Here's the uncomfortable truth: most large organisations don't really know how their FP&A function should be structured.

Over the years, it's evolved organically. A team here supports the European division. Another there serves the manufacturing business unit. Corporate finance handles group consolidation. Someone in IT manages the planning tools. And somehow, through a combination of email chains, monthly meetings, and sheer determination, it all just about holds together.

Until it doesn't.

The structure question nobody wants to answer 

The question of how to organise FP&A resources isn't new, but it's becoming increasingly urgent. As organisations grow, the FP&A function tends to fragment. Different business units develop their own approaches, definitions, processes, and even technologies. What passes for a "forecast" in one division bears little resemblance to what another produces.

Finance leaders know this creates problems. Duplication of effort. Inconsistent methodologies. Difficulty rolling up reliable group-level views. Battles over headcount and budget allocations. Talented analysts trapped in transactional roles because nobody thought about career paths across a federated structure.

The question becomes whether to centralise the function at headquarters, decentralise with FP&A professionals distributed throughout operations, or adopt a hybrid of both. Each approach carries trade-offs that aren't always obvious until you're living with the consequences.

Comparing the core models

Let's examine the three fundamental approaches and what they really mean in practice:

The centralised model: Control and consistency

A fully centralised FP&A function consolidates all planning and analysis resources under a single leadership structure. Everyone uses the same systems, follows the same processes, and speaks the same financial language.

The appeal is obvious. You avoid duplication. You can invest in centres of expertise such as sophisticated modelling capabilities, advanced analytics, and scenario planning competencies that would be difficult to justify replicating across multiple business units. You ensure consistency in how financial information flows up to group level.

The challenge is equally obvious. How do centralised analysts truly understand the operational nuances of diverse business units? Distance matters. Business unit leaders often feel that centralised FP&A teams don't grasp the realities on the ground. They want "their" analyst, someone who sits in their meetings, understands their specific challenges, and speaks their operational language.

The decentralised approach: Proximity and relevance

Decentralisation places FP&A resources directly within business units or regional operations. Each division builds its own capability, sized and structured to meet its particular needs.

This model delivers genuine business partnership. FP&A professionals embedded in operations develop deep domain expertise. They're in the room when strategic decisions get made. They understand the business drivers intimately because they see them play out daily.

But decentralisation introduces its own headaches. Methodologies diverge. Standards slip because there's no central authority enforcing them. Career development becomes problematic. Where does a business unit analyst progress if they want to advance without leaving finance?

Perhaps most significantly, decentralised structures make it devilishly difficult to get a reliable group-level view. Each business unit produces financials according to its own rhythms and definitions. Consolidation becomes an exercise in translation and reconciliation rather than a straightforward aggregation.

The hybrid reality: Getting the balance right

Most large organisations eventually land on some form of hybrid model, though often more through evolution than design. A central team sets overarching standards, tools, and governance principles, whilst business units retain responsibility for applying them to their specific contexts.

The trick is determining what belongs where.

Certain activities genuinely benefit from centralisation. Group consolidation and reporting. Technical platform administration. Development of planning methodologies and templates. Strategic analytical capabilities that get deployed across multiple business units.

Other responsibilities work better when decentralised. Business partnering with operational leadership. Detailed operational forecasting. Performance analysis that requires intimate knowledge of specific business drivers. 

The difficulty lies in the grey areas. Who owns the monthly forecast cycle? Where does planning capability development sit? How do you handle specialised analytical needs that only one division requires? 

Centres of excellence: A structural solution

A Centre of Excellence (CoE) is an organisational entity, physical or virtual, that consolidates activities requiring critical or specialised skills, with a focus on developing core competency. For FP&A, this means creating a dedicated capability that serves the broader organisation whilst maintaining deep expertise.

The CoE model offers an elegant solution to the centralisation-decentralisation dilemma. It allows companies to concentrate high-level skills in one location and deploy specialist teams to help different business units meet specific project needs. Meanwhile, business-partnering resources remain embedded in operations where they can maintain proximity to decision-makers.

Think of it as architectural layering. The CoE establishes the foundation in terms of standards, methodologies, tool governance, and technical capabilities. Business unit FP&A teams build on that foundation to deliver relevant insights within their domains. Central and distributed resources maintain clear connections through reporting lines, rotation programmes, and collaborative forums.

This structure also solves the talent development challenge. Analysts can progress from business unit roles into CoE positions as they develop expertise. The CoE becomes a destination for high-performers, not just a corporate team disconnected from operations.

Getting governance right

Structure alone doesn't guarantee success. The way you govern the FP&A function matters as much as how you organise it.

Essential governance elements include:

• Clear standards on non-negotiables. Chart of accounts structures, planning calendars, definition of key metrics, data quality expectations, architectural principles for tool deployment.

• Authority to enforce. Someone needs the mandate to ensure standards get implemented, not just documented.

• Forums for collaboration. Regular meetings where FP&A leaders share practices across business units.

• Talent mobility. Rotational assignments that build cross-organisational perspective.

• Escalation mechanisms. Clear paths when tensions arise between central standards and local needs.

In many organisations, governance falls into a gap. The corporate FP&A director lacks formal authority over business unit teams. Business unit CFOs resist perceived interference from headquarters. Standards get documented but not implemented.

The most effective governance isn't about control, it's about creating the conditions for collaboration whilst maintaining necessary consistency.

The technology dimension

 Technology choices often get made in isolation from organisational design decisions, which is backwards. How you structure your FP&A function should influence your technology approach. 

A heavily centralised model can work with enterprise-wide platforms that enforce consistent processes. A decentralised structure may need more flexible tools that accommodate local variation whilst still allowing consolidation. Hybrid models benefit from platforms that support both central control and distributed execution.

The CoE model particularly demands technology that enables collaboration across organisational boundaries. Analysts in business units need access to central methodologies, templates, and analytical capabilities. The CoE needs visibility into what's happening across divisions. Everyone requires a single version of truth for consolidated views whilst maintaining the ability to drill into divisional detail.

Making the transition

 Few organisations have the luxury of designing their FP&A structure from scratch. Most are working with some inherited configuration that's accumulated over years of organic growth and acquisition. 

Transformation requires acknowledging what you're really trying to achieve. Is the goal faster consolidation? Better business partnership? Reduced duplication? Enhanced analytical capability? Different objectives point toward different structural solutions.

It also requires honest assessment of what's actually working today. Often, the informal networks and relationships are holding things together despite the formal structure. Understanding these patterns helps you design something that builds on existing strengths rather than disrupting them unnecessarily.

Phased implementation makes sense for most organisations. Perhaps you begin by establishing a small CoE focused on planning methodology and tool governance whilst leaving business partnering resources in place. You add analytical capabilities over time. You create rotation opportunities that build bridges between central and distributed teams.

The worst approach is reorganising for the sake of reorganisation — moving boxes around the organisation chart without addressing the underlying questions about what FP&A should deliver and how best to deliver it.

The path forward

 There's no universal answer to how FP&A should be structured. The right model depends on your organisation's size, complexity, geographic spread, acquisition history, and strategic priorities.

What matters is making conscious choices rather than allowing structure to evolve by default. Understanding the trade-offs between centralisation and decentralisation. Recognising that hybrid models require active management, not just organisational ambiguity. Investing in governance mechanisms that make your chosen structure actually work.

The organisations getting this right aren't necessarily those with the most elegant organisation charts. They're the ones who've thought carefully about where different FP&A capabilities should sit, how those capabilities connect, and how to develop talent across organisational boundaries. They've built structures that enable rather than constrain their FP&A function's ability to deliver value.

Apliqo helps large organisations implement FP&A structures that work. Contact us today and let us show you how we can help transform your FP&A operating model and structure.