Agility is not a question of technology

When discussing the future of the work of CFOs and treasurers, terms such as artificial intelligence (AI), real-time data, volatility and ESG dominate the conversation. Most finance leaders understand these external forces very well. What is crucial, however, is whether the organisation is structurally capable of responding to them with agility.

AI and real-time data open up new possibilities. Forecasts can be continuously updated, liquidity positions monitored on an intraday basis, and scenarios simulated in seconds. However, the mere availability of these tools does not automatically lead to better management. There is often a gap between technological potential and organisational reality.

A key obstacle is internal data latency. Cash and risk-related information is scattered across procurement, production, logistics, sales, multiple ERP instances and Excel-based silos. Formally, the data exists, but in practice it is often not synchronised. In addition to data quality, the time lag between an operational event and its financial visibility is crucial. In many organisations, this spans days or weeks – not minutes. AI can link data more effectively, but it cannot replace clear data ownership or consistent system architecture.

But even with faster access to data, a second question remains central: how quickly can the organisation make decisions? Established governance processes such as monthly reports, forecasting meetings and committee sessions provide stability, but lead to delays during volatile periods. Real-time information is only effective if decision-making processes can keep pace. Agility is therefore less a technological issue than a structural one concerning decision-making architecture: Who decides on risk-bearing capacity? What escalation thresholds exist? Which measures may be implemented within clear parameters?

Pre-approved hedging strategies, authorised financing instruments and budget corridors create significantly more flexibility than a multitude of individual decisions. The focus shifts from approving individual cases to managing deviations.

On top of this is the tension between efficiency and flexibility. In stable times, capital costs and return metrics dominate. In an environment of heightened uncertainty, however, financial flexibility becomes more valuable. Additional liquidity reserves or diversified funding sources increase the ability to act but are less efficient in the short term. Treasury must not only provide this flexibility, but also consciously assess and justify it.

With increasing automation, the question of responsibility also arises. Automated cash management or algorithmically supported hedge triggers require clear governance frameworks, defined decision limits and transparent model logic. Without this, acceleration remains ineffective or becomes risky.

The actual transformation is therefore primarily an internal task. Those who reduce data latency, accelerate decision-making processes and consciously strike a balance between efficiency and flexibility will be able to truly capitalise on technological advances. The treasury of the future is thus less a technological task than a structural one – and a key factor for resilience and competitiveness.

This guest article was originally published in Opens in a new tabDerTreasurer magazine.Authors

Sigrid Seibold, Head of Transaction Services at ING Germany

Birgit Potrafki, Member of the Board Salzgitter AG, CFO