Project management that doesn't end with the project

In project-based organizations, controllability isn’t determined by the ERP system. It depends on whether project data and financial data speak the same language—and whether someone is there to provide the translation.

Why Project Controlling Often Falls Flat in Project-Based Business Models

Project-based organizations—whether in plant engineering, infrastructure, the public sector, or the energy industry—face a common challenge: While they generate value through projects, their management framework is structured on a periodic basis.

The Controlling department provides reports on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. The project is organized around milestones, work packages, and progress levels. There is a gap between these two worlds that, in most organizations, is not bridged by structure but rather by the manual efforts of individual employees—if at all.

The consequences are always the same. Costs are assessed on a periodic basis rather than on a project-by-project basis, which means that budget overruns only become apparent when it is too late. Forecasts do not consistently account for project progress because the valuation logic is not aligned between the project and finance teams. The cash impacts of projects are viewed in isolation rather than within the portfolio context, resulting in liquidity risks being systematically underestimated. And earned value metrics, where they exist at all, reside in separate tools with no link to financial planning.

The result: The CFO looks at the income statement, the project manager looks at a progress report, and no one sees the big picture.

Three structural gaps that almost always interact

The first gap is the evaluation logic. In most project-based organizations, there is no binding rule for how project progress is evaluated financially. Earned value exists as a concept but is not applied consistently—or only in individual projects, not across the portfolio. This means that while CPI and SPI can be calculated, they are not comparable. Without a uniform evaluation logic, portfolio management cannot function.

The second gap is the data bridge between project management and finance. Project management systems (SAP PS, SAP PPM, or external tools like Clarity or Workfront) and financial systems (SAP FiCo, S/4HANA) do not speak the same language. Master data is not harmonized, account assignment logic differs, and the transition from project budget to cost center planning happens manually—often in Excel, often with discrepancies. Anyone who has ever tried to generate a reliable forecast from SAP PPM for the steering committee knows the problem.

The third gap is governance. In many organizations, there is no designated body responsible for ensuring consistency between project management and financial management. The PMO manages projects, the finance department manages costs, and the question of whether the numbers add up often falls through the cracks. It’s not that there’s a lack of data—it’s that there’s no role to bridge the two worlds.

What project controlling must achieve in order to be effective

Project management in project-based business models requires three things.

First, a comprehensive earned value framework that not only measures the progress of individual projects but can also be applied across the entire portfolio. This means: uniform rules for progress assessment, consistent cost baselines, and a clear definition of what “complete” means—at every level. Only then will CPI and SPI become true performance metrics rather than mere window dressing in reporting.

Second, a robust data bridge between project and financial systems. This isn’t just an IT issue—it’s a governance issue. It requires harmonized master data, aligned account assignment logic, and automated reconciliations that aren’t dependent on individual people. In SAP environments (S/4HANA, PPM, SAC), this is technically feasible—but only if the business logic is in place first.

Third, a governance structure that integrates project management and financial control. This could take the form of a dedicated role—a project finance controller—or a process rule that ensures forecast updates are synchronized across the project and the planning process. What matters is not the organizational structure itself, but that someone is responsible for ensuring consistency.

My role in PSB engagements

I have been working at this very intersection—between project management, finance, and IT in project-based organizations—for over 20 years. My clients all share a common pattern: they have an SAP or ERP system, they have projects, and there is a gap between the two that no one is systematically bridging.

At Rolls-Royce Power Systems, I implemented a group-wide project management and project controlling framework based on SAP PPM and SAC—including an earned-value-based control system for costs, progress, and time. At Dataport, as part of the Hamburg Senate Chancellery’s digitalization program, I designed an integrated project controlling tool that consolidates finances, progress, and risks into a single system. At Hamburger Hochbahn, I was responsible for the finance-side support of the S/4HANA implementation and set up planning in SAP Analytics Cloud.

I work with companies in the DACH region, both remotely and on-site. My strength isn't one or the other—it's the connection between them.