We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
In January, I believed automation was the finish line. As a CFO, I’d spent years pushing my own team toward it because of fewer manual touches, faster processing and cleaner reconciliations. I measured success the way most finance leaders do, with cycle time down, headcount efficiency up and fewer errors in the close. I believed that if we automated enough of the credit-to-cash process, the cash would take care of itself. Efficiency was the goal, and I thought cash followed efficiency automatically.
What changed my mind was a soon-to-be-published survey Billtrust ran, polling finance leaders on exactly this question. I expected the results to validate what I already believed. The one finding that made me pause instead was that 67% of finance leaders miss their monthly cash forecast by more than 5%, and 45% miss by 16% or more in a function that’s expected to forecast cash with the same precision a sales team forecasts revenue. I’d assumed that was a problem for less mature finance teams, not well-automated ones. Then I read further and found that 92% of respondents run their credit-to-cash cycle across two or more separate systems, and 74% agreed that traditional automation “digitized the paperwork but didn’t solve cash flow bottlenecks.”
That reframed the job for me. Automation and cash generation aren’t the same objective, even though they look related on a dashboard. You can digitize every manual step in your accounts receivable process and still have cash sitting uncollected, because speed in processing an invoice has nothing to do with speed in actually getting paid. The real question was never “How fast can we process this?” It was “How fast does this become cash I can put to work?”
So, here’s what I’m doing differently in Q4. I’ve stopped treating automation metrics as a stand-in for financial health, even in my own head. When I look at a process change now, I ask a second question beyond how much time it saves. How much faster does it turn earned revenue into cash we can actually deploy? If the honest answer is “It won’t,” I stop treating that project as a cash initiative, even if it’s still worth doing for other reasons. It’s a small shift in how I think about prioritization, but it has changed which projects get called urgent and which ones get called nice-to-have.
I still believe in automation. It’s necessary. I just no longer believe it’s sufficient, and I no longer let it stand in for the harder, more important number, which is whether the cash we’ve already earned is actually landing in our hands on a timeline we can rely on. That’s the distinction 2026 taught me, one uncomfortable statistic at a time.
Add as Preferred Source
