We have all been there. A CEO or CFO asks for “just one more cut” of the numbers, one more way to look at them.

Can you break it out by region? What about by product line? Can we see it weekly instead of monthly? Why doesn’t this match what sales is reporting?

Or ... what if ...

Can I get that by this afternoon?

For financial planning and analysis teams, these ad hoc reporting requests can quickly eat up the workday, leaving little time for the work you had planned to do. But, more often than not, the real issue isn’t that leadership is asking too many questions — it’s that there is a flaw or disruption in the reporting process.

Executives may not be receiving the right information in the right format. Teams might be operating with inconsistent metrics, unclear definitions or reporting processes that make every new question feel like a fire drill. And occasionally, leaders are still figuring out what information they actually need.

As the AFP’s FP&A Maturity Model explains, high-performing teams reduce reactive work by building reporting systems, governance structures and business partnerships that make insights easier to access — without creating a constant stream of custom requests.

Below are six best practices for improving reporting systems, developed based on feedback from AFP members.

AI in Finance Certificate

The No Code AI for Finance Certificate program is built for finance professionals who want real, usable AI skills today. Learn to implement AI responsibly, transparently and in a way that strengthens decision-making across your organization.

1. Start by asking why the request exists

A simple starting point is to ask what decision the request is meant to support. The answer to this question can reveal several things:

• Leadership may be looking for a business signal that is missing from current reports.
• They may be trying to validate conflicting numbers from multiple teams.
• They may be reacting to a new issue that requires fast analysis.
• They may not fully understand the amount of manual work required to produce their request.

They might not know the exact data point or analysis that is needed, and finding out their “why” could prevent multiple attempts to get their “what.”

Understanding the reason for the request provides a direction for the best next steps.

2. Fix reporting gaps to anticipate common questions

Best-in-class reporting is about delivering the right information to the right person at the right time in the right format.

Repeat requests for the same information are a sign that the reporting package needs to evolve. If the information is not accessible to leadership, consider building it into dashboards, reporting packages and planning processes.

Make sure the information does not get lost in a “data dump” — i.e., large reporting packages filled with excessive detail but limited insight. These reports require executives to dig for answers, which, of course, leads to follow-up requests.

Best practices to reduce follow-ups include:

• Designing reports around business decisions rather than finance processes.
• Tailoring dashboards to specific stakeholder needs, especially if you can do this without changing the base analytical layer.
• Using clear visualizations that highlight key insights.

3. Build self-service capabilities for recurring questions

If leaders are requesting metrics that are already available in a dashboard, or they are drilling into details below the level of general reporting, direct them to the self-service tools. If self-service reporting isn’t available, consider developing it, where appropriate, to reduce dependence on finance for minor requests.

When automation handles the data gathering, report generation and distribution, FP&A is freed up to focus on interpretation, decision support and strategic recommendations. Plus, users are given more flexibility to drill into the parts of the data that interest them.

4. Create shared definitions before debating performance

Sometimes the issue isn’t missing data — it’s competing interpretations of the same data. Finance may define revenue one way. Sales may use a different methodology. Operations may rely on entirely separate performance indicators. The result is debates over whose numbers are correct, rather than conversations about what the business should do next.

Less mature FP&A organizations often struggle with persistent debates over metric definitions, calculations and ownership. As Jesse Todd, finance leader, explained in the AFP FP&A Guide: Get Your Data Right, underwritten by Workday, building a shared language and analytical framework between the finance organization and partner organizations ensures alignment, regardless of who is looking at the data.

When creating shared definitions across the enterprise, you need to consider:

• What the metric measures
• How it’s calculated
• Where the data comes from
• Who owns it
• How often it’s updated
• How leaders should interpret it

Without a shared language, every executive request risks becoming a reconciliation exercise.

5. Pull back on metric sprawl

Sometimes organizations continue tracking metrics long after they’ve stopped creating meaningful business value.

In the AFP FP&A Guide: Finance Agility: Change Is Part of the Plan, underwritten by Workday, Steve Beam, expert partner at Bain & Company, warned against “legacy metrics” that continue to exist simply because an executive asked for them years ago.

“Measuring things is easy; measuring the right things is a challenge. An organization left to its own devices will measure everything, explain nothing, and not have a clue as to where the money comes from or goes,” said Beam. “I see clients who are drowning in meetings and models, reports and reconciliation, and a culture of risk aversion/risk avoidance. Sometimes they purposefully hide behind all that noise. What’s the fun in that? We are supposed to innovate, challenge, provide decision support and take risks.”

Ad hoc requests can turn into permanent reporting requirements — even when no one is actively using the information. Periodically auditing reports and eliminating low-value metrics can help reclaim time for higher-impact work.

6. Create intake discipline through transparent trade-offs

Not every executive request should be automated — and not every request should be fulfilled immediately. Some requests are tied to urgent strategic decisions. Others are informational curiosity disguised as urgency.

High-performing FP&A teams create formal intake discipline by making trade-offs visible. That conversation might sound like:

• We can complete this analysis by tomorrow, but it will delay next week’s forecast package.
• We can prioritize this request, but we’ll need clarity on which existing deliverables move down the list.

This shifts the dynamic from reactive compliance to collaborative prioritization. Leaders often don’t realize how much manual effort goes into producing one-off analyses. When teams make capacity constraints visible, executives can make more informed decisions about what truly deserves immediate attention.

The goal isn’t fewer questions

The healthiest FP&A organizations aren’t trying to stop leaders from asking questions. They’re trying to help them ask better questions. The goal is to spend less time understanding what the numbers mean and more time deciding which actions should come next.

Looking for more best practices? Fill out the form below to download the FP&A Maturity Model.