Werner van Rossum

Public Speaking Skills Professional Certificate by Toastmasters International
Toastmasters International
December 06, 2025

Formal training in professional public speaking and presentation delivery, with emphasis on structured messaging, audience engagement, and effective verbal and non-verbal communication.

Negotiation Professional Certificate by American Negotiation Institute
American Negotiation Institute
November 21, 2025

Advanced negotiation training focused on high-stakes professional negotiations, collaborative problem-solving, and development of structured negotiation strategies for complex stakeholder environments.

Master of Science - MS, International Business - Accounting and Finance
Maastricht University
February 01, 2008

Maastricht University

Activities and societies: FS FOCUS – Study Association for Finance & Accounting Students

Triple Crown Accredited (EQUIS, AACSB, AMBA)

Bachelor of Science - BS
Maastricht University
August 31, 2006

Triple Crown Accredited (EQUIS, AACSB, AMBA)
Exchange semester at Aarhus University, Denmark (2006) – focus on Marketing & Communication

Executive Education – Organizational Leadership
UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School
November 25, 2025

Selected by ExxonMobil for an invitation-only executive leadership program focused on strategic clarity, decision-making under complexity, and leading high-performing teams in global environments.

Organizational Leadership Program
Thunderbird School of Global Management
November 25, 2025

Completed a leadership development program sponsored by ExxonMobil, focused on global strategy execution, organizational effectiveness, and leading teams in fast-changing environments.

When Governance Slows Decisions: Rethinking Control, Materiality, and Trust
The European Financial Review
February 06, 2026

A recent article in The European Financial Review examining how false precision and materiality blindness emerge when governance equates control with certainty, and why separating decision governance from financial statement integrity governance matters.

Designing FP&A for Decision Advantage: A Framework for Processes, Systems, and Skills at Enterprise Scale
World Financial Review
January 05, 2026

A practical enterprise-scale framework for redesigning FP&A to create decision advantage. Explores how aligned processes, systems, and skills enable faster, higher-quality decisions in complex global organizations.

When Planning Detail Starts to Undermine Strategy
Medium
December 26, 2025

Many organizations intend for strategy to guide planning, yet detailed planning processes often quietly reverse that relationship. This article explores how excessive operational detail can undermine strategic alignment, why this pattern emerges in large enterprises, and what effective planning looks like when strategic clarity is protected before detail is introduced.

Outcome-Driven Planning: How Global Enterprises Can Align Business Plans With Strategy
European Business Review
December 03, 2025

Published article in the European Business Review outlining a practical framework for aligning business plans with corporate strategy in large global enterprises. Focuses on outcome-driven planning, simplification, and improving decision-readiness across FP&A and performance management environments.

The Clarity Crisis: The Anatomy of a High Impact Financial Story
Werner van Rossum
November 25, 2025

A breakdown of why financial stories fail inside modern organizations — and a clarity-first model for fixing them. This article explains how BLUF, context, and structured narrative turn data into decisive, action-driving insight, helping leaders elevate finance from reporting to real business influence.

The Clarity Crisis: The Anatomy of a High-Impact Financial Story
Medium
November 25, 2025

Modern organizations aren’t drowning because they lack data — they’re drowning because their stories don’t stick.

The Clarity Crisis: Why Modern Finance Is Drowning in Data but Starving for Insight
Werner van Rossum
November 21, 2025

Why organizations produce endless metrics but still lack strategic clarity — and how enterprise-wide performance transformation turns complexity into confident action.

Turning Data Into Decisions: The Art of Finance Storytelling
Werner van Rossum
November 15, 2025

This article explains how finance teams can elevate their impact by transforming complex data into clear, contextual, and actionable stories that drive better decisions.

Business Venture Manager - Performance Management (Plan to Perform)
ExxonMobil
February 01, 2024

Leading one of the most ambitious FP&A transformations in ExxonMobil’s history — reshaping how the enterprise analyzes performance and creates value.

I currently lead the $60M FP&A transformation under ExxonMobil’s $2B Polaris initiative, delivering a unified analytics solution for global performance management.

Senior Manager, Financial Planning & Analysis – Energy Products (EAME)
ExxonMobil
August 02, 2021

Served as the senior regional FP&A leader for ExxonMobil’s Energy Products business across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, with accountability for corporate planning, executive stewardship, and enterprise decision support across a complex, multi-country operating portfolio.

In this role, I led the redesign of regional planning and stewardship practices, shifting the organization from fragmented, reconciliation-driven processes to a decision-focused performance management model anchored in clarity, accountability, and strategic relevance. Working closely with Vice President and Senior Vice President leadership, I restructured how plans and performance reviews were designed to better align analytical outputs with executive decision needs.

A core contribution was the architectural simplification of the annual corporate planning process. I challenged long-standing planning conventions and redesigned volume and margin planning from highly granular, manual models toward a strategic, top-down framework aligned with how leadership evaluates trade-offs and sets direction. This materially reduced manual inputs and rework while improving the quality and timeliness of planning insights.

In parallel, I led a regional stewardship transformation that clarified ownership between business and finance, reduced review volume, and shifted executive discussions from backward-looking explanation to forward-looking commitments and actions. The resulting framework improved leadership confidence, decision focus, and scalability, and was subsequently adopted as a reference model for broader Energy Products transformation initiatives.

Executive Leadership Briefing: Making Go-Live Decisions in Large-Scale Enterprise Transformations
Global Enterprise Leadership Forum
December 10, 2025

Delivered an executive leadership briefing to a global extended leadership team on a critical transformation go-live decision within a complex enterprise environment.

The session focused on assessing readiness across data, systems, controls, and organizational change, and guiding leaders through a structured, risk-based decision framework. Topics included balancing transformation ambition with business continuity, aligning expectations across global leadership, defining pragmatic mitigation strategies, and ensuring clarity on Day-1 operating principles.

The briefing supported senior leaders in making an informed go-live decision while maintaining confidence, alignment, and momentum across the organization during a pivotal transformation milestone.

Why AI in finance still struggles at enterprise scale
The Jerusalem Post
February 05, 2026

An analysis of why artificial intelligence initiatives in finance often fail to scale, based on experience leading enterprise-scale finance, performance management, and analytics transformations. The article explains how data foundations and decision governance shape whether AI delivers trusted insight or slows decisions.

Rewiring Global Finance - Interview with Werner van Rossum
CEOWORLD Magazine
December 19, 2025

Published interview discussing enterprise-scale finance transformation, leadership, and decision-making at scale. The conversation reflects practical lessons from leading complex, multi-region transformation initiatives.

Leadership Nuggets: Chitrita Nath in conversation with Werner van Rossum
Chitrita Nath
November 30, 2025

In this media interview, Werner van Rossum, a global finance-transformation leader, reveals the mindset, leadership skills, and decision frameworks that guide him through high-stakes transformations in the energy sector. He shares how shifting from “protecting value” to “creating value” unlocks organizational buy-in; why clarity must come first in a leadership crisis; how positive energy, inclusive leadership, and removing bottlenecks are often the most underrated leadership tools; and why avoiding conflict is a leadership myth - healthy, candid debate is often the key to better decisions. Werner also outlines his decision-making filter: always ask whether a choice moves you closer to your strategic goal - and be aware that indecision can be the costliest choice of all.

Through real transformation stories and practical leadership insights, the discussion highlights how structured thinking, strategic clarity, inclusive leadership, and decisiveness enable large-scale financial transformations — even under pressure.

Executive Interview: Leading Enterprise Planning & Performance Transformation at Scale
Global Enterprise Transformation Program
November 19, 2025

Participated in an in-depth leadership interview focused on a large-scale enterprise business transformation, discussing how global organizations can modernize planning, stewardship, and performance management without disrupting core operations.

The conversation explored practical lessons from transforming fragmented planning environments into a harmonized, decision-ready analytics platform, including KPI standardization, data harmonization, governance, and the shift from manual reporting toward insight-driven leadership discussions. The interview also addressed how to manage transformation risk, enable early deployments, and support leaders through change while preserving business continuity.

Delivered as part of an enterprise transformation knowledge series, reaching a broad, senior leadership audience within a complex global organization.

Senior Editor – Hampton Global Business Review
Hampton Global Business Review
December 01, 2025

Serve as Senior Editor for Hampton Global Business Review, contributing to the evaluation and development of practitioner-oriented and research-informed content on governance, finance transformation, and organizational resilience.

Role includes editorial review, content guidance, and support of the journal’s mission to advance applied business insight.

Forbes on Enterprise Transformation Beyond Transformation
Forbes
November 04, 2025

This Forbes article highlights executive perspectives on a large-scale enterprise transformation I'm directly involved in, emphasizing the shift from system implementation to true business change at scale. The themes closely mirror the work I’m involved in around performance management, data harmonization, and building decision-ready analytics in complex global environments. It reinforces a core lesson I see consistently: transformation succeeds when data, process, governance, and leadership alignment evolve together, not in isolation.

Global Workshop: Implementing a Unified Enterprise Performance Data Model
Global Enterprise Transformation Program
March 06, 2025

Designed and delivered a global, enterprise-wide workshop introducing a new unified digital performance data model as a foundational element of a large-scale enterprise digital transformation.

The session explained why legacy, fragmented data models constrain insight, scalability, and comparability, and how a harmonized, digitally enabled enterprise model supports standardized KPIs, advanced analytics, and faster, more consistent decision-making. It also covered how modern data platforms and digital architecture unlock new capabilities by integrating financial and operational performance data on a single, scalable foundation.

The workshop detailed the structure of the new data model, the rationale behind core performance indicators, what has fundamentally changed from legacy approaches, and which new analytical and reporting capabilities are enabled as a result. Deep-dive discussions included expenses (first incurred, allocations, distributions, managed spend), earnings, revenue, gross margin, capital expenditures, working capital, cash flow, production and sales volumes, and capacity utilization.

The session enabled a global audience to align on shared digital definitions, understand the new performance logic, and consistently apply the model across the organization as part of the broader digital transformation journey.

Why Governance Needs Two Standards of Rigor
Thinkers360
February 06, 2026

Why Governance Needs Two Standards of Rigor

Many executives describe the same frustration in different words. Decisions take longer than they should, even when the direction seems clear. Forecasts are refined again. Variances are reconciled one more time. Assumptions are revisited until confidence feels complete.

Governance is often blamed, vaguely, for this slowdown. Yet governance itself is rarely the real problem. The issue is more subtle. Most organizations operate with two fundamentally different governance objectives, but treat them as if they were the same.

Two legitimate governance objectives, one common mistake

In most large organizations, one form of governance dominates almost by default: financial statement integrity governance. Its purpose is to protect external stakeholders by ensuring that reported results are accurate, consistent, and compliant with applicable standards. This form of governance is necessarily conservative, retrospective, and intolerant of error. Its rigor is non-negotiable.

Alongside it sits a second, equally legitimate objective: decision governance. The purpose of decision governance is to enable timely, well-informed management decisions under uncertainty. It is forward-looking by design. Rather than attempting to eliminate uncertainty, it seeks to surface it, bound it, and make it actionable.

Both forms of governance are essential. Problems arise when they are implicitly treated as interchangeable.

This distinction can be formalized as a dual-rigor governance model. Financial statement integrity governance and decision governance serve different purposes, operate on different time horizons, and require different standards of precision. The former is designed to ensure reliability, comparability, and compliance in externally reported results. The latter is designed to support timely managerial judgment under uncertainty. Treating these objectives as interchangeable creates predictable failure modes, including excessive reconciliation, false precision, and delayed action. Recognizing governance as purpose-specific rather than monolithic allows rigor to be applied proportionally, preserving control where accuracy is essential while enabling speed and judgment where direction and risk awareness matter more than exactness.

When reporting rigor is applied to decisions

In many organizations, the standards designed to safeguard external reporting quietly migrate into internal decision forums. Forecasts are expected to converge as tightly as reported results. Immaterial differences trigger reconciliation. Residual uncertainty becomes a reason to delay rather than an input to judgment.

This feels responsible. It looks disciplined. But it introduces a mismatch between what decisions actually require and what governance implicitly demands.

Decisions rarely require reporting-grade precision. They require directional confidence, understanding of trade-offs, and clarity on risk exposure. When decision readiness becomes tied to the level of assurance appropriate for external reporting, speed suffers without a corresponding improvement in decision quality.

This dynamic is most visible during enterprise planning and forecasting cycles, when forecast accuracy is still improving but decision windows are already closing. In those moments, additional precision does little to change direction, while delay materially changes outcomes.

Why this is not a control failure

It is tempting to frame this dynamic as overcontrol or excessive conservatism. In practice, it is neither.

Most controls were introduced for good reasons. Audit findings, regulatory expectations, and past errors all leave behind governance artifacts that accumulate over time. Rarely are these controls removed once the original concern has passed.

The failure is not one of intent, but of design. Governance systems drift toward protecting what already exists because that objective is measurable and defensible. Creating new value, by contrast, requires judgment under uncertainty and acceptance of bounded risk.

When governance is not explicitly calibrated to the type of decision being made, organizations default to the safest standard available. That standard is usually financial reporting rigor.

What changes when the distinction is explicit

Organizations that explicitly distinguish decision governance from financial statement integrity governance behave differently.

They define materiality thresholds for decision contexts rather than inheriting reporting tolerances. They make uncertainty visible and assign ownership instead of reconciling it away. They accept that some numbers need to be directionally right rather than mechanically precise.

This does not weaken control. It strengthens it by aligning rigor with purpose. External reporting remains uncompromised. Decision processes become faster and more effective because governance is designed to support action rather than delay it.

The practical implication for finance and analytics teams

This distinction has direct implications for how finance and analytics operate.

When decision-grade analytics is tightly coupled to general ledger structures or transactional systems, every change propagates reconciliation pressure into decision forums. Materiality collapses. Precision escalates by default.

Separating decision analytics from systems of record, often through stable semantic layers, allows governance to focus on relevance and insight rather than mechanical accuracy. Finance teams spend less time explaining immaterial differences and more time helping leaders understand trade-offs, sensitivities, and implications.

Governance as an enabler of judgment

Good governance is not about eliminating risk or perfecting numbers. It is about creating the conditions for sound judgment.

Organizations that move faster are not reckless. They are clearer. Clearer about which governance objective applies. Clearer about what level of accuracy is sufficient. Clearer about where uncertainty must be managed rather than removed.

When governance is designed with that clarity, it stops being a brake on decision-making and becomes what it was always meant to be: an enabler of responsible action.

I explore the distinction between decision governance and financial statement integrity governance in more depth in a recent article published in The European Financial Review.

Why Enterprise Analytics Fail When They Are Designed Around Tools Instead of Decisions
Thinkers360
January 25, 2026

Why Enterprise Analytics Fail When They Are Designed Around Tools Instead of Decisions

Enterprise analytics programs rarely fail in visible or dramatic ways. Dashboards are delivered, data pipelines run reliably, and reporting volumes increase. Yet executive decision forums continue to rely on offline analyses, parallel models, or informal narratives. The analytics function appears productive, but its influence on actual decisions remains limited.

This pattern reflects a design inversion. Most analytics architectures are optimized for analytic reuse and technical scalability rather than for decision resolution. As a result, they perform well on their own terms while remaining institutionally peripheral.

Two dominant design paths, one shared limitation

Most enterprise analytics environments evolve along one of two design paths.

The first is ERP-centric. Analytics are treated as an extension of transactional systems, with reporting layered directly on top of operational data structures. Fidelity to source systems becomes the organizing principle, and alignment with transactional definitions is treated as analytical rigor.

The second is analytics-centric. A dedicated analytics stack is introduced, emphasizing reusable datasets, standardized metrics, and self-service exploration. Architectural success is measured by coverage, consistency, and adoption of common definitions.

Despite their technical differences, both paths share a critical limitation. They organize analytics around systems, datasets, and abstractions rather than around decision accountability. Metrics are defined because they are computable, reusable, and scalable, not because they resolve a specific managerial choice.

The result is a familiar paradox. Analytics outputs are internally coherent and technically robust, yet only loosely connected to the decisions that govern resource allocation, risk acceptance, and performance commitments.

Why embedding analytics often increases friction rather than impact

When analytics adoption disappoints, organizations frequently respond by embedding analytics more deeply into operational tools. KPIs are surfaced inside ERP transactions. Dashboards are integrated into daily workflows. Alerts are automated and pushed to users.

At limited scale, this can improve visibility. At enterprise scale, it often produces the opposite effect.

Embedded analytics multiply exposure to metrics without clarifying decision rights. Users encounter indicators without knowing whether they are expected to interpret them, escalate them, or act on them. Authority remains implicit, while information becomes pervasive.

Over time, analytics are experienced less as decision support and more as ambient signal. Metrics compete with operational priorities rather than guiding them. The failure is not one of access or latency, but of institutional design. Information is present everywhere, yet responsibility is nowhere.

The hidden cost of tightly coupled analytics

A related failure mode lies in how analytics are constructed.

In many organizations, business logic is defined directly within dashboards. Measures are shaped to fit visual layouts. Calculations are duplicated across reports to meet local needs. This coupling accelerates delivery and creates visible progress.

The long-term cost is architectural fragility. When definitions change, impacts are difficult to trace. When a metric must support a different decision forum, it must be recreated rather than reused. Governance discussions collapse into technical debates because there is no stable, decision-level logic layer to interrogate.

More importantly, tightly coupled analytics do not scale with decision maturity. As organizations evolve, decisions increasingly involve trade-offs, constraints, and scenarios rather than single metrics. Architectures optimized for static visualization struggle to support deliberation, comparison, and commitment.

Designing analytics backward from decisions

A decision-centered approach reverses the typical design sequence.

Instead of starting with data sources or tools, it begins with governance forums. These are the recurring settings in which the organization commits resources, revises expectations, or accepts risk. Examples include forecast reviews, capital allocation committees, performance reviews, and risk governance councils.

For each forum, the design questions are explicit:

• What decision is being made?
• What alternatives are under consideration?
• What criteria determine a viable outcome?
• Who has the authority to commit the organization?

Analytics are then designed only to the extent required to support those judgments. Metrics exist because they differentiate between alternatives. Scenarios exist because choices exist. Visualizations are shaped to support deliberation and resolution, not exploration in the abstract.

This approach deliberately constrains analytics. It reduces metric proliferation, limits ad hoc definition changes, and resists universal self-service. Those constraints are not incidental. They are what allow analytics to remain stable, governable, and trusted within decision forums over time.

What resilient analytics architectures do differently

Analytics architectures that sustain decision relevance tend to share several characteristics.

They separate decision logic from presentation. Definitions, assumptions, and thresholds are governed independently of how they are visualized or delivered.

They privilege decision stability over data exhaustiveness. Only information that materially affects outcomes is surfaced, even when additional data is readily available.

They align data refresh cycles with decision cadence. Real-time data is used where real-time decisions exist. Elsewhere, consistency and interpretability take precedence over immediacy.

They treat analytics as institutional infrastructure rather than informational output. Metrics are durable, traceable, and auditable because decisions rely on them repeatedly, not episodically.

Underlying these choices is a different premise. Analytics is not primarily an information problem. It is a decision system design problem. Tools enable that system, but they do not define it.

A quiet failure, and a deliberate alternative

Enterprise analytics rarely fail because the numbers are wrong. They fail because they are successful on their own terms while remaining disconnected from the decisions that govern the enterprise.

Designing analytics backward from decisions does not simplify the work. It narrows it. That narrowing forces clarity about what matters, who decides, and why the analysis exists at all.

For organizations seeking durable value from analytics, that constraint is not a limitation. It is the architectural choice that determines whether analytics remain peripheral or become institutionally consequential.

Why FP&A Breaks at Scale - and How to Design It for Decision Advantage
Thinkers360
January 03, 2026

Why FP&A Breaks at Scale - and How to Design It for Decision Advantage

In many large organizations, FP&A is expected to do more than ever before. Beyond budgeting and variance analysis, it is asked to support strategy execution, inform capital allocation, and provide forward-looking insight in increasingly volatile environments.

Yet at enterprise scale, the outcome is often paradoxical.

Despite heavy investment in tools, data platforms, and reporting capabilities, FP&A teams frequently find themselves overwhelmed by volume rather than empowered by clarity. Analysts spend significant time reconciling numbers, explaining discrepancies, and preparing extensive materials, while senior leaders receive more information than they can realistically absorb or act on. The result is a function that is operationally busy, yet strategically constrained.

In my experience, this is rarely a talent problem or a technology problem. More often, it is a design problem.

This article builds on my recent publication in the World Financial Review, where I introduced an integrated framework for designing Financial Planning & Analysis (FP&A) as a source of decision advantage at enterprise scale. Here, I expand on the practical implications of that framework and explore why traditional FP&A models tend to break down as organizations grow in size and complexity.

From analytical output to decision advantage

A recurring issue in large FP&A organizations is that success is implicitly measured by analytical sophistication or reporting completeness. More models, more scenarios, more dashboards are assumed to equate to better decisions.

In practice, that assumption often fails.

What ultimately matters is not how much analysis is produced, but whether insight reaches decision-makers in time, with credibility, and in a form that is directly relevant to the decision at hand. I refer to this capability as decision advantage.

Decision advantage is not synonymous with forecasting accuracy or advanced analytics. Highly accurate forecasts that arrive after decisions are locked in, or insights that are not trusted due to inconsistent definitions, do little to shape outcomes. At scale, decision advantage emerges only when information production is intentionally linked to decision execution.

A three-pillar design lens for FP&A at enterprise scale

Viewing FP&A through a decision-advantage lens shifts the transformation question. Instead of asking how to optimize individual components, the focus becomes how to design FP&A as an integrated enterprise capability.

I find it useful to frame this design challenge around three interdependent pillars:

• Processes - how decisions are structured, sequenced, and governed

• Systems - how data, calculation logic, and analytics are enabled and scaled

• Skills - how people interpret information, exercise judgment, and influence outcomes

At enterprise scale, none of these elements can be optimized in isolation. Improving tools without redesigning decision processes often shifts effort from analysis to reconciliation. Standardizing processes without investing in professional judgment increases control at the expense of insight. Developing talent without fixing system fragmentation limits impact.

Decision advantage emerges only when these pillars are deliberately aligned.

Why this matters now

As organizations grow larger and more complex, decision latency and fragmentation tend to increase. Governance layers multiply, local requirements accumulate, and analytical effort drifts toward explaining the past rather than shaping future choices. What works in a single business unit rarely scales cleanly across a global, multi-business enterprise.

Designing FP&A for decision advantage is therefore not a technical exercise. It is a leadership choice about what the organization chooses to plan, measure, review, and escalate - and just as importantly, what it chooses to stop doing.

For a deeper, structured treatment of this framework, the full article is available via the World Financial Review: Designing Enterprise FP&A for Decision Advantage - The World Financial Review

When Planning Detail Starts to Undermine Strategy
Thinkers360
December 19, 2025

In many organizations, planning gradually shifts from a strategy-led exercise to a detailed operational negotiation. As assumptions multiply and templates expand, strategic intent remains referenced but no longer leads decision-making.

This article examines why excessive detail introduced too early can undermine strategy, how planning processes often conflate long-term strategic alignment with short-term operational accuracy, and why effective planning works in the opposite order. It also explores how digital transformation, when grounded in clear strategic anchors and sound data foundations, can support better planning by enabling faster scenario analysis without accelerating confusion.

The organizations that plan well are not those with the most granular forecasts, but those that preserve strategic clarity throughout the planning process, using detail to inform decisions rather than replace them.

Data Isn’t the Problem. Alignment Is.
Thinkers360
December 12, 2025

Many organizations believe they have a data problem. In reality, they have an alignment problem.

I’ve seen companies invest heavily in modern platforms, dashboards, and analytics - yet still struggle to make timely decisions. The issue isn’t data quality or technology capability. It’s that each function defines success differently.

Real transformation happens when organizations move to a single performance model: one KPI framework, one source of truth, and one shared interpretation.

When alignment replaces fragmentation, decision velocity increases more than any additional technology investment ever could.

Strategy Fails When It Becomes a Spreadsheet Exercise
Thinkers360
December 04, 2025

A lot of organizations think they have a strategy issue, but more often it’s a planning issue.
If your annual plan starts with last year’s numbers, you’re already negotiating against your own ambition.

When planning turns into a routine of templates, historical run rates, and incremental tweaks, strategy quietly moves to the background.

Outcome-driven planning changes that. Start with the outcomes you actually want, agree on the few decisions that matter, and build the plan around those choices.

It sounds simple, but it forces clarity and real alignment. Most importantly, it keeps leaders focused on where the business needs to go — not where it happened to be last year.

Speaking Topics – Werner van Rossum

Location: Virtual, in person globally     Fees: By invitation

Service Type: Service Offered

- Outcome-Driven Planning: Making Strategy Lead Enterprise Decisions
An executive perspective on how large organizations can reposition planning as a leadership discipline rather than a forecasting exercise - anchoring plans in strategic intent, clarifying priorities, and enabling decision-making that scales across complex global environments.

- Turning Financial Complexity into Decision-Grade Clarity
A practical, experience-based view on how senior leaders can simplify complex financial environments by aligning data, governance, and decision processes - so finance shifts from explaining results to enabling confident, timely decisions.

- FP&A at Enterprise Scale: Governance, Data, and Operating Models That Work
Insights drawn from leading large-scale FP&A transformations, focusing on how governance structures, data models, and operating models must work together to support performance management across countries, systems, and business lines.

- Why Large-Scale Transformations Fail — and What Successful Ones Do Differently
A candid examination of common failure patterns in enterprise transformations, and the structural, governance, and leadership choices that distinguish programs that deliver sustained outcomes from those that stall.

- Leading Through Complexity: Executive Capabilities for Large, Global Organizations
A leadership-focused session exploring the capabilities senior executives need to lead effectively in complex, multinational environments - covering alignment, accountability, and decision-making under scale, volatility, and uncertainty.

Speaker Context
These keynote topics draw on first-hand experience leading enterprise-scale finance and performance transformations in complex, global organizations, operating at the intersection of strategy, data, governance, and executive decision-making.