Axelo Thought Leadership Series
The decision to expand finance capability is rarely straightforward. For many CFOs, the choice comes down to two options: building an in-house team or buying external capacity through outsourcing or managed services. Both models have their appeal, but the trade-offs are increasingly nuanced as cost pressures, technology demands, and regulatory expectations reshape the finance function.
This article outlines a structured framework CFOs can apply when weighing in-house versus outsourced finance talent, helping leaders move beyond cost comparisons towards a more strategic decision.
Shifting context: why the debate has changed
Traditionally, the “build vs. buy” debate focused on cost. In-house hires offered control and culture alignment, while outsourcing promised savings and flexibility. But today’s CFOs face a more complex equation:
- Talent scarcity: Skilled accountants, analysts, and controllers are in short supply, with competition driving up salaries across Australia and beyond (CA ANZ, 2024).
- Technology expectations: Finance teams are now expected to master data automation, ERP integrations, and predictive analytics—skills not always available internally.
- Regulatory and compliance load: Growing scrutiny under frameworks such as APRA’s CPS 230 and global tax reforms demand specialised expertise that can be hard to retain in-house.
- Business resilience: Boards expect finance to be both efficient and adaptable, with capacity to flex as conditions change.
A CFO’s decision framework
CFOs should structure the build vs. buy decision using four key dimensions:
1. Cost-to-serve
- In-house: Salaries, superannuation, training, and turnover costs create a long-term fixed expense.
- Outsourced: Typically operates on a variable-cost model, allowing CFOs to scale resource levels up or down.
Key question: Which model better aligns with the business’s demand cycles and budget certainty?
2. Control and capability
- In-house: Stronger alignment with company culture and closer day-to-day oversight.
- Outsourced: Access to global best practice, technology platforms, and deep expertise without the overhead of recruitment.
Key question: Do you need tight control, or is specialist expertise and technology access the priority?
3. Compliance and risk
- In-house: Direct accountability sits within the company, but maintaining compliance knowledge requires ongoing investment.
- Outsourced: Providers often embed quality frameworks (e.g., ISO 27001, ISO 9001) and assume responsibility for regulatory updates and controls.
Key question: Where does the greater compliance risk lie—in stretched internal resources or in third-party reliance?
4. Strategic value
- In-house: Internal teams can be groomed into future leaders, building organisational knowledge over time.
- Outsourced: Frees CFOs and internal staff to focus on higher-value activities such as strategy, scenario planning, and investor engagement.
Key question: Will the function’s greatest value come from operational delivery or strategic enablement?
The hybrid path
For many organisations, the most resilient approach is neither build nor buy alone, but a hybrid model. Core finance leadership and sensitive functions remain in-house, while transactional processing, compliance-heavy reporting, or specialist analytics are outsourced.
This approach balances control with cost efficiency and gives CFOs optionality as their business scales. According to Deloitte’s Global Shared Services and Outsourcing Survey (2023), hybrid finance models are now the dominant approach, with nearly 70% of firms blending internal and external capacity.
Practical steps for CFOs
- Map your finance demand profile – Identify seasonal peaks, recurring compliance deadlines, and areas of skill shortage.
- Calculate true cost-to-serve – Go beyond salaries to include recruitment, turnover, and training overheads.
- Assess risk exposure – Evaluate the impact of missed deadlines or compliance failures under both models.
- Engage the board – Present the decision not just as a cost-saving measure, but as a resilience and capability choice.
- Pilot before you commit – Test outsourced solutions in specific areas (e.g., payroll, accounts payable, or regulatory reporting) before scaling up.
Conclusion
The build vs. buy question is no longer a binary decision. For CFOs, the right framework is one that balances cost, control, compliance, and strategic value. In a market defined by talent shortages, regulatory complexity, and rising board expectations, flexibility is key.
By taking a structured, evidence-based approach, finance leaders can design operating models that are cost-efficient today and resilient tomorrow.
References
Deloitte. (2023) Global Shared Services Survey findings based on approximately 500 responses reveal trends toward digital, cost-efficient global business services.
(Accessed: 8 September 2025).