EPM Implementation Under the Clock: Why PE-Backed Companies Get It Wrong

Your new PE owners want a board pack by Friday. They want a reforecast by month-end. They want to see cash, margins, and headcount. Yesterday. And somewhere in that first 100-day plan, someone has written “implement EPM platform” as if it’s a task you can tick off between “refinance debt” and “consolidate suppliers.”

This is where EPM implementation goes wrong for PE-backed companies. Not because the tech fails. Not because the finance team lacks talent. The problem is simpler: the rhythm of private equity clashes with what it takes to build a planning system that actually works.

The 100-Day Trap

Private equity runs on a clock that doesn’t match good system rollouts. The first 100 days demand visible progress. The annual budget cycle creates hard deadlines. The investment plan requires fast results. None of this is wrong. It’s just how PE works.

The problem starts when EPM projects get forced into this timeline.

We saw this exact pattern with a £200M fintech backed by a mid-market PE fund. Their 12-week Anaplan implementation took 18 months. The scope started as FP&A automation. By month three, it had grown to include workforce planning, sales forecasting, and operational budgets. Nobody had defined the planning process before buying the software. They tried to digitise chaos.

“They tried to implement software for a planning process they hadn’t designed. It’s like buying a racing car before you’ve learned to drive.”

The pressure to deliver something (anything) by a deadline leads to shortcuts. Data problems get hidden. User training gets squeezed into one session. Change management becomes a box to tick. The system goes live, everyone breathes a sigh of relief, and the real problems begin.

Users who know their personal Excel models inside out resist the new way. Without proper training, the new system becomes an expensive tool that nobody trusts. Finance teams end up keeping both the old spreadsheets and the new platform. They double their work while pleasing no one.

Why PE-Backed Companies Face Extra Hurdles

Beyond time pressure, PE-backed companies hit specific walls that make EPM projects harder.

Teams are stretched thin. Portfolio companies run lean. The finance team managing the rollout is the same team producing monthly reports, helping with due diligence on add-on deals, and answering investor questions. There’s no spare time for a months-long project.

Leaders change. PE deals often bring new executives. The CFO who pushed for the EPM system may not be around to see it through. New leaders have new priorities. Projects lose steam when sponsors leave.

Data is a mess. Carve-outs, acquisitions, and fast growth create data problems that would make any consultant cringe. Different charts of accounts. Multiple source systems. Gaps in historical records. All of these need fixing before an EPM platform can deliver value.

The business keeps changing. PE-backed companies are meant to evolve. The operating model at project kickoff may look different six months later. Building flexibility into an EPM system takes upfront work that time pressure discourages.

These hurdles aren’t impossible to clear. But they need honest planning. Teams that admit their limits and plan around them get better results than those who pretend the work will be easy.

How to Structure EPM Projects for PE Success

The answer isn’t to skip EPM. The reporting and planning benefits are real for PE-backed companies. The answer is to structure the project in a way that respects both PE timelines and what good rollouts require.

Start with real discovery. Good risk management begins before the project starts. A proper discovery phase spots problems early and allows for realistic planning. This upfront work pays off through smoother delivery. Yes, it feels like delay when investors want dashboards now. But two weeks of proper scoping prevents two months of fixing mistakes.

Break it into phases. Phased delivery cuts risk by limiting what you tackle at once. Each phase builds skills while giving you feedback to improve the next round.

For PE-backed companies, this usually means starting with management reporting and investor pack automation (shows value fast), then moving to budgeting and forecasting once the reporting foundation is solid. Operational planning comes last, once your team has built confidence with the platform.

Set up governance that works. Strong oversight helps you handle problems when they pop up. Clear decision rights. Regular steering meetings. Honest progress updates. These create accountability and let you act fast when issues arise. For PE portfolios, this means bringing in the deal team or operating partners early. Not as passive watchers, but as active players who understand the trade-offs.

Be honest about platform choice. Vendor demos show platforms at their best. The models are clean, the data flows smoothly, and everything works perfectly. Real projects rarely go that well.

Good evaluation means looking past demos. You need to know how platforms handle messy data, complex rules, and demanding users. Reference calls with existing customers (especially those in similar industries) give insights that no demo can match.

Consultants who work across multiple platforms can give truly unbiased advice based on your specific needs. This matters because platform choice has long-term effects. A consultant tied to one vendor can’t give you the balanced view such a big decision deserves.

The People Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About

Here’s the hard truth about EPM projects in PE-backed companies: the people problem is harder than the tech problem.

Finance teams in portfolio companies are often survivors. They’ve weathered ownership changes, restructuring, and constant pressure to do more with less. They’ve built Excel models that work. Models they understand, control, and trust. Asking them to give up those models for a central platform isn’t just a tech change. It’s asking them to surrender skills and autonomy they’ve spent years building.

This pushback isn’t crazy. It’s entirely predictable. And it needs direct attention, not dismissal as “resistance to change” that will somehow fix itself.

Successful EPM projects in PE settings share common traits.

They bring end users in early, not as an afterthought. The finance analyst who builds the current forecast model should help design the new one. Not receive it as a finished product.

They keep what works. Not everything needs changing. If the current cash forecasting process is solid, don’t rebuild it just because you have a new platform.

They give real time for training. Not a two-hour webinar. Real time, with real scenarios, and ongoing support as users hit edge cases.

They celebrate small wins. The first automated report that used to take a day. The first forecast cycle done in the new system. These moments build confidence and momentum.

What Good Looks Like

Let’s be clear about what EPM can and cannot deliver for PE-backed companies.

What it can deliver: - Consistent, reliable investor reporting without monthly heroics - Faster forecast cycles with better version control - Scenario planning that helps strategic decisions - One source of truth that cuts reconciliation headaches - Room to grow through bolt-on deals and organic expansion

What it cannot deliver: - Instant change (proper rollout takes 3-6 months minimum for real scope) - Perfect data quality (the platform shows problems; it doesn’t fix them by magic) - Automatic user adoption (people need training, support, and reasons to change) - Death of all spreadsheets (some edge cases will always exist)

EPM projects need investment in licenses and services. But systems done well deliver real returns. Better demand planning lifts revenues. Manual work drops. Business values improve. The key is making sure the project focuses on features that solve real problems. Not technical bells and whistles that sound impressive but rarely get used.

The Question Worth Asking

Before committing to an EPM project, PE-backed companies should ask one honest question: Are we ready to do this properly, or are we just trying to tick a box?

If the answer involves phrases like “we’ll figure it out as we go” or “we just need something basic for now,” pause. A rushed, under-resourced rollout creates more problems than it solves. You’ll spend money, frustrate your team, and end up with a system that doesn’t do what you need.

Here’s the thing nobody tells you in the sales pitch: the CFO who pushed for that 18-month Anaplan disaster? She left six months in. The new CFO inherited a half-built system, a demoralised team, and a board asking why they’d spent £400k on software nobody trusted. The platform wasn’t the problem. The timeline was.

If your PE backers are pushing for an EPM implementation in the first 100 days, push back. Not because you can’t move fast, but because moving fast on the wrong foundation costs more than waiting.

We write about EPM implementation, finance transformation, and the realities of planning technology. Sign up for our monthly newsletter for occasional insights without the sales pitch.