What’s the simplest way to show our CFO why fragmented customer billing data from SAP and Salesforce isn’t ready to use for accurate revenue forecasting?
Here’s a clear, pragmatic way to explain this to your CFO without jargon or hand-waving:
Use a short, simple example that makes the problem tangible.
Try something like this in your conversation or a one-slide visual:
Example: Why Fragmented Billing Data = Inaccurate Forecasts
Scenario:
-
Customer XYZ has billing data in SAP and Salesforce.
-
In SAP, they show $100,000 billed YTD.
-
In Salesforce, they show $75,000 of invoices.
Problem:
When you try to forecast revenue, you get conflicting totals:
-
If you sum them without deduplication, you report $175,000—which overstates revenue by 75%.
-
If you pick just one system, you risk understating revenue or missing open invoices.
-
If invoice dates or payment statuses don’t align, your cash flow forecast becomes impossible to trust.
3 reasons this isn’t ready for forecasting yet:
-
Duplicates: The same invoice can exist in both systems, with no shared ID to reconcile.
-
Inconsistent Timing: One system may show invoices as issued, while the other shows them as pending.
-
Incomplete Records: Some transactions only exist in one system, creating blind spots.
Simplest way to show this visually:
Make a table with 3 columns:
Invoice # | SAP Status | Salesforce Status |
---|---|---|
12345 | Posted, $50,000 | Paid, $50,000 |
23456 | Posted, $50,000 | Missing |
34567 | Missing | Draft, $25,000 |
Result:
-
Totals don’t reconcile.
-
Statuses conflict.
-
Forecasts are unreliable.
How to position it constructively:
“This is why we need a consolidation and reconciliation step before we can produce an accurate forecast. Otherwise, we’re either double-counting, missing revenue, or confusing timing—none of which supports reliable planning.”
Bottom line for the CFO:
Fragmented data looks complete at first glance, but without cleaning and mapping, every forecast is a guess—and a potentially expensive one.
This approach is fast, concrete, and shows exactly why the data isn’t trustworthy—no technical deep dive required.