EVP – Operations Transformation — Finance-Services Hub

The mandate

Business CFOs require a new approach to how a Pune finance-services hub allocates almost ₹3,550 crore of annual cost. Charges are driven largely by headcount and historic percentages, while demand is increasingly shaped by transaction complexity, regulatory variation, automation and exceptions. Some businesses believe they subsidise others; the hub argues that local deviations create the cost. Both positions contain truth, and the situation now requires resolution to enable investment and restore operational cooperation.

The EVP – Operations Transformation will redesign the operating and service model behind the chargeback, not merely calculate a new allocation key. The role affects approximately 2,300 employees and partners across finance processing, reporting support and specialist operations. It must identify end-to-end cost drivers, make demand visible and clarify who owns standardisation decisions. A solution that balances the spreadsheet while leaving avoidable work intact will be judged a failure.

Timing is delicate. Monthly and quarterly closes continue throughout the redesign, several businesses are changing ledgers, and an automation roadmap assumes process consistency that does not yet exist. The appointee needs the discipline to pilot changes away from critical periods and the authority to pause migrations whose economics or control design cannot be defended.

Why this seat is open

The former EVP left sooner than anticipated after a change in personal circumstances, creating an urgent replacement. A senior operator is covering service reviews but is also accountable for a major close process and cannot lead the redesign independently. The board seeks an appointment within six to eight weeks. There is no adverse finding connected with the predecessor; discretion protects customer and employee confidence during handover.

What you will own

• Map service consumption by transaction, exception, control and jurisdiction, reconciling operational volumes to the financial cost base.
• Define a service catalogue with standard inputs, ownership boundaries and a governed route for business-specific variation.
• Design charging principles that separate committed capacity, variable demand, enterprise control obligations and transformation investment.
• Remove work at source by challenging reports, reconciliations and bespoke steps whose users or control purposes cannot be evidenced.
• Reconfigure teams and workflows around end-to-end services, preventing cost ownership from stopping at functional hand-offs.
• Establish joint demand reviews with business CFOs and require forecasted changes before new capacity or local deviations are approved.
• Sequence automation and ledger migrations around close risk, with tested rollback and named control acceptance.
• Build a permanent operations-transformation capability able to maintain process cost and demand data after the initial redesign.

The first 12 months

Within 60 days, the EVP will publish a reconciled baseline for the five largest services, including volume, complexity, rework, cost and sponsor variation. A close-protection protocol will define when changes are prohibited. By day 90, the steering group must agree charging principles and select pilots representing both standard and highly regulated demand.

Months four to nine will deliver the pilots, remove low-value activity and test the behavioural consequences of each charging mechanism. The leader should prove that a cost movement reflects changed demand or ownership rather than accounting transfer. Service teams will be reorganised only where the end-to-end evidence supports it.

At 12 months, at least 75% of hub cost should be traceable to approved services and drivers, disputed allocations should fall by half, and the pilots should release 12% of addressable effort through standardisation or demand removal. Close timeliness and control quality must remain at or above baseline throughout. Forecast error for pilot demand should be under 8% for two quarters.

What the board will measure

• Acceptance of the service model by both provider and consuming CFOs, evidenced in budgets and changed demand choices.
• Real productivity release, with employees, vendor cost or capacity visibly redeployed rather than theoretical hours accumulated.
• No material close, control or filing failure caused by transformation sequencing.
• Reduction in avoidable variants and exceptions within the selected services.
• A maintainable cost model whose data owners can explain movements without dependence on external consultants.

The person

You have led a large finance-operations or shared-services transformation in which cost allocation, process design and customer behaviour were inseparable. Your present or recent role may be EVP operations, global process owner, shared-services head or transformation executive. You must have remained accountable during live reporting cycles; advisory work without line consequences will not satisfy the committee.

The expected experience is 18–22 years. Candidates should have governed at least ₹2,050 crore and led or transformed work performed by 1,600 people or more. You can identify why activity-based models often fail, explain cost drivers without jargon and distinguish standardisation from forced uniformity. References should confirm that you handled disagreement with senior CFOs using evidence and did not trade control for speed.

This is an onsite appointment in Pune because the redesign requires direct work with finance operations and their control owners.

Compensation and terms

The role offers ₹2.2–3.0 crore fixed plus performance variable. Final terms will reflect current compensation and the agreed transformation perimeter. Variable outcomes will include traceable cost, demand change, control continuity and customer acceptance; accounting reallocations alone create no reward. The organisation will balance urgency with a responsible release from the selected executive’s current employer.

Confidentiality

The service catalogue, consuming businesses and disputed allocations are commercially sensitive and omitted. They will be shared with suitably qualified candidates after mutual interest and confidentiality are established. Published cost and workforce ranges are deliberately rounded and should not be combined with external sources to identify the group.