Today’s CFOs are bombarded with tools, dashboards, and data, but more technology doesn’t always mean better outcomes. As finance teams adopt AI, automation and digital platforms at speed, many are finding that complexity is creeping into their workflows - slowing decision-making and making it harder to stay agile.

Maria Snertingdalen, Senior Director of Customer Success at Medius, has spent over 13 years working with finance teams across and beyond Norway. In this interview, she reflects on how the finance function has evolved over the past five years, why many teams are struggling to balance control, agility and growth, and how to tell when processes are holding performance back rather than pushing it forward.

This conversation is part of our whitepaper The Evolving Role of the CFO, where we explore how Norway’s top finance leaders are preparing for what’s next.

Maria Snertingdalen, Senior Director of Customer Success at Medius

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

Maria: This topic is everywhere and there’s been a big shift.

When I started at Medius 13 years ago, I often heard from customers that the main goal with an AP solution was to automate paper invoices. People associated us with selling scanning solutions, and customers would say, “Medius? Oh yeah, that’s the scanning system.” The mindset was reactive, and the Finance departments were very focused on reporting, to get the month end closing and the VAT correct.

But what we’re seeing now is a shift - finance teams are being asked, “How can we be better tomorrow?” There’s more proactive attitude from the business and finance departments aren’t seen as a back-office cost center anymore. They’re expected to help drive ROI and contribute directly to business outcomes. And it’s not just the CFO, it’s across the whole finance function.

I have also noticed a change in how processes are structured. In the past, when we worked with Accounts Payable (AP) teams, parts of the process were often outsourced or broken into silos - you’d have someone handling scanning, someone else doing coding and so on. No one had a full view of the process and people became really good at just their task. But that also meant there wasn’t much incentive to improve the overall workflow. Now, with more modern technology and applications, teams can get a better overview.

What would you say is the biggest challenge finance teams are facing today when they try to balance the need for speed, optimize roles and still contribute meaningfully to ROI?

Maria: One of the biggest challenges is the growing gap between management expectations and the day-to-day experience of people working in the process. There’s this disconnects that’s becoming more obvious.

Research shows that 96% of management expects AI is working very well and improving processes. But when you ask the users, around 77% of them actually feel that AI tools are slowing them down. So you’ve got this tension: managers are optimistic and pushing for more AI adoption, but users are saying, “Wait, this isn’t really helping me yet.”

A good example is invoice coding or getting the VAT right. Maybe the AI logic is accurate 99% of the time, but for accountants and finance professionals, that remaining 1% uncertainty is hard to accept. They want it to be 100% correct, otherwise they won’t trust the new technology.

So, a big part of the challenge is building that trust - making sure people believe in the tools they’re using. That’s not just on the finance team, it’s also on us as a vendor. We need to help create that confidence.

On top of that, these teams still have to keep the business running. They have their day-to-day workload, and now they’re also being asked to implement new systems and adopt new tech. Learning something new takes time, especially if you’re not used to it and that learning curve can make things feel even less efficient, at least in the beginning.

You mentioned the disconnect between leadership and users when it comes to AI tools. If there’s one thing finance leaders should start and stop doing, what would those be?

Maria: I really believe finance leaders need to stop treating AI as the answer to everything. You can’t just say “we’ll solve this with AI” and roll out a generic AI roadmap. You need to break it down: what are the actual pain points? What are the manual steps? Then ask: is AI the best tool for this, or is it something as simple as better data validation or a smarter configuration?

What leaders should start doing is demystifying AI for their teams. Instead of imposing it from the top down, give people the chance to explore it in a low-pressure way, maybe just using co-pilot tools to play around and get comfortable. That builds trust and trust is essential. Because if your team doesn’t believe in the tools, they won’t use them effectively.

How can finance teams tell when their workflows have become too complex, and what are some of the signs that this complexity is starting to hurt performance?

Maria: One of the clearest signs of complexity is when basic tasks such as data fetching are handled by separate teams or outsourced entirely, with little visibility into how that work connects to the rest of the process. It has been best practice for many years that data capture should be outsourced to lower-cost countries, treated as a simple task separate from more “important” steps like VAT checks or accruals. But what we’re seeing now is a shift: companies are realising that if the input data is wrong, the entire process breaks down.

This is especially critical with AI and sustainability reporting. AI tools are only as good as the data they’re fed and if you're pulling the wrong item number, Purchase Order number or contact, the automation won’t work. We’ve had customers who brought this work back in-house and saw immediate improvements. Not only did they reduce costs, but they also increased accuracy, because they understood the context better than an external team.

Another red flag is when you have multiple systems doing disconnected parts of the same workflow. If no one has a full view of the process, it becomes really hard to spot inefficiencies or bottlenecks. That’s why I always encourage customers to step back and look at the whole process, not just optimise in isolation. The more fragmented the workflow, the more performance suffers.

Can you share an example where simplifying a finance process made a significant impact on the business?

Maria: One good example is the approval and coding in the AP workflow before posting to the ERP system. Many clients want to review every single invoice as part of their process. That’s understandable, but in most cases, about 80% of those invoices are correct. So, what ends up happening is the team spends a huge amount of time reviewing invoices they never actually need to touch.

This is a legacy mindset we see often, especially in AP teams, where there’s this belief that everything must be checked. But it’s simply not true anymore.

We worked with a large company on this exact issue. Initially, they were sceptical and had a “stop-all” rule - every invoice had to be checked manually. But we helped them shift that mindset and trust the system. Now, only the exceptions get flagged, things like invoices that don’t match Purchase Orders, or come from unusual suppliers.

We didn’t just simplify, we measured the impact at every step and the result was a much higher rate of automation, better use of team capacity, and more confidence in the process. The customer estimates that this change only save them 25 hours per month in manual work they don’t have to do anymore!

The goal isn’t just to say “we have 80% touchless processing,” but to make sure every step adds value. That’s when simplification really pays off.

What practical steps can finance leaders take to redesign processes for greater simplicity and efficiency?

Maria: At Medius, our core vision is “high automation with control.” That balance is key, automation shouldn’t come at the cost of oversight, but you also shouldn’t try to control everything. A big step toward simplicity is learning to focus only on what truly needs attention and letting the rest flow through.

We’re building this into the product. One way is what we call a “command center” concept, where the system proactively suggests what to focus on each day. For example:

“Good morning. Here are the invoices close to due date, and based on your role and history, we think these are worth looking at.”

Another important step is embracing patience. Many finance leaders expect everything to work perfectly right after go-live, but with modern systems - things move fast, and there's a learning curve. We now talk about “Activating Medius” rather than fully implementing it. For example, we went live with a big Norwegian company in six weeks and another large customer in just four weeks - but even then, it takes time for users to understand the full capabilities.

That’s why we have a strong post–go-live strategy. After 6-12 months, we revisit usage data, identify problem suppliers, highlight bottlenecks, and help optimise based on real trends. It is a new situation with SaaS-solutions both for AP and ERP, with constant and seamless updates. The key to success is to have support for the whole Customer Journey with relevant services and tools to help adjust and adopt new functionality continuously and improve the system and automation.

My advice:

1. Focus on smart automation with purpose

2. Trust your vendor to guide the “how”

3. Don’t rush: gather data, iterate and improve continuously together with your system delivery partner

4. If after a year there’s no improvement, then it might be time to re-evaluate the solution

Redesigning for simplicity isn’t about doing everything at once, it’s about taking the right steps, in the right order and building trust in the process.

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.