By James Hunter, CFO, AccountsIQ
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms are often positioned as the step towards finance transformation for growing businesses. Yet a striking 94% of finance leaders who have implemented an ERP report regretting the decision. This is a figure that should give any CFO pause, particularly as year-end approaches and the pressure to deliver accelerates.
The pattern is consistent: lengthy implementations that drain momentum, hidden costs that catch teams off guard, and systems so complex that most teams use less than half the functionality they’re paying for. When finance leaders are already managing year-end reporting, analysing performance, and preparing forecasts for 2026, the last thing they need is software that adds friction rather than removes it.
Better decisions require better foundations. As finance teams prepare for the year close and set priorities for 2026, the focus should shift from ‘biggest’ to ‘best fit’ systems that deliver clarity and control without the complexity that derails adoption.
Why ERP regret is so widespread in the mid-market
While an ERP may deliver on paper, when it’s put into practice, finance teams at mid-market companies can realise it’s too bloated or complex for what they actually need.
The first major regret is often implementation. Implementation timelines routinely balloon, leaving finance teams running dual systems for months and eroding confidence before the software even launches. But once implemented, the problems don’t stop there. Over-engineering becomes the enemy of progress – mid-market organisations often end up with functionality designed for enterprises far larger than their own. For example, the ERP might also have extra performance management or learning management modules that aren’t directly relevant for finance teams.
One of the key findings from the CFO mindset report was that 60% of finance leaders say their team uses less than half their finance system’s functionality. In doing so, they’re effectively pouring tens of thousands of pounds down the drain paying for unused features. Moreover, low adoption is the predictable result when day-to-day users find the system unintuitive or unnecessarily rigid. This can trigger teams to return to DIY processes like manual data transfer and using spreadsheets for reporting.
Given finance professionals are already stretched as it is, the hidden costs and disrupted workflows from drawn-out implementations turn promised transformation into a burden. Instead, new finance software needs the right level of capability to incentivise its use, and continual hands-on support from the provider or internal experts to maintain its adoption.
Year-end pressure exposes poor software choices
Reporting deadlines and planning cycles make it critical to have tools that support smarter decisions, not slow them down. Hard deadlines, for example, make bottlenecks impossible to ignore; slow consolidation, manual workarounds and unreliable data surface at exactly the wrong moment. These high-stress periods can also magnify training gaps and expose how dependent the organisation is on a handful of ‘system experts’. In particular, a drawn-out implementation might mean that some teams are still working on the older system and there is a lack of unified processes.
A clear indicator of how well finance software works for a company can be how easily (or not) the finance team can consolidate data for year-end reporting. Many mid-sized companies operate across different entities and subsidiaries and need to consolidate their accounts into one central place. If software is too complex or doesn’t integrate properly with other areas of the tech stack, then teams can end up retreating to previous processes to get the job done. The result? Errors often increase as people revert to spreadsheets and manual data entry, undermining the entire premise of the ERP investment.
All of these factors directly impact the efficiency and morale of the finance team. Subsequently, this impacts the company’s performance. So, how can finance leaders avoid these risks and make the right software choice from the get-go?
What right-sized finance software actually looks like
The first step to finding the right-sized software is to understand your own needs. Leaders should conduct a detailed needs analysis that outlines exactly what their finance team requires and its biggest pain points. They can then look for purpose-built finance software that fits the complexity of the organisation, rather than assuming enterprise-level processes and structures. One vital consideration is integration. The software should play well with the rest of the tech stack and connect seamlessly with critical business systems like billing and CRM without the need for expensive middleware. This will enable the automation of data entry processes and provide a hub of real-time data for reporting.
Crucially, implementation should ideally take place in 4-6 weeks – and definitely not years! This will enable finance teams to see value quickly and maintain transformation momentum. Specific capabilities like automated multi-entity accounts consolidation can also transform how quickly a finance team approaches tasks like year-end reporting. By choosing a platform that matches your scale, it should also provide scalability across its features and demonstrate an AI readiness.
A new year to do finance better
In the rush to modernise, it’s easy for finance teams to mistake ‘bigger’ for ‘better’. But the pattern of ERP regret shows that complexity sold as sophistication rarely delivers what mid-market organisations actually need. As year-end approaches and priorities for 2026 take shape, finance leaders have an opportunity to rethink their foundations. The goal isn’t to chase the most expansive system, but to choose one that genuinely supports confident decision-making. Getting that choice right won’t just avoid regret and the rebirth of erroneous processes – it will set the pace for a finance function that can move faster and lead with greater impact helping to support the growth of your business in the long-run.
