What to do when finance
and operations aren’t on
the same page.
Everyone’s trying to do the right thing. Finance wants to deploy capital wisely, and operations wants to keep things running smoothly. Ultimately, the goal is the same: capital projects that deliver strong returns and move the business forward.
The problem is, success doesn’t happen in silos.
Finance can be focused on ROI and hurdle rates, while ops can be thinking about what’s actually feasible on the ground. Absent a shared understanding and communication of what “value” really means, even promising projects can quickly unravel—not because the ideas were flawed, but because they weren’t framed in a way that resonated across the table.
In our recent blog on Capex Councils, we explored how governance and oversight create the foundation for better capital planning. This piece picks up where that one left off by taking a closer look at how alignment actually plays out in the day to day. We’ll explore how misunderstandings between finance and operations can creep in, and how tools like Finario’s Capex Conversation Starter Cards can help surface disconnects before they turn into delays or mistakes.
What misalignment really looks like
Functional misalignment doesn’t usually announce itself. Rarely is anyone shouting across the table or flat-out saying, “You’re wrong.”
It’s more subtle than that—and that’s what makes it so insidious. It shows up in the form of confusion, slowdowns, or quiet frustration:
- A solid project idea gets shelved because ops didn’t provide sufficient financial justification or finance didn’t dig deep enough to be aware of the business justification.
- A proposal that checks every ROI box misses capacity or resource constraints.
- Leadership ends up greenlighting projects that are easiest to justify on paper rather than most strategically aligned.
The root cause of misalignment tends to be that people are working from different assumptions—different ways of defining value, risk tolerance, and ideas of what success looks like. And when those friction points don’t get surfaced early, they tend to cause delays and other issues down the road.
Nobody’s to blame here. Each group is just coming at the same situation from their own unique vantage point.
5 common sources of finance/operations misalignment
1. Different definitions of value
Where is can be out of sync
This is one of the most common ways finance and operations drift apart, because it’s baked into how each team thinks.
Finance looks at capital investments through a financial lens: what’s the NPV/IRR? How fast is the payback period? Operations, on the other hand, may be focused on a different kind of value. Maybe it’s improving plant reliability or boosting throughput. These execution considerations are just as important, even if they don’t always map cleanly onto a spreadsheet.
And that’s where things can get tricky. If one side is speaking in metrics and the other in outcomes, it’s easy for good ideas to get misjudged—or dismissed entirely. Which is why, rather than championing one metric over another, the goal should be to make sure both perspectives are part of the conversation.
How to fix it
- Co-create your business case templates. If finance and operations approach how they define value differently, make sure both voices shape how it gets documented. That might mean including qualitative impact summaries alongside quantitative analysis or building in fields that prompt cross-functional input.
- Define a core set of metrics everyone uses. Establish a consistent set of metrics that everyone uses to evaluate projects, and give teams the space to include KPIs that matter most to them.
- Provide training. Finance can conduct workshops for their colleagues in operations on how to accurately capture the full range of benefits required in their ROI models. Operations can create similar sessions for their colleagues in finance on how they evaluate the business requirements and strategies that their capital project proposals address.
2. Misaligned priorities
Where is can be out of sync
This one’s easy to overlook because it usually stems from good intentions. Finance is focused on the big picture: how to best optimize cash flow and ensure optimum return on invested capital (ROIC). Operations may be heads-down in the here and now: what’s broken and/or getting in the way of hitting targets or regulatory requirements.
Both sides assume the other is on the same page. But without regular check-ins, it’s easy for alignment to slip. Maybe a critical upgrade doesn’t get funded—not because finance said no, but because the urgency wasn’t clearly spelled out. Or ops gets blindsided when finance shifts priorities and hasn’t been alerted or explained why.
The crux of this disconnect is that teams aren’t in sync as to what’s most important right now.
How to fix it
- Make priority check-ins part of your rhythm. At least once a month, get finance and ops in the same room to talk through project priorities: what’s changed, what’s rising to the top, and what trade-offs are in play.
- Gut check for clarity. Ask each team to name the other’s top three priorities. If the lists match, great. If they don’t, that’s your cue to realign.
3. Gaps in project visibility
Where is can be out of sync
Murky project visibility is more common than most teams realize. Finance is looking at forecasts and spend, ops is managing day-to-day execution, and neither may have the 30,000 view of how it all fits together.
Say a critical milestone was missed last week. Ops may assume that finance is looped into this update, while the reality is they have no idea, and their forecasts are more stale than they realize. Both teams are doing their jobs, but they’re working from different versions of reality.
This can lead to a double-whammy: it’s tougher to course-correct, and over time, it erodes trust between the two groups.
How to fix it
- Connect the dots between systems. Pull ERP actuals directly into your Capex platform so everyone sees the same numbers in real time.
- Democratize your data. Make it possible for the right people to have a full project portfolio view at any given moment; share capital project data across functional teams.
4. Mismatched approval criteria
Where is can be out of sync
Sometimes it’s not the project that’s the problem—it’s how the case for it gets presented. Not every project needs a 30-page deck, but it does need to clearly answer: why this project, and why now?
Too often, requests get sent through with gaps. The ROI might look solid, but the operational rationale is vague. Or the business case sounds compelling, but the assumptions behind it aren’t spelled out. That leaves approvers in a tough spot—trying to piece things together or asking for another round of details that leads to delays.
How to fix it
- Make clarity the standard. Every request should include the business case, key assumptions, and a clear rationale.
- Prioritize consistency from start to finish. The right information should follow the project from intake to approval so everyone stays aligned the whole way through.
5. Strategic misalignment
Where is can be out of sync
When teams say a project “supports strategy,” it’s worth pausing to ask: whose version of strategy are they using? Ideally, it reflects the one voice we haven’t yet talked much about: the CEO’s. Ultimately, the C-suite is where high-level strategy should be defined.
But just because it’s defined doesn’t mean it’s being clearly communicated—or consistently applied. Finance and ops might both think they’re aligned with executive priorities, but if that direction isn’t pushed down in a way that’s actionable, everyone may end up making their own interpretations.
How to fix it
- Build in strategy checkpoints. Don’t take alignment for granted. Build in moments to ask, “Does this directly support the priorities we’ve heard from the top?”
- Spell out the connection. Every project proposal should clearly tie back to a specific enterprise goal. If that link isn’t obvious, it’s worth pausing to ask why.