At the first edition of the Finance Talks event series organized by Arggo, we started with a simple question: how long does month-end closing take? The answers quickly confirmed an important reality: performance in the close process is not measured solely by the number of days required to finalize it, but by an organization’s ability to deliver accurate reporting, tax compliance, and meaningful support for decision-making.
In practice, close benchmarks are useful, but their value only becomes apparent when the process remains predictable, controlled, and robust enough to support both management and group reporting requirements.
Speed vs. accuracy: what is the KPI that truly matters?
The discussion quickly revealed that, in many organizations, the truly important KPI is not necessarily the close lead time itself, but the ability to meet tax obligations on time, deliver group reporting, and provide a financial package reliable enough to support business decisions. This is where the classic tension appears: speed versus accuracy. And the common conclusion was clear: a fast close only matters if it does not compromise control.
The examples shared during the event were highly relevant. We encountered organizations capable of closing within five business days through standardized processes, clear reconciliation steps, payroll procedures, verification routines, and reporting structures. At the same time, there were companies where seven, ten, or even twelve days were perfectly justified by operational complexity: manufacturing environments, multi-country consolidation, delayed invoices from SPV systems, high transaction volumes, or the need for IFRS adjustments outside the ERP system.
The less standardized these elements are, the slower and less predictable the closing process becomes.
The role of technology and automation in the month-end close
A second key topic focused on technology. Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central and other ERP systems can provide near real-time visibility, but only if reconciliations, allocations, and upstream operational flows are properly managed. In practice, automation significantly supports processes such as imports, mappings, bank statement reconciliations, matching bots, automatic invoice generation, and cashflow dimension management.
However, these tools do not completely eliminate human intervention. Manual control remains essential in sensitive areas, especially where reporting accuracy and compliance are critical.
In reality, many bottlenecks are not “accounting problems,” but operational fractures that become visible at month-end: delayed documents from field teams, incomplete cost center allocations, missing purchase orders, integrations based on manually modified files instead of native connections, imperfect bank identification, or different accounting policies between local accounting policies and group standards.
The faster a company scales, the more visible and costly these gaps become.
Close process maturity: predictability over speed
Perhaps the most valuable conclusion of the first Finance Talks edition was this: the maturity of a close process is reflected in predictability, not just speed. A healthy organization understands exactly where the closing process begins and ends, what information must be available at each checkpoint, which estimates are acceptable, where recurring risks exist, and which deviations should be prioritized.
In this context, the 6–8 day benchmark (calculated as the average response from event participants) represents a realistic and healthy target, but only when supported by standardization, automation, and coherent accounting policies.
Finance Talks will continue in future editions as a space for practical dialogue between professionals facing similar challenges and searching for real solutions, not just theoretical concepts. Beyond KPIs and deadlines, sustainable financial performance is built through clear processes, collaboration, and decisions based on reliable information.
