The £7.5 million lesson: What real FP&A influence looks like

When I talk about the “FP&A influence gap,” I’m referring to the gap between the level of influence some FP&A teams currently have and the level of influence they should have in order to deliver the greatest possible benefit to their organizations.

It’s a gap I’ve seen firsthand. And if we’re honest, it’s one that exists in many businesses.

Let me ground this in a couple of statistics. A survey conducted last year by FP&A Trends found that only 37% of FP&A teams see themselves as well established business partners.

That’s barely over a third. Even more striking, 35% of CFOs (arguably the most commercially involved finance leaders in a business) say they are barely involved in commercial decision-making.

If CFOs feel removed from commercial decisions, what does that say about the rest of finance?

That, to me, signals a clear disconnect. A clear influence gap.

I’m the Deputy Group Deputy Head of FP&A at Peel Ports Group. We operate nine ports across the U.K., generate around £800 million in revenue, and employ roughly 2,500 people.

If I had to summarize our business in the simplest possible way, it would be this: we take things off ships and we put things on ships. That’s what we do.

Over the past year and a half, we’ve been on a journey to close the FP&A influence gap within our own organization. It hasn’t been theoretical.

It’s been practical, sometimes uncomfortable, and ultimately transformative. What I want to share is what that journey looked like and the principles that helped us change our impact.

When finance wasn’t in the room

Let me take you back to December 2023.

We were in the middle of a large transaction involving a long-term lease arrangement with a customer in the steel industry.

I’ve changed a few details for confidentiality reasons (it was an M&A-related deal) but what I can say is that it was significant. Over the lifetime of the agreement, it was worth tens of millions of pounds, potentially approaching £100 million.

There was a flurry of activity. Our Chief Operating Officer, who was championing the deal, was in active discussions with the customer.

There were internal meetings to determine how the arrangement would work operationally and commercially.

Legal was involved, drafting contracts and reviewing terms. The whole process built toward a deadline: March 31, 2024, our financial year-end.

At 11:45 p.m. on March 31, the deal was signed. It was done.

Now here’s the key question: when did finance get involved?

Not in December, when the idea was being shaped. Not in March, when negotiations intensified. Not even on March 31, as final terms were agreed.

Finance got involved on April 1, 2024. The day after the deal was signed. After the next 50 years of that part of our business had effectively been set.

We were simply not part of the process.

That’s not to say the deal was done recklessly. We have capable, commercially minded people. But the decisions were based largely on experience and judgment, on a sense that the deal “felt about right.”

At that scale, that’s not good enough.

Where were the financial checks? Where was the analysis of long-term impact? Did anyone fully understand the total financial consequences?

If we’re honest, no, not in a structured, robust way.

At around the same time, in January 2024, we had appointed a new CFO. When he saw that a major deal had been completed without finance involvement, it didn’t sit right with him. Nor, I suspect, would it sit right with most of you reading this.

On one side, we had a finance function with analytical capability and commercial understanding. On the other, major commercial decisions were being made without that input. Something had to change.

The decision was made to establish a dedicated FP&A team.

We already had financial accounting and management accounting teams, but this new function would focus on forward-looking analysis and commercial engagement, particularly involvement in significant deals.

One of our explicit objectives was to ensure FP&A had a seat at the table.

A second chance and a different approach

By summer 2024, we had our first real opportunity.

Coincidentally, it involved the same customer. This time, however, the proposal was even more strategic.

The customer was looking to expand from being a relatively small presence at one of our ports to becoming a major, strategic partner across multiple sites.

Again, we were talking about tens of millions of pounds over the lifetime of the arrangement.

The key difference? We were involved from the beginning.

We met with the Chief Operating Officer, who was again sponsoring the deal. We spoke with the divisional director and finance director to understand the local impact.

We engaged operational teams to grasp what would change on the ground. We reviewed management accounts to understand historical performance and what we might be giving up.

We also looked outward (at market trends and external research) to test whether our assumptions about growth and demand aligned with reality.

This wasn’t just box-ticking. It was deliberate.

What we were doing, fundamentally, was building understanding.

That brings me to the first of three principles I believe are essential for closing the FP&A influence gap: clarify.

Clarify: build a deep and independent understanding

If you don’t truly understand what you’re working on, you have no chance of influencing it.

Clarifying means developing a broad, deep, and (crucially) independent understanding of the issue at hand.

You need to know your organization’s strategy, market position, and commercial drivers. It’s not enough to understand the numbers; you need to understand what the business is trying to win at.

What does success look like? What is it trying to be better at than competitors?

You need to talk widely. Formal meetings are important, but informal conversations matter just as much. A chat in a hallway can reveal as much insight as a boardroom discussion. Different individuals bring different information and different biases.

You also need to combine internal and external perspectives. Organizations can become insular. We might believe we are outperforming the market, but external data may tell a different story.

Without that external lens, you risk reinforcing internal assumptions rather than challenging them.

And wherever possible, you need to see the business in action. If you’re based at head office, get to site. In manufacturing, visit the production line. In retail, walk the store floor. In tech, sit with developers.

Understanding how things really get done (beyond the formal process charts) is invaluable. Power and influence in an organization don’t always sit where the org chart suggests they do.

Clarify first. Without that foundation, everything else is fragile.

Challenge: add value through constructive tension

After weeks of meetings and analysis, we built our initial financial model for the deal.

We went back to the COO with our findings. Our conclusion was blunt: on a net basis, the deal would lose us £15 million over its lifetime.

What started as a planned 15-minute update became a 90-minute grilling.

Had we considered certain revenue streams? Yes, but associated costs offset them.

Had we factored in operational efficiencies? Yes, but they weren’t sufficient to bridge the gap.

It was a robust, at times uncomfortable, back-and-forth.

At that moment, it could have gone either way. We could have been sidelined again. Or we could lean into the discomfort and stay engaged.

We chose the latter.

From that discussion, both sides gained new insight. The COO left with food for thought, areas where the deal might be reshaped. We left with additional information that improved our model.

That experience reinforced the second principle: challenge.

Challenging isn’t about being obstructive. It’s about raising constructive tension. It means questioning assumptions, highlighting risks, and bringing an independent financial perspective.

It also means translating insight into action. Saying “we’ll lose £15 million” isn’t enough. You must explain why and identify levers that could change the outcome. The classic framework applies: what, so what, now what?

You also need to be selective. If you challenge everything, you dilute your impact. Credibility matters. When you do challenge, it must be backed by evidence and grounded in genuine value-add.

Connect: make influence land

We refined our model, incorporating new information and testing multiple scenarios.

When we met the COO again, we made a deliberate shift in how we communicated. We minimized financial jargon.

Instead of focusing on EBITDA and net present value, we talked about operational metrics: vessel volumes, throughput, and capacity. We explained the story behind the numbers, including both pros and cons.

This time, the message landed.

Our updated analysis showed that the deal was worth more than initially thought, both to us and to the customer. That insight gave the COO a concrete, data-backed position to return to the negotiating table.

That brings me to the third principle: connect.

You can understand the business. You can challenge assumptions. But if you can’t connect with decision-makers, your impact is limited.

Connecting means establishing trust and credibility. It means being seen as a business partner, not just “the finance person.”

It requires early and consistent engagement, strong cross-functional relationships, and the ability to translate numbers into narrative.

Without connection, challenge feels like obstruction. With connection, challenge feels like collaboration.

From analysis to outcome

On the final day of negotiations, the COO informed us that he had secured an additional £7.5 million in value from the deal directly supported by the analysis we provided.

Purely on the initial math, that would still leave a £7.5 million shortfall against our original £15 million loss projection. But the revised structure, combined with strategic considerations that are harder to quantify, shifted the balance in our favor.

The important point is this: finance was at the table. Finance influenced the outcome.

That £7.5 million wasn’t an abstract number. It was the result of cutting through complexity and articulating value clearly and credibly.

Since then, FP&A has remained embedded in major commercial discussions. We’re currently involved in three significant deals. We’re busy and we’re influential.

Making models withstand scrutiny

I was asked how we ensured our model was robust enough to withstand challenge.

There’s no magic formula. It comes down to time and rigor. You have to live with the model. Stress-test it. Ask yourself repeatedly: what could break here? What assumptions are fragile? Where could this be wrong?

You won’t catch everything. In our case, the only real issues raised were based on information we genuinely hadn’t had access to beforehand. But deliberate testing and critical thinking are essential.

Influence collapses if your analysis doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Influencing beyond the C-suite

Another question I’m often asked is whether influencing senior leaders is easier than influencing frontline managers.

In my experience, the approach is similar. When working with managers closer to day-to-day operations, data becomes even more powerful.

Those individuals are busy running operations; discharging vessels, coordinating logistics, managing teams. They often don’t have the time or tools to step back and analyze trends.

When you come prepared with thoughtful analysis and a clear perspective, you can add real value. You bring a lens they may not otherwise have.

Closing the gap

So how do you close the FP&A influence gap?

You clarify. You build deep, independent understanding.

You challenge. You raise constructive tension and add perspective.

You connect. You ensure your insight is trusted, understood, and acted upon.

When those three elements work together, finance moves from being reactive to being influential. From reporting what happened to shaping what happens next.

For us at Peel Ports Group, that shift has been tangible. We’ve moved from hearing about deals after they’re signed to actively shaping them before they are.

And in my view, that’s where FP&A truly belongs.

This article is based on Alexander Roche's brilliant talk at our FP&A Summit London. Check out our events calendar to see what's coming up (we have both virtual and in-person events you can choose from).