worked within a closed project environment for four years. Given your experience with long-term implementations, which are quite common in large companies, what surprised you most about that journey? What did you learn, and what might you do differently next time?

Maria: Yes, it was a Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations implementation across the entire group. The long-term nature of the project didn’t surprise me, since that’s quite typical in large organisations. But in retrospect, what continues to surprise me is how people behave during these types of transformations.

First, there is often a lack of openness toward external partners. I have seen this repeatedly, not just in finance. People inside organisations tend to assume they know best and keep vendors or consultants at a distance. The mindset is often, "They’re just here to sell something, so I’ll hold back." But meaningful innovation depends on trust and collaboration. Of course, you don’t share everything, but treating external partners more like part of the team usually leads to better outcomes.

Second, knowledge sharing and the habit of asking good questions don’t happen naturally. Breaking down silos, whether across departments or with external collaborators, takes intentional effort and a willingness to engage. That was a real eye-opener for me. It is something people need to actively learn and practise, especially when introducing new technology into complex organisations.

Lastly, the way we manage tech investment is fundamentally flawed. Too often, teams feel pressured to undersell their budgets just to get approval. Everyone knows the numbers are too low, but it is seen as the only way to move forward. This often leads to years of justifying delays and managing cost overruns, which is both inefficient and frustrating.

We need to rethink how tech implementations are proposed and governed. This is not about removing cost control, but about measuring progress in a way that reflects how technology evolves and how organisations adapt. Most overruns are not caused by underestimated licensing costs. They come from the time needed to design new processes, make decisions, and shift ways of working across the business. Traditional, rigid budget frameworks do not match that reality, and they no longer suit the complexity or pace of today’s transformation efforts.

You’re speaking from the client side, and vendors are saying the same things, “Just be honest with us so we can help solve the real problems.” They keep running into issues they could’ve fixed earlier if they’d only been told sooner.

So we’re seeing some clear, converging patterns here.

Maria: Exactly. This reminds me especially of my shift into business development and transformation work. Stepping outside of finance gave me a different perspective on just how much potential there is in partnerships. And by partnerships, I don’t just mean startups. I mean all the external players we rely on - software vendors, consultants and implementation partners. These are the people who help us select and deploy the right technology for the right use cases. Too often, corporates keep them at a distance, but when you open up and work with them more closely, the outcomes are much stronger.

As a founder, I see this mismatch even more clearly. Startups want to work with corporates, and vendors want to bring their best ideas forward, but corporates often don’t make the time. With how fast tech is moving, that hesitation is a missed opportunity. Companies need to lean into these partnerships more actively and bring innovative people closer to their functions.

And honestly, sometimes it is very basic things. Take hackathons, for example. They are often run by tech or data teams, and the business side is invited to join. But finance usually isn’t even invited. That exclusion matters. It cuts finance off from where experimentation and innovation are actually happening, and it reinforces the perception of finance as separate from the business.

To wrap up our discussion, if you could give CFOs just one piece of advice to help drive real change in their companies, what would it be?

Focus on building connective roles that can link finance, technology, and the wider business architecture. These roles shouldn’t be buried in the organisation, but positioned to make finance part of how the company designs and adopts new technology and business innovation. Driving real change isn’t about just implementing tools - it’s about creating the digital platforms and capabilities that allow your company to adapt and innovate at speed.

AI adoption in the coming years won’t be about simple automation. It will require finance teams to operate at a new level of process and data literacy in order to truly leverage agentic capabilities. CFOs who enable that kind of organisational orchestration will help their companies adapt faster, while those who stay inward-looking will miss the opportunity.

That’s great advice. A lot of people talk about the hard skills needed for AI and tech evaluation, but you’re pointing to a more holistic view - how finance can understand the company better and contribute more broadly.

Maria: Exactly. The hard skills around AI and technology evaluation are absolutely important. But they won’t get you very far on their own if the underlying systems and data aren’t aligned. In many organisations, finance’s data is structured one way, while the systems running subscriptions, logistics, or customer interactions are structured completely differently. They don’t talk to each other, and people tend to dismiss it as a “tech and system issue.”

But it isn’t just a tech issue. It’s the result of misaligned data design decisions, and now someone has to take ownership of fixing it. That calls for a unique capability - someone who can go deep into the details, bridge systems, and turn those gaps into actionable insight for leadership.

And in many ways, finance is actually well positioned to take on this role. It’s the function that already consolidates how the business is running, with a built-in understanding of how all the numbers come together. That ability to track the details across processes gives finance a real opportunity to step up and drive change as we move forward.

Finally, what do you think will happen to companies still stuck with legacy systems? How can they keep evolving?

Maria: That’s something I’ve thought a lot about. Companies that haven’t gone through the big ERP transformation, especially smaller ones, might actually be able to skip some of the middle steps. They can avoid high upgrade costs and instead move directly to building a modern technology stack that embeds AI from the start. For larger corporations, though, the ERP journey has made sense. It created the foundation to standardise processes and data at scale. But for those who’ve waited, there may now be an opportunity to jump forward.

Editor’s Note:

This interview has been adapted from a recorded conversation. It has been lightly edited for clarity, flow, and readability, with filler words and repetitions removed. Every effort has been made to preserve the intent, tone and insights shared by the speaker.