OBLYTECH Logo
Enquire Now
OBLYTECH Logo

OBLYTECH / ServiceNow

ServiceNow for Finance: Streamlining Financial Processes and Boosting Efficiency

Finance departments are under constant pressure to streamline operations, reduce costs, and improve accuracy. Manual processes, fragmented systems, and a lack of visibility can hinder efficiency and create bottlenecks that impact the entire organization.

For readers evaluating this topic and deciding what to review next.

ServiceNow for financeServiceNowpractical guide
Discuss this topic

Guide map

A practical framework for servicenow for finance.

Oblytech: Your ServiceNow Partner in Finance

Finance teams usually judge a workflow by whether it closes on time, leaves a clear trail and avoids rework for approvers.

Why Choose Oblytech for ServiceNow in Finance?

Decide which finance question the process must answer first, such as where approvals stall, before choosing which steps to automate.

Define the question and scope

Finance requests usually break at approval routing, so document who signs off each request type and what evidence the approver needs to see.

The practical framework

Finance departments are under constant pressure to streamline operations, reduce costs, and improve accuracy. Manual processes, fragmented systems, and a lack of visibility can hinder efficiency and create bottlenecks that impact the entire organization.

This blog post explores the transformative potential of ServiceNow for finance, delving into its key features, benefits, and real-world applications. We'll also discuss how Oblytech, a ServiceNow partner, can help you implement and optimize ServiceNow solutions to achieve your financial goals.

The Challenges Facing Finance Departments Today

Finance teams face a multitude of challenges in today's complex business environment:

  • Manual Processes:  Many finance departments still rely on manual processes, such as invoice processing and expense approvals, which are time-consuming, error-prone, and inefficient.
  • Fragmented Systems:  Data silos and disparate systems can hinder visibility and make it difficult to get a complete picture of financial performance.
  • Lack of Real-Time Insights:  Traditional reporting methods often provide outdated information, making it challenging to make informed decisions and respond quickly to changing business conditions.
  • Compliance and Risk Management:  Finance teams must comply with various regulations and standards, such as SOX and GAAP, which can be complex and time-consuming.
  • Budgeting and Forecasting:  Creating accurate budgets and forecasts can be challenging, especially in dynamic business environments.

How ServiceNow Addresses Financial Challenges

ServiceNow's Financial Management suite provides a comprehensive set of solutions that can help finance departments overcome these challenges and improve their overall performance:

  • Finance Service Management:
    • Streamline and automate key financial processes, such as invoice processing, expense approvals, and budget management.
    • Reduce manual effort, improve accuracy, and accelerate processing times.
    • Provide self-service capabilities for employees to submit requests and track their status.
  • Financial Planning and Analysis:
    • Gain real-time insights into financial performance with dashboards and reports that provide a comprehensive view of your financial data.
    • Improve forecasting and budgeting accuracy with ServiceNow's planning and analysis tools.
    • Enable collaboration and communication between finance teams and other departments.
  • Risk and Compliance Management:
    • Strengthen financial controls and manage audits effectively with ServiceNow's risk and compliance capabilities.
    • Automate compliance tasks, track regulatory changes, and generate reports to demonstrate compliance.
    • Mitigate financial risks by identifying and addressing potential vulnerabilities.
  • Integration with ERP Systems:
    • Integrate ServiceNow with your existing ERP systems, such as SAP or Oracle, to create a unified financial ecosystem.
    • Eliminate data silos, improve data accuracy, and streamline financial processes across your organization.

Oblytech: Your ServiceNow Partner in Finance

Oblytech can help finance departments put ServiceNow to work on the monthly processes they run, such as invoice and expense approvals. Our ServiceNow team can help you:

  • Assess Your Needs: We'll conduct a thorough assessment of your current financial processes and systems, identifying areas where ServiceNow can deliver the greatest value.
  • Develop a Roadmap: We'll create a customized ServiceNow roadmap that aligns with your specific financial goals and priorities.
  • Implement and Configure ServiceNow: We'll guide you through the implementation process, ensuring a smooth transition and a working connection with your existing ERP and other systems.
  • Customize and Enhance: We'll tailor ServiceNow to your unique requirements, developing custom applications and workflows to optimize your financial processes.
  • Provide Ongoing Support: We offer ongoing support and maintenance to help keep your ServiceNow instance healthy, secure, and optimized for performance.

Why Choose Oblytech for ServiceNow in Finance?

  • Financial Controls Awareness: We take the audit and reporting requirements of each finance process into account when we design the workflow.
  • ServiceNow Expertise:  Our team implements and customizes ServiceNow for finance departments.
  • Focus on Efficiency: We prioritize solutions that streamline financial processes and improve accuracy.
  • Finance-focused delivery: We scope IT projects around the goals of the finance department.
  • Client-Centric Approach:  We work closely with you to understand your specific needs and challenges, tailoring our ServiceNow solutions to achieve your financial goals.

Common questions

Questions teams ask about servicenow for finance

What should a review establish first?

Start with the question, scope, decision boundary, ownership, and evidence that the reader needs to carry into the next action.

How should the next action be chosen?

Use the article framework to identify the unresolved decision, the responsible group, and the record that will show what happened.

The documented boundary

This article is presented as a practical reference. Apply its recommendations against the specific systems, responsibilities, and evidence available in the organization being reviewed.

Decide which finance decision the workflow owns

Finance teams rarely need a ServiceNow workflow for the ledger itself. The general ledger, the payment run and the statutory reporting usually stay in the financial system of record. What a workflow platform can own is the path that leads to those entries: a purchase request that needs approval, an expense that needs a receipt and a cost center, a supplier onboarding that needs checks before anyone can pay them. A clear boundary between the ledger and the request is the first design decision, because it determines which system is authoritative when two records disagree.

Ask which decision the workflow must make, who makes it and what evidence they need. An approval for a purchase depends on the budget owner, the amount against an approval limit and whether the supplier is already approved. An expense check depends on the policy category and the receipt. Those are different decisions, and mixing them into one generic form makes both harder to approve responsibly.

Three finance intake patterns and where they break

Intake patternDecision it supportsWhere it typically breaks
Purchase request with approval routingWhether spend is authorized before a supplier is engagedApproval limits are hard-coded into a rule, and nobody updates them when the delegation of authority changes
Expense claim with policy checksWhether a claim matches policy and has the evidence the ledger needsReceipts are optional in the form but required by the auditor, so the gap appears only at year end
Supplier onboarding requestWhether a new supplier is safe to payThe request closes when the form is submitted rather than when the bank and tax checks are finished

In each row the failure is the same kind: the workflow records that a step happened but not that the decision behind it was sound. Closing a request needs evidence of the decision, not only the click.

Setting up an approval path that finance can defend

  1. Obtain the current delegation of authority in writing, including who may approve on behalf of whom and for how long.
  2. Map each approval to one threshold or condition, and keep the threshold in a table that finance can edit, rather than inside a script.
  3. Decide what happens when an approver is absent, declined, or the request changes after approval, and write the route down.
  4. Record the cost center and budget owner on the request, so the approval can be reconciled to the budget without a second lookup.
  5. Agree the evidence that must be attached before closure, and make the closure rule check for it.
  6. Test the path with a request just below and just above each threshold, and with a request whose approver is out of office.

When the workflow should stay out of finance

A workflow is not the right home for every financial calculation. Forecasting models, reconciliations between large ledgers and tax computations belong in the tools built for them. Use the workflow to route, record and evidence the decision, and send the numbers to the system that calculates them. If a process needs a single source of truth for amounts, decide that first, because a workflow that keeps its own copy of a figure will disagree with the ledger at some point.

The guide to procurement request controls covers how a purchase request is explained, routed, approved and evidenced through closure, and the guide to segregation of duties review covers combinations of access or actions that one person should not control without an additional review.

Should finance approvals sit in the ERP or in the workflow platform?

It depends on where the decision is made and where the evidence is needed. If the approval is part of the ledger control, keep it in the ledger. If the approval is an intake decision that feeds the ledger, the workflow is a reasonable home, provided the ledger receives the approved outcome with the approver’s identity.

How should a changed purchase amount be handled after approval?

Treat a material change as a new decision. Re-route the request to the approver whose limit covers the new amount, and keep the earlier approval visible in the history. A quiet edit that keeps the old approval attached is a common route to an audit finding.

Do we need a supplier onboarding workflow before a purchase workflow?

Often yes, because a purchase cannot be fulfilled safely to a supplier that has not been checked. Sequencing the two keeps payment risk out of the purchase path, although some organizations start with purchases and add supplier checks once volume justifies it.

Talk through the finance boundary

If finance and operations disagree on where an approval should live, the answer often lies in which system must hold the evidence. Start a conversation about the approval boundary, or see the financial services page, which sets out who decides on a workflow change in a bank, insurer, broker, asset manager or payments firm.

ServiceNow IT Financial Management is an IT cost tool, separate from finance approvals

ServiceNow IT Financial Management, usually shortened to ITFM, is the part of the platform that shows what IT costs and which business services those costs support. It brings together spend on hardware, software licenses, cloud services and internal IT effort, then allocates it to services so cost can be compared with budget. It answers questions about cost and budget. It is not a general ledger, and in most implementations the official accounting record stays in the ERP.

The confusion comes from treating two different jobs as one. The first is IT cost management: budgets, cost allocation and showing the business what a service costs. The second is the finance operations workflow: a request to buy something, the approvals behind it, and the handover to procurement and accounts payable.

QuestionIT cost management (ITFM)Finance operations workflow
Main outputCost per service and budget against actualAn approved request with a clear next step
Typical ownerIT finance and service ownersRequesters, approvers and procurement
Usual failureCost data that cannot be traced to a serviceApprovals waiting in a queue nobody owns

Start with cost management when the problem is that nobody can explain IT spend to the business. Start with the workflow when approvals stall or no one can see where a purchase request is waiting. Allocation depends on clean asset records, so that data usually needs attention before budget reports are worth reading.

A practical first step is to list the three cost sources that matter most for the next budget cycle, then check whether each one can be traced to a named service and an owner. A license cost with no owner can make the allocation report wrong however good the dashboard looks. Check which modules, entitlements and plugins your instance has on your own release, because what is included and what needs a separate subscription varies.

When the question is where the boundary sits, the rule is simple. Keep the accounting record and payments in the ERP, keep the request and approval trail in ServiceNow, and use ITFM for cost views that finance and IT both read. If your general ledger runs in SAP, the SAP integration guide covers the usual patterns for moving cost and vendor data between the two. If you want the setup reviewed, our financial services work on ServiceNow covers that.

ServiceNow financial management setup: the order that gives you a report you can trust

Set up ServiceNow financial management in four stages: name the owners, confirm the cost sources, agree the allocation rules, then load budgets and build reports. In most implementations the dashboards come last, because teams that build them first usually rebuild them after the first reconciliation.

Stage one is ownership. Every cost source needs one named person who can answer for it: the signatory on the software contract, the owner of each cloud account, the team running the hardware refresh. An unowned cost still shows in the totals, but nobody can explain it when a budget holder asks.

Stage two is the cost sources. List the three sources that matter most for the next budget cycle and confirm each traces to a named service. Cloud spend is usually the hardest, because it arrives as metered usage rather than an invoice line. The way cloud spend can be matched to services is worth reading here.

Stage three is the allocation rule. Write down how each shared cost is split, whether by headcount, measured usage or an agreed fixed share. Choose a rule the budget owner can explain in one sentence, and do not change it mid-year, or this year cannot be compared with the last.

Stage four is budgets and reporting. Load the approved budget by cost center and service before building the first view, then keep that view to one table of actual cost against budget per service. The reporting and dashboards guide covers how to shape a view people read.

Test the setup with a cost you already know. Follow one license invoice to its service and check that the owner and the amount match on the report. A mismatch found now costs an afternoon; found after the budget review, it costs credibility. The planning for business-owned validation guide covers who signs off that test.

The most common mistake is starting with the allocation rule before the owners are named. The argument then happens in the wrong meeting, between people who are not accountable for the numbers. Name the owners first, and the allocation discussion becomes a short decision.

How to tell whether the finance workflow is working after go-live

A finance workflow is working when approvals move at a steady pace, requests arrive complete, and exceptions are handled inside the platform instead of by email. Four measures cover all three. Each one can be read from the platform’s own records once the workflow has run for a few weeks.

  • Cycle time by approval step. Measure the gap between submission and decision at each level. A slow step usually points to one approver or one unclear rule, not to the whole process. If a rule is the cause, it is easier to fix when the step was built in Flow Designer, where each condition is written out.
  • Requests returned for correction. If finance sends back a high share of requests, the intake form is asking the wrong questions or skipping a required attachment. Fix the form before adding another approval level, because an extra level only delays the same weak request.
  • Approvals past their due date. Count these apart from normal waits. A stalled approval is a typical reason people go back to email, and once they do, the record stops matching what happened.
  • Exceptions handled outside the workflow. Every purchase or payment approved by email is a gap in the trail. Log these by team so you can see where the workflow does not fit how people work. For the controls side of that trail, see audit evidence for finance controls.

Approver absence needs its own check. Delegation should be time limited and visible in the record, so a reviewer can see who approved and on whose behalf. How delegation and reassignment are configured and reported differs between platform releases, so confirm the exact behaviour on your own instance before relying on it in a finance review.

Set the baseline before go-live if you can. Without one, the first report becomes the baseline and there is nothing to show improvement against. Test the approval path with the people who will sign off on it, using business owned validation, before release rather than after.

Review the four measures in one fixed meeting each month with finance and the platform owner. Change one rule at a time and watch the same measure through the next cycle. If three things change at once, you cannot tell which one helped, and finance loses confidence that the numbers are real.

A practical next step

Need a clearer operating model?

OBLYTECH can discuss the questions raised by this guide and the next review step. Use the OBLYTECH contact route to start the conversation.

Useful starting pointBring the current question, scope, ownership concerns, and evidence needs into the first review conversation.

Explore OBLYTECH services

ServiceNow guides on this topic

Guides from the Oblytech ServiceNow library that explain the practice behind this page.

More from the blog

Related reading